iPhoto and Adobe Bridge...

[Stormbringer]

I recently discovered Bridge. Always had it, but never used it. I very much like that you can see all the information of a selected photo, and that you can sort photos on for example dimensions. It works faster than iPhoto too. The best thing though, is that you can make your own folder-structures.

That's the biggest disadvantage of iPhoto I think. Now I have hundreds (as a matter of speaking) events, which could be grouped to a a few dozens. For example: "Music" > "Concerts" > "Deep Purple" > "California Jam '74"

I know I can create (Smart) albums in iPhoto, but that merges everything into one. If I use my example again, if I would create an album "Music", there would be "California Jam '74" in it, but also an other concert from Deep Purple. And concerts of other bands. And other things related to music. And all of that merged into one huge 'event'.

Am I right or am I missing something?

But, iPhoto looks fantastic, the slideshows are superior, and those new Places and Faces are awesome. But that absence of a folder structure is killing me. If the events were just folder thumbnails...

I'm thinking, what if I do "don't import photos to iPhoto library", and make my own folder structures? That way I can use Bridge as it supposed to be, and if I want to show (off with) my photos I'll go to iPhoto and spend a minute finding the right event.

What do you think about those things I mentioned?

 

[KettyKrueger]

I recently discovered Bridge. Always had it, but never used it. I very much like that you can see all the information of a selected photo, and that you can sort photos on for example dimensions. It works faster than iPhoto too. The best thing though, is that you can make your own folder-structures.

That's the biggest disadvantage of iPhoto I think. Now I have hundreds (as a matter of speaking) events, which could be grouped to a a few dozens. For example: "Music" > "Concerts" > "Deep Purple" > "California Jam '74"

I know I can create (Smart) albums in iPhoto, but that merges everything into one. If I use my example again, if I would create an album "Music", there would be "California Jam '74" in it, but also an other concert from Deep Purple. And concerts of other bands. And other things related to music. And all of that merged into one huge 'event'.

Am I right or am I missing something?

But, iPhoto looks fantastic, the slideshows are superior, and those new Places and Faces are awesome. But that absence of a folder structure is killing me. If the events were just folder thumbnails...

I'm thinking, what if I do "don't import photos to iPhoto library", and make my own folder structures? That way I can use Bridge as it supposed to be, and if I want to show (off with) my photos I'll go to iPhoto and spend a minute finding the right event.

What do you think about those things I mentioned?

If you don't let iPhoto copy all your photos, it will import all your folders but ignore that they may be subfolders.

In your example, it would import California Jam 74 as an event but there would be no record that it's part of Music/Concerts/Deep Purple.

I know that wasn't your point but I thought it would be useful for you to know!

I've made my peace with iPhoto's crazy way of photo management. I still don't like it but I live with it.

If you want to keep your folder structure, go with Picasa (of course, unless you need more grunt and control). Picasa will see your folders in the same way as they appear in Finder.

 

[Stormbringer]

Thanks, that's what I've done now. I made my own folders, and if I want to make use of that or if I want to work with serious specs of photos, I'm using Bridge (haven't worked with Picasa, but it also "just" browses your folders). Otherwise, when I want a slideshow or to make use of Faces (I think it's very handy) I'm launching iPhoto...