Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhoto 4.0.2 In July?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
M
må¥å
Guest
mdelaney123 said:
mdelaney123 said:We should all do some research before we start debating stuff, this goes for me as well. I opened up my iPhoto Library to take a look at it, and here is what I found.
This would appear to be what you are describing, no?
And so on... But MOST IMPORTANTLY, when I change the "date taken" I want the photo moved to that new date!!!!
Unfortunately you are right about this one
Why have this type of file structure? What happens if you loose your iPhoto database?
If you lose your data base, than it really doesn't matter what type of file structure you have, because all your data is gone
Want to stop using iPhoto and use something else?
Then you'd have to import all your photos into the new program. Apple's file structure isn't going to automate this transition for you. Same as if you were moving from a different program to iPhoto...
Apple goes out of business? You are stuck with a MESS of photos that are impossible to find!!!!!!
Apple out of business? Blasphemy!!
If apple goes out of business the programs will not cease to exist. You can keep using iPhoto, or when the time comes to move on, just export all your photos using iPhoto, if using the dated file structure of the finder is too hard.
Tyler
Earendil
Earendil said:
No... It looks like it, but when you import a photo into iPhoto, it does not break the photo's into the different dates that the picture was taken...
Earendil said:
No, not really... I Guess it depends on the program, but lets use Digital Image Suite as an example. It too uses a database, but if that database is lost or corrupted, it doesn't matter, because it ALSO stores the SAME INFORMATION (Keywords, ratings, captions, date changes) WITH THE EXIF INFO ON EACH PHOTO! (I am not yelling, just emphasizing (SP?))
I tested this: I deleted the DIS database and then restarted DIS... It simply rebuilt the database, looking at every photo to get its information... It took 15 minutes, but it did it.... I can't stress enough how valuable this is... There is just no excuse for iPhoto not to do this...
Earendil said:
Actually, I did (TRY TO) export all of my photos that I had in iPhoto when I moved to DIS... I lost all of my kewords, data changes, name changes, ratings, etc... Also, it took me FOREVER to do the export becuase I had to create the date directory structure that iPhot should have done in the first place...
I guess iPhoto is OK if you NEVER HAVE A NEED to use another program, or NEVER LOOSE your iPhoto database... I just cant take that risk...
The only problem I forsee with spotlight is that the meta-data isn't incorporated into the FS directly. It maintains a separate index and meta-data which could lead to the same situation where you have a bunch of iPhoto meta-data that isn't accessible to other applications. So you're stuck with iPhoto and screwed if that spotlight index gets corrupted.kerb said:
The upside might be that other apps are written to use spotlight and access the metadata or that spotlight is so effective in the Finder that you don't really need an app for cataloging, just something to edit.
In either case, it'll be interesting to see how Spotlight handles iPhoto's method of saving the original and creating modified copies.
I think you're focused on iPhoto's file structure as a kind of "pseudo-metadata" for managing photos if you lose (one 'o'mdelaney123 said:
) the iPhoto database.In general, it's convenient for iPhoto albums to hide the underlying file/folder naming and organization of photo libraries, like iTunes playlists hide music folders/libraries.
Maybe what's missing is a system-ubiquitous interface to file/folder/metadata "objects" like albums and playlists so other applications can view/manage them, even without relying on the file/folder organization. That's one of the potentially interesting uses for Spotlight, if it can share relevant metadata with iPhoto and iTunes. Possibly an interoperability "glue" that reduces the need for export/import?
I don't want to be concerned with mundane issues like whether or not iPhoto moves an image file when its date is changed. It reminds me how interfaces using location-dependent file/folder storage metaphors seem awkward and outdated in comparison with alternatives for saving/finding/organizing data irregardless of its location.
But will all EXIF (meta)data stored directly in the image file be compatible with other applications besides DIS? For example, there's no explicit EXIF field for ratings metadata so maybe DIS encapsulates it in the user comment?mdelaney123 said:
iphoto library will not be fixed with better search feature of the operating system. yes, you might find your photos easier, but you already can do that via the iphoto app. the greatest problem of iphoto is the cluttered library and metadata organization, which should be fixed pronto.
not fixing the library and trying to solve the problem with os search feature sounds so microsoftish. "let's not fix it, let's just go the easy way and implement another feature to the system so users won't luckily notice the real problem." sheesh... i cannot think of any other apple software where the data/file organization is so screwed!
not fixing the library and trying to solve the problem with os search feature sounds so microsoftish. "let's not fix it, let's just go the easy way and implement another feature to the system so users won't luckily notice the real problem." sheesh... i cannot think of any other apple software where the data/file organization is so screwed!
