iPhoto = redundant, or me = confused?

[Josh]

OK, I am pretty new to Macs....just got my iMac G5 less than a week ago.

I had some pictures of my camping trip on a CD. I copied them to the Mac, in a folder named "Muskegon" in my "Pictures" directory.

I was surprised to see the pictures were not in iPhoto when I opened it, so I dragged the "Muskegon" folder to iPhoto, and there is now a "Muskegon" folder in iPhoto containing all the pics. Great.

But...

I noticed that it did not simply link my photos to iPhoto, it copied them to iPhoto's directory, and made another directory containing thumbnails of the photos.

So now, I have 2 copies of the exact same pictures in different locations, and another bunch of thumbnails.

Doesn't it seem kind of wastefull to have multiple copies of the exact same file, in different locations?

What I don't understand is why doesn't iPhoto leave the pics in their original locations, and just allow them to be browsed and edited by iPhoto without duplicating them? And also, why does iPhoto create additional images for thumbnails - can't it just use a thumbnail "preview" of the original image without creating more files?

Pictures are not big in filesize, but if you have many many pictures, having duplicates of the same exact file just seems redundant and space-wasting.

I could, of course, delete the "Muskegon" folder I have in the Pictures directory of my home folder, but then I would have to browse through iPhoto's directories (which are labeled by date, and not name) to find pics if I wanted to open them in photoshop or something, which would make it very difficult to find photos, and way more difficult than it should be.

I know I must be missing something here, because this is definitely not sensible for a program to be doing - what am I doing wrong? Can iPhoto be set to organize its directories by name instead of date, or anything?

 

[jxyama]

iPhoto maintains its own set of pics and thumbs. so any files you drag into iPhoto not from an external source (ex. CF cards) will be duplicated on your computer.

use iPhoto as it's supposed to - a nice front-end to picture collections. you should not go look into iPhoto folders via Finder as it's a mess. anything you want to do to pictures via Finder (copy, mainly, i assume), you can do in iPhoto. if you want to use PS to edit pics, you can specify an app to edit in iPhoto preferences.

if you don't like the idea of having a front-end "hiding" the directory structure from you, don't use iPhoto.

 

[munkle]

Agree with jxyama here. I keep coming back to the same analogy, think of iPhoto as an application within itself to deal with all your photos, like iTunes for music. If you're going to use iPhoto you have to get used to dealing with your photos through iPhoto and not the Finder, bad things can happen if you muck around with iPhoto in the Finder.

If you want to deal with a particular photo in another app, just drag it or file/export.

A good tip is to use iPhoto Buddy along with iPhoto to add extra functionality. This way you can have lots of iPhoto librarys, instead of having one large library. It's a way you can incorporate folders within folders. So you can have an iPhoto library for your holiday snaps, and sub folders within the library for different places. If you stick to the one main library concept you end up with one large folder for all your holiday snaps or lots of little folders. I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying, don't think I'm being very clear!

Lots of people seems to have gripes with iPhoