iPhoto 4.0.2 Now Available

[drewsaur]

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.

I would refer you back to Nathan Ziarek's post:

http://www.ziarek.com/blur_compare.jpg

Do you think your mother would find the quality of the right-hand side of this image problematic? (BTW, the blurriness gets worse than that for verticals)

Drew

 

[7on]

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.

Instead of clicking Export, just drag and drop to the desktop? Or to an iChat window

 

[~Shard~]

Apparently it causes pancrease cancer. That's why they pulled it.

Totally uncalled for and not humorous no matter what anyone's sense of humor might be. Show some respect for Steve and his condition, and more importantly show some maturity.

 

[~Shard~]

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

That's too bad buddy. But how did you installed the update, as it has since been pulled? Or was this a while ago and you are only posting it now?

 

[NeoMayhem]

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 will be a LONG time before you can download any lossless quality movies. They would be hundreds of gigabytes. But I can see being able to download Hi-Def movies in a few years. There are already a few available online and are in the ~10gb range.

 

[jxyama]

If you can come up with enough meaningful names for film rolls, fine. I can't.

rolls are automatically named, like film roll #XX, when you import and can be renamed. personally, i find that much more useful than seeing folders organized by date. but again, it's mostly personal taste and i agree that what i like may not be what others like. (empty folders, however, undoubtedly do nothing but make things messy.)

regardless, i do realize the proper way to use iPhoto is through iPhoto, not through Finder. and i don't have a problem using it, at all. (i know all about export options, etc. btw.) i guess i'm more concerned about the design philosophy, that's all. it's a bit disturbing to see all the empty folders not to mention very visually and navigationally unfriendly way of organizing the photos. i just feel like such a simplisitic, well functioning app should have that philosophy extended to all aspect of the app, including under the hood file organization.

anyway, i don't have experience with audio books, but do you get empty folders when you move music files while iTunes is open? if iTunes is closed, i don't expect iTunes to keep track while not running, but...

 

[Tulse]

i just feel like such a simplisitic, well functioning app should have that philosophy extended to all aspect of the app, including under the hood file organization.

Often things are made simpler to the user by making them more complex under the hood.

 

[illumin8]

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.

If you want to see some great speculation on this exact same topic, read this blog post. This guy is very insightful about what Apple's future strategies regarding iMovies or iDiv or whatever. Hint: The H.264 codec announced at WWDC gives them the capability to open the iTMS equivelant of a Blockbuster Video online.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Totally uncalled for and not humorous no matter what anyone's sense of humor might be. Show some respect for Steve and his condition, and more importantly show some maturity.

More accurately show some respect for those who are in a position where not only may they die but die in a gruesome manner. Just because its Steve doesn't make him any more special then the next person going through such an ordeal but I'm sure that wasn't your meaning anyways.

 

[Snowy_River]

I would refer you back to Nathan Ziarek's post:

Do you think your mother would find the quality of the right-hand side of this image problematic? (BTW, the blurriness gets worse than that for verticals)

Drew

Well, as we're referring to previous posts, apparently you didn't refer to my previous post, where I attached this picture:

As you can see, the PhotoShop image displays 'jaggies' (as previous versions of iPhoto did), which many users I've known have interpreted as displaying the image as pixelated, and therefore of low quality. This is, of course, a misconception, as is the idea that the apparent blurring is an indication of a lower quality image. They are two different display philosophies that are aimed at two different audiences. For the consumer, they understand that as you hold a photo farther and farther from your face it seems to get 'fuzzier' with distance, and this is what the anti-aliasing in iPhoto aims to reproduce. With professionals or 'pro-sumers', they understand pixels are pixels and want to see those sharp pixel lines.

To answer your question, I think my mom would notice the difference and prefer the non-anti-aliased image, in that case. However, the majority of cases she prefers the anti-aliased images.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, the above image is a 6.3 mega-pixel image in vertical orientation.

 

[Ajmbc]

More accurately show some respect for those who are in a position where not only may they die but die in a gruesome manner. Just because its Steve doesn't make him any more special then the next person going through such an ordeal but I'm sure that wasn't your meaning anyways.

Exactly- In my opinion, people should be just as compassionate for everyone in a bad position health-wise as they are for Steve-- even if that person happens to be Bill Gates (for the mac-zealots out there).

-aj

 

[drewsaur]

Well, as we're referring to previous posts, apparently you didn't refer to my previous post, where I attached this picture:

As you can see, the PhotoShop image displays 'jaggies' (as previous versions of iPhoto did), which many users I've known have interpreted as displaying the image as pixelated, and therefore of low quality. This is, of course, a misconception, as is the idea that the apparent blurring is an indication of a lower quality image. They are two different display philosophies that are aimed at two different audiences. For the consumer, they understand that as you hold a photo farther and farther from your face it seems to get 'fuzzier' with distance, and this is what the anti-aliasing in iPhoto aims to reproduce. With professionals or 'pro-sumers', they understand pixels are pixels and want to see those sharp pixel lines.

To answer your question, I think my mom would notice the difference and prefer the non-anti-aliased image, in that case. However, the majority of cases she prefers the anti-aliased images.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, the above image is a 6.3 mega-pixel image in vertical orientation.

