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 Now Available
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
no iphoto can't do that, and it's a sorely missed feature. the only software that can handle image files and movie files that i know of is iview media.aswitcher said:
macridah said:
Good for you, that's always a wise decision. As for me, I don't even have iPhoto 4 so it's a non-issue!
well, i am relieved now, i thought i was doing something wrong and couldnt dl it cause my computer didnt like me!
is there really an apple application more riddled with problems than iPhoto?!
is there really an apple application more riddled with problems than iPhoto?!
Problems with iPhoto update...
I also had problems with my iMac when i installed the update. Maybe it's an odd coincidence, but for some reason no applications would start up when I tried to open them. Then when Mail wasn't launching I tried to force quit but it didn't work. Then I tryed to restart my iMac but it said it couldn't log out because of errors. So I ended up just doing the old power button hold. I'm shocked Apple released this without having any problems on their own macs. It sounds like it was a last minute update and they rushed it. I really hope my iMac doesn't freak out again.
I also had problems with my iMac when i installed the update. Maybe it's an odd coincidence, but for some reason no applications would start up when I tried to open them. Then when Mail wasn't launching I tried to force quit but it didn't work. Then I tryed to restart my iMac but it said it couldn't log out because of errors. So I ended up just doing the old power button hold. I'm shocked Apple released this without having any problems on their own macs. It sounds like it was a last minute update and they rushed it. I really hope my iMac doesn't freak out again.
JayBee said:
thanks for a long rant.
iTunes organizes files in a very logical manner - user/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music/[artists]/[albums]. iPhoto clearly does not. there are differences between handling music files and picture files, but as far as cataloging is concerned, iPhoto does a rather poor job compared to iTunes at least in this regard.
blurring is real. you may not see it, but i do. and this wasn't a problem for me in iPhoto 2. it has nothing to do with me demanding pro-level visual presentation. i just want at least the option to go back to the way iPhoto 2 used to show the photos because iPhoto 4, for whatever reason, blurrs the images too much.
it being priced $10 has nothing to do with my expectations. i would like the file organization structure to be like iTunes - another $10 app, if you may say so - and have the option to turn off aliasing to go back to the way iPhoto 2 - a free app - showed the pics.
I got the update... it worked fine for me.
I even installed Keyword Assistant on top of it... no complaints.
BTW... Apple also (permanently?) pulled the eMac SuperDrive firmware update after less than a day being up, but nobody listened to me and posted it as an update.
I even installed Keyword Assistant on top of it... no complaints.
BTW... Apple also (permanently?) pulled the eMac SuperDrive firmware update after less than a day being up, but nobody listened to me and posted it as an update.
I havent' had any troubles, but I'll keep you posted.
(stupid me... updating when Apple reccomends it...)
(stupid me... updating when Apple reccomends it...)
eek
I downloaded the update...o_o
<gulp>
Apple tell me what's wrong with it! My PowerBook's life is in danger!!
I downloaded the update...o_o
<gulp>
Apple tell me what's wrong with it! My PowerBook's life is in danger!!
jxyama said:
How do you suggest iPhoto organize photos? iTunes works with music which has some pretty standard meta-data (artist and album) which can be used to organize the music as you suggest. What do photographs have that are equivalent? I don't think photos do. iTunes isn't doing anything magical. The organizational structure makes perfect sense...but I don't see any equivalant structure for photographs. Perhapos by date...which is what it appears to do...but that is it.
Secondly, don't you realize that iPhoto IS your interface to the photo "database". For all practical purposes you should IGNORE the file system for the iPhoto Library. Use iPhoto...that is what it is designed for. It is designed to organize, sort, search, view, etc. photos. When you import photos into iPhoto you can give them titles, keywords, ratings, etc. iPhoto keeps things organized into "rolls" (the things you imported), "albums" (hand created collections of photos) and (in 4.0) "smart albums" (allowing a wide variety of "store searches" based on keywords, titles, dates, etc.)
The installation of iPhoto 4.0.2 on my PB had to be forced to quit after its initial run after the update, and it broke three permissions that I fixed immediately after running.
After fixing permissions (I may have had a restart in there too) iPhoto still hangs when closing (5+ seconds). There are lots of complaints about this in the apple discussion forums.
This is one update you'll want to skip.
discussion link
After fixing permissions (I may have had a restart in there too) iPhoto still hangs when closing (5+ seconds). There are lots of complaints about this in the apple discussion forums.