Well, the changes to the OS we are talking about would fix the metadata organization issue if it is implemented correctly. The meta-data that Spotlight uses could possibly be available to other applications. Right now, all we have heard about is that Tiger (10.4) will allow applications to "publish" meta-data about their files to Spotlight, but not exactly how one might use Spotlight technology from within an application. Maybe someone that has the Tiger Preview and SDK's will be able to comment in more depth.JFreak said:
And what is the problem with the library filesystem organization? What do you want iPhoto to do here?
This criticism is so out of context that it sounds idiotic. No one at Apple is saying that they aren't going to make improvements to iPhoto. They are talking about Tiger and saying that they will make some improvements to the filesystem to provide rich meta-data and fast searching across many applications. This will, in the long run, provide better meta-data support for any photo cataloging/editing app that you wish to use and might allow one to switch apps without losing any meta-data (ratings, keywords, etc.). I think that was one of your complaints earlier.JFreak said:
operating system level search is meant for making it easier to find files from your hard drives, yes. but that's a bad excuse for not organizing files intelligently in the first place. i want to be able to find what i'm looking for without such a search capability in the first place, and then, if i have several terabytes of data, i might want to ease my burden by letting the operating system to search it for me.
if the data files are BADLY organized, the operating system level search algorithm is only a half truth. it may or may not find what you're looking for if the files are placed randomly. BUT... if the files are organized nicely (as in itunes music library) the chances of finding what you're looking for are A GREAT DEAL BIGGER.
itunes music library folder only contains music files. iphoto library contains metadata, too. iphoto library will have to be fixed - there shouldn't be anything else than image files in the iphoto library. period. apple WILL HAVE TO fix this if they want to claim that osx is "the digital hub". what's that? currently something that you cannot find your photos without iphoto app.
if the data files are BADLY organized, the operating system level search algorithm is only a half truth. it may or may not find what you're looking for if the files are placed randomly. BUT... if the files are organized nicely (as in itunes music library) the chances of finding what you're looking for are A GREAT DEAL BIGGER.
itunes music library folder only contains music files. iphoto library contains metadata, too. iphoto library will have to be fixed - there shouldn't be anything else than image files in the iphoto library. period. apple WILL HAVE TO fix this if they want to claim that osx is "the digital hub". what's that? currently something that you cannot find your photos without iphoto app.
What does it mean that files are "intelligently" organized? Juggling files/folders to do that is an increasing pita.JFreak said:
I enjoy freedom from thinking about the location of information when working with the DEVONthink database, yet it can be "intelligently" organized into items/groups that appear as virtual files/folders. There's no underlying filesystem hierarchy imposing its organization on me. Export/import to/from traditional files/folders is available if necessary and that's getting more transparent.
Hierarchical storage organization will become more of an arbitrary convenience rather than a structural necessity as systems/interfaces evolve with an increasingly chaotic information culture.
sjk said:
that's exactly the "microsoftish" way to think about the problem. true, file system hierarchy loses its importance all the time, but it is still there and quality apps should have quality data storage too.
itunes is in this aspect a lot better (library folder only contains music files, and the album data is stored elsewhere). there just is no reason why not to demand the same quality from other apps - apple has shown that it is able to do things right, but has failed to do so with iphoto. i want that to be changed...
Self-made Subfolders (like the one at the top of the sourcelist), and colorization of albums for organization (like what came back with panther) would be peachy keen with me. Maybe they're saving it for Tiger...wouldn't be the least bit suprised about that one.
In case you're lacking imagination..I'm talking about this subfolder thing like this for everything else:
In case you're lacking imagination..I'm talking about this subfolder thing like this for everything else:
Attachments
Which is intended to imply ...? Good to know they're "thinking different".JFreak said:
I never said hierarchical file/storage systems don't still exist, only that there are growing disadvantages to relying on that physical structure too rigidly. You've already said they're a hinderance to your organizational style when you've used iPhoto. And I've already agreed that's an issue and am openly considering different ways to resolve that in the most versatile ways.
One that doesn't necessitate the use of hierarchies but simply provides them as one of several different kinds of virtual organization abstraction when useful and desired. Sure.Mechcozmo said:
Well, if that's a serious question... you're on 4.0.3 because Apple released that update a couple days after 4.0.2 to fix some bugs.mustangnc1 said:
rikers_mailbox said:
OK, that makes sense to me--high-res images over Bluetooth would be a pain.
But what about low-res phone cam images? I have a Nokie 6600 (Bluetooth camera phone) and would LOVE to have iPhoto import the images from the phone.
Any ideas on how to do this?