Snowy,

You're making an apples to oranges comparison. Photoshop, when using its normal zooming mode, doesn't use standard bilinear interpolation for display, mostly for performance reasons, but for some other esoteric reasons as well. OTOH, iPhoto does use something closer to bilinear interpolation for its basic scaled display and can make photos look good at almost any reduced scale (however, it's duly noted that you really can never view a high res photo at full resolution in iPhoto's view and edit modes, because display is performed using a less-than-full-res "comp" - also for performance reasons.)

Again, take hold of that zooming slider in iPhoto for all basic viewing and hold the mouse button down...you'll see how nice iPhoto looks, at *all* levels of "reduction," before the Quartz filtering "snaps" into place. Do another comparison between these two methods with the above photo and ask your mother what she prefers. Don't compare iPhoto's fuzz with a simplistic Photoshop "nearest neighbor" display interpolation - it just isn't a relevant comparison.

What it comes down to is that people are throwing out photos they think are unclear - I know two people who were unaware of what was going on with their photos until I showed them. THAT makes it a real problem, *especially* for neophytes.

Drew

 

[aswitcher]

Snowy,



What it comes down to is that people are throwing out photos they think are unclear - I know two people who were unaware of what was going on with their photos until I showed them. THAT makes it a real problem, *especially* for neophytes.

Drew

Apple could offer a toggle option to display in multiple ways, couldn't they?

 

[spygrad2003]

That's too bad buddy. But how did you installed the update, as it has since been pulled? Or was this a while ago and you are only posting it now?

I installed a like a day before it was pulled

 

[~Shard~]

More accurately show some respect for those who are in a position where not only may they die but die in a gruesome manner. Just because its Steve doesn't make him any more special then the next person going through such an ordeal but I'm sure that wasn't your meaning anyways.

You are right Silicon Addict, I agree with you, and this was indeed the overall intent of my post - I was by no means just trying to apply this to Steve and only Steve, as he is no different than any other human being. I was just referencing him due to the current circumstances.

 

[a17inchFuture]

how long until the new one'll be out you think?

I have downloaded the update, but didnt open the app before reading that it'd been removed, etc.

Now, I am afraid to open the application until the newer patch or whatever is released!

 

[myapplseedshurt]

apple rushed a little too much

as we all know (and in my personal experience), apple is always a little "premature". but I think there's drugs for that now.

 

[~Shard~]

Oh, and as for your sig, Silicon Addict, I'm sorry to see that you'll be buying an IBM laptop - ah well, you gotta do what you gotta do... If you do indeed have your heart set on a G5 PowerBook, I'm afraid you'll be waiting another year...

 

[joeboy_45101]

I haven't experienced any problems from the update. Maybe it was causing the PowerMac G5's to explode or something. But iPhoto 4.0.2 seems to be running just fine.

 

[LimeiBook86]

I bet Steve was sitting in the hospital bed and downloaded the update... saw that it took forever to close the program and told them to fix it.

Honestly that would make perfect sense.

 

[macmumma]

Funny Comment about Steves surgery


Some of you need to get a sense of humour. The comment about Steves condition caused by the iPhoto update made my sides split with laughter. My good mate died of pancreatic cancer a few months ago, and If anyone would be touchy about this comment, I would be. But, I am not. Very whitty! HAHA HAH HAHA

 

[Colonel Panik]

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

For video clip organising, try iVideo from www.waterfallsw.com

 

[Colonel Panik]

My english is not as good as it could be.
It is the fourth language I learned in school.
I am better in French, German or Luxemburgish.
After living 5 years in France my english did not improve either.

I have another question about iphoto tough.
After retouching images in photoshop they look really different in iphoto than in photoshop. I convert the images to CYMK and I retouch the levels so the whole image is levelled out. When I send those pictures to the publisher they come out well.
In iphoto they look overcontrasted and a little greenish. Anyone else experience this?

I think this is a case of using the wrong app for the wrong job. iPhoto isn't going to display CYMK properly. It's a consumer app for organising your photos from your consumer-level digital camera.

You've really got to look for other software if you want colour correct reproduction. I can't offer solutions though. For pro work you need pro apps, and pro apps rarely come as free downloads.

I use iPhoto as my 'digital shoebox', but if I want to really look at a photo, then Photoshop is what I use.

 

[Colonel Panik]

How do you like the nikon D70? I was thinking of getting it

Go for it! Like it a lot. Still drooling and shooting stupid things like pens and walls...

 

[Colonel Panik]

rolls are automatically named, like film roll #XX, when you import and can be renamed. personally, i find that much more useful than seeing folders organized by date. but again, it's mostly personal taste and i agree that what i like may not be what others like. (empty folders, however, undoubtedly do nothing but make things messy.)

I think that most people will think of film rolls by date, hence I can understand their organising the Finder folder structure by date. It still gets complicated though when you dig down into those Finder folders. An explanation of exactly how the structure is organised would be nice.

I personally find that I'm not using iPhoto as my permanent archive, probably because of doubts about backing up the photos (again Folder structure).

anyway, i don't have experience with audio books, but do you get empty folders when you move music files while iTunes is open? if iTunes is closed, i don't expect iTunes to keep track while not running, but...

Personally I have the option switched off, but could this be because the 'Keep iTunes folder organised' box is checked?