This is one update you'll want to skip.
discussion link
It's probably wise not to use iPhoto 4.0.2 so long as we don't know what made Apple pull the update. As for the extreme quitting time, once you have iPhoto up and running for a few minutes, it quits as fast as ever. So I'm not sure if this was the reason for withdrawal.
ccuilla said:
...And to continue your simple but correct philosophy on interfacing with music/photos **USING** iTunes/iPhoto (and thank you for that... it's nauseating listening to people complain about file structure when it's designed to be transparent to them), here I go:
Need to edit photos in photoshop? Tell iPhoto to EDIT photos in photoshop. Double click on a photo in your iPhoto library. Photoshop opens. Edit. Save. iPhoto updates. Magic!
Need to transfer, eMail, or otherwise externally save a file? Don't bother looking for it in the file structure, just drag it to your desktop *FROM* iPhoto. A copy is made for whatever you need to do with it. This one applies to iTunes as well.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't need to see the file structure for photos/music... it was designed that way. I have never, in years of iTunes/iPhoto, looked or thought about looking for a file using the Finder. I'm honestly eager to hear, however, reasons why you all do.
Cless said:
Cless,
Your attitude is not good. "Obviously, you're simply not used to this."
I am a professional designer/photographer and a seasoned Photoshop user. I use Photoshop for my real work, and iPhoto for the rest of my everyday snapshots.
Standard interpolation techniques (e.g., bilinear interpolation) are *not* causing this issue. Indeed, it's the Quartz graphics rendering engine's filtering mechanism (which works ON TOP of iPhoto's bilinear algorithm) that is doing this. I and others have been pinging Apple about this since 4.0.0, and people whith high resolution cameras (3MP and higher) using lower resolution screens (1024x768 and smaller) who take lots of *vertical* photos will notice this the most.
Given the set of circumstances above, the more that iPhoto (and Preview) have to down-interpolate your image (as is the case with vertical photos), the more you'll notice this effect.
It's a HORRIBLE blur - completely independent of bilinear interpolation - that wasn't present in version 3.x and earlier, and has no business in version 4.
If you want to see what your photos *could* look like (that is, merely bilinearly interpolated), your best bet is to use the zoom slider - zoom in a bit and zoom back out, keeping your mouse button pressed - and you'll see things the way they were in earlier versions of iPhoto: sharp and still smooth, the same way Photoshop would present them. Of course, things look pretty good in slideshow mode as well...but I don't like browsing photos using slideshow...I like iPhoto's built-in reviewing mode.
(If you use brightness/contrast as others have suggested, iPhoto considers this a modification, and you'll now wind up with *two* copies of the photo on your machine, unnecessarily).
Anyway, this isn't something that ought to be dismissed, and I wish your attitude towards people who experience this very *real* issue would take a turn for the better. You may think you know better, but you either a) don't really care about the issue or b) haven't really seen it first-hand at its worst. I can't tell which is reality, and I'm not going to tell you that it's one or the other, but it definitely is one or the other. If it's a), then you should just stop posting about all of this. If it's b) then I don't know what to tell you. It probably shouldn't be a concern for you then...but that doesn't mean that it's not a valid concern of others.
Thanks for listening.
Drew
I agree, the blur thing is quite real and a problem in iphoto 4 only since it's release. As you say, it's worse on high res images, the higher res the worse it is. Try importing a 24Mb image and you'll know exaclty what it's like.. There's a definite blur, which disappears on doing something else to the image.
And once again I'd like to add my voice to the thousands who unwisely downloaded the 4.02 update and now am stuck with iphoto on my laptop and desktop which is all but unuseable.
DO NOT INSTALL THIS UPDATE = IT WILL WRECK YOUR iPHOTO USEABILITY TO THE LEVEL OF YOUR AVERAGE UNDERPOWERED BUGGY WINDOWS INSTALLATION. Now that IS bad!
And once again I'd like to add my voice to the thousands who unwisely downloaded the 4.02 update and now am stuck with iphoto on my laptop and desktop which is all but unuseable.
DO NOT INSTALL THIS UPDATE = IT WILL WRECK YOUR iPHOTO USEABILITY TO THE LEVEL OF YOUR AVERAGE UNDERPOWERED BUGGY WINDOWS INSTALLATION. Now that IS bad!
drewsaur - thanks. exactly my point, except in much better details. i have a 3 MP camera and a 12" PB - 1024 x 768. the blurring is unacceptable. i thought for a long time after moving to iPhoto 4 that my camera was broken because most of my images looked out of focus. the frustrating thing is, i can see the "clear" picture (just bi-linearly interpolated, i assume) for a split sec. before iPhoto is done loading - then it bothers to blur the image as the last step in the displaying process. i just want the option to turn off this very last step. that's all.
for others telling me to just use iPhoto as the interface - I DO. but the fact
file structure is messy at the Finder level is not good. it's a bad philosophy.
