Sidebar Sidebar
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

i just thought of another "problem" with iPhoto file structure...

if you go through the iPhoto Library folder using Finder, you will note that many of the folders are empty. i assume this is because iPhoto itself does a very poor job of handling the file structure. for example, if you change the date the picture was taken in iPhoto, instead of moving the picture to a "proper" folder, it creates another folder with the date and leaves the other folder empty. this gives a very confusing, cluttered and unpolished feel for iPhoto upon quick inspection of the file structure.

this is not what i expect from apple... even if it's "$10." iTunes doesn't have this problem. i expect that apple will do things and do them well if they are worth doing to begin with.
 
azdude said:
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.
Click to expand...

i tend to agree with jxyama. i think the file structure should be more file-user-friendly.
i'm a mac newbie, recent switcher. i'm always digging in the file system to find things. i bet there's a lot of ppl that have migrated from other OS's to the mac that do the same thing. i love the mac (especially my new 15" PB) but i wish Apple used a little more structure in some of their filesystems. :)
 
i'm assuming when they repost the update it'll wipe out the one i just installed, if there is something wrong with it
 
thats not funny rog, my best friend was 20 and died of cancer last year, if you see what cancer does to someone maybe u will change u sense of humor!
 
well

back to the thread, i downloaded the update when it came out.... i havn't noticed any problems with it... hmmm.... perhaps a feature bug is in place here that we shoulnd't know about? or perhaps they will make this update along with isync 1.5 as part of 10.3.5 update :rolleyes:
 
bathysphere said:
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.
Click to expand...

With all this talk about video organisers, I have to mention my disappointment that there's no DIVx organiser program available for OSX.. you know? With DIVx being the film equivalent of an MP3, what's to stop Apple launching some DIVx organiser/player (iDIV lol) ala iTunes, leading to the iDIV Movie Store where people can purchase DIVx films legally, syncing with they're Video iPod (when it materialises) and offering a lossless format to those who have a LOT of bandwidth and time to spare. :)

Just a thought.

On a slightly more likely note, why not give iDive a spin?
http://www.aquafadas.com/download.html
 
It seems to me that once we get in the hundreds or thousands we need help organizing files. iTunes does a good job of that for MP3s. However, those who have thousands of DIVX files tend to go to jail.

Mike LaRiviere
 
jamesfowler2k said:
thats not funny rog, my best friend was 20 and died of cancer last year, if you see what cancer does to someone maybe u will change u sense of humor!
Click to expand...

I was 17 and diagnosed with testical cancer in my left bollock. I now have a rubber ball down next to my real one, so I understand how a comment like that would affect you.

However, I did chuckle at Rog's ill fated joke, and salute him for having the balls (no pun intended) to post what he thinks :)

Don't take everything so seriously and life will treat you fine.
 
Saw this post on the Apple Discussion Boards, which to my eye seems to be a plausible explanation of the slow-quit thing:

"When you launch iPhoto and quit without doing anything with the app, you will experience the slow quit time because the XML file gets updated on Quit. If you do anything, like create an Album, import etc., the XML file will be updated in a minute or so and then the quit time is quick."

Anyway, I wonder if we'll ever find out why Apple pulled the 4.0.2 update - because of the slow-quits, or something else wrong in the new version that nobody knows about?
 
Bradley W said:
Come on, look on the bright side... at least when they release the new iPhoto fix for this one iPhoto will automatically tell you that an update is available...
Click to expand...

is it just me or i find it highly ironic that the update that included automatic detection of an update was pulled? :D
 
drewsaur 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
Click to expand...

While it's not something to be dismissed, I have spoken with various people - such as my parents - who are more at the consumer level. As I pointed out in a previous post, without the anti-aliasing, you do see 'jaggies'. When I first loaded iPhoto '04 on my parents computer my mom noticed the effect immediately and commented on it. I pointed out that the effect was designed to give smooth transitions when zoomed out, while the actual image was unaffected. When she saw that the appearance of 'jaggies' was eliminated, but she could still see all the detail that was there, she was delighted. It may well be a wise choice for Apple to implement a preference item to allow the anti-aliasing to be turned off to make the application more desirable to higher end users, but, in my experience, this feature is part of the targeting that iPhoto has toward its target audience.
 
jxyama said:
i just thought of another "problem" with iPhoto file structure...

if you go through the iPhoto Library folder using Finder, you will note that many of the folders are empty. i assume this is because iPhoto itself does a very poor job of handling the file structure. for example, if you change the date the picture was taken in iPhoto, instead of moving the picture to a "proper" folder, it creates another folder with the date and leaves the other folder empty. this gives a very confusing, cluttered and unpolished feel for iPhoto upon quick inspection of the file structure.

this is not what i expect from apple... even if it's "$10." iTunes doesn't have this problem. i expect that apple will do things and do them well if they are worth doing to begin with.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, iTunes does have this problem. I've noticed from time to time, as I've moved audio books on and off my computer, that there are empty folders in the iTunes music directory, left behind by the music that was moved out. Also, when I've changed the artist meta tag the same thing can happen.

Also, the iPhoto file structure isn't that terrible. Maybe it could be better. You suggested a good alternative with

/user/Pictures/iPhoto Library/[Film Roll Name]/

But that doesn't change the fact that iPhoto does handle organization with, as someone else pointed out, the only real piece of meta data that it has: the date.

/user/Pictures/iPhoto Library/[year]/[month]/[day]/

So, while I appreciate your desire to have it the way that seems best to you, I respectfully suggest that just because it isn't handled that way doesn't mean that the program is no good.
 
jxyama said:
/user/Pictures/iPhoto Library/[Film Roll Name]/

and have three structures underneath:

/originals

/modified
/thumbs
Click to expand...

If you can come up with enough meaningful names for film rolls, fine. I can't. At some point I will start with 'Strolling through the city 2004-08-04', and then it would be easier to find if filed by date.

No, creating folders by date is still the best option but agreed, one could add aliases as they exist for albums also for the rolls.

Of your suggested three bottom-level folders two already exist thumbs and originals/modified. Adding the third folder would not simplify the folder structure by much.

I agree, empty folders are unneccessary and confusing, but to me they are rather a bug than a feature of the file structure.

But most importantly, the purpose of iPhoto (and iTunes) is it to enable you to find your photos (or songs) much faster than you could do it in any classical file/folder structure. Wanting to send a song to a friend, click on the iTunes icon in the Dock, artist, album, drag the song onto the Mail icon in the Dock, dang there you are. The same for iPhoto. And yes, iTunes (and probably iPhoto) should be running all the time. And if you have at least 4GB RAM, you don't have wait for the harddrive to bring back everything from VM.
 
Porchland said:
As someone from my (rural) hometown might say, Apple screwed the pooch on this one.
Click to expand...

They have been doing a lot of screwing as of late. :(

Anyone care to rattle off the buggy software\patches that has been put out by Apple in the last 2 years. It doesn't inspire confidence in the company to say the least.
 
I installed the update, and now my iPhoto icon in the dock is a white piece of paper with the applications symbol on the corner. iPhoto now won't open for me. I guess i'm screwed cause I can't find my installation cd :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back