"here, it's too complicated for you to handle under the hood (Finder level), so just trust us and use the interface we provide (iPhoto)."
there's a difference between making things "simple/intuitive" and "dumbing the user." it's never wise to design a program which depends on the user not exploring under the hood. is it stupid for the user to start messing around with the iPhoto file structure? perhaps. but it happens. so apple better realize that it happens and that anyone but the most basic computer user will be curious and will bother to look under the hood of iPhoto file organization and find it highly counterintuitive compared to the beautiful, simple interface of iPhoto.
if i had my choice of how to organize the iPhoto file structure, i'd do it like this:
/user/Pictures/iPhoto Library/[Film Roll Name]/
and have three structures underneath:
/originals
/modified
/thumbs
as well as an xml file that specifies the albums pics are in, date of the pics, descriptions, etc., etc.
i realize it's more complicated for the picture files because there'll be many realizations of the picture, unlike music. but i feel that apple could be a bit more helpful in making file level organization a bit more intuitive. as it is now, i feel like it's designed for the convenience of the software programmer. that's not the way it should be - users should not be told to go look under the hood. it's our files and if an app is supposed to be well made, it should be well made for the users, not the programmers.
as an example on why i'd want to access some files via Finder: right now, if i want to give a copy of my mp3 to someone, i know where it is. i don't need to launch iTunes and export. i can just go and grab the file itself no problem. sadly, i cannot do the same with iPhoto. i need to launch iPhoto and export. plus there's some comfort, i think, to knowing exactly where the picture you are looking at is. i realize it's not an issue for some people. that's fine, but that's no basis to dismiss the "issue" for those that are affected.
for others telling me to just use iPhoto as the interface - I DO. but the fact
file structure is messy at the Finder level is not good. it's a bad philosophy.
"here, it's too complicated for you to handle under the hood (Finder level), so just trust us and use the interface we provide (iPhoto)."
there's a difference between making things "simple/intuitive" and "dumbing the user." it's never wise to design a program which depends on the user not exploring under the hood. is it stupid for the user to start messing around with the iPhoto file structure? perhaps. but it happens. so apple better realize that it happens and that anyone but the most basic computer user will be curious and will bother to look under the hood of iPhoto file organization and find it highly counterintuitive compared to the beautiful, simple interface of iPhoto.
if i had my choice of how to organize the iPhoto file structure, i'd do it like this:
/user/Pictures/iPhoto Library/[Film Roll Name]/
and have three structures underneath:
/originals
/modified
/thumbs
as well as an xml file that specifies the albums pics are in, date of the pics, descriptions, etc., etc.
i realize it's more complicated for the picture files because there'll be many realizations of the picture, unlike music. but i feel that apple could be a bit more helpful in making file level organization a bit more intuitive. as it is now, i feel like it's designed for the convenience of the software programmer. that's not the way it should be - users should not be told to go look under the hood. it's our files and if an app is supposed to be well made, it should be well made for the users, not the programmers.
as an example on why i'd want to access some files via Finder: right now, if i want to give a copy of my mp3 to someone, i know where it is. i don't need to launch iTunes and export. i can just go and grab the file itself no problem. sadly, i cannot do the same with iPhoto. i need to launch iPhoto and export. plus there's some comfort, i think, to knowing exactly where the picture you are looking at is. i realize it's not an issue for some people. that's fine, but that's no basis to dismiss the "issue" for those that are affected.
jxyama said:
That's exactly how it should be done.
I had trouble figuring out how they should do it, but this is definately the way to go.
Very simple and very clear if your looking for a photo trough the finder.
I would ad one folder called thumbs where all the viewing thumbs for iphoto would be put together. Not a separate folder inside the folder of the filmroll. You don't work with the thumbs anyway.
Example
I disagreed with the "it blurs my pictures" group, thinking they were just confused about anti-aliasing. But, not trying to dismiss them, I decided to take some screen shots, one, after the image had been anti-aliased and the other with the zoom held all the way out. Lo and behold, the blur folk were right, and I have become one of their gang.
Take a look at my face, at the bars on the structure behind me. One is clear and smooth, the other is blurred.
Case Closed? (Probably Not)
Nate
I disagreed with the "it blurs my pictures" group, thinking they were just confused about anti-aliasing. But, not trying to dismiss them, I decided to take some screen shots, one, after the image had been anti-aliased and the other with the zoom held all the way out. Lo and behold, the blur folk were right, and I have become one of their gang.
Take a look at my face, at the bars on the structure behind me. One is clear and smooth, the other is blurred.
Case Closed? (Probably Not
)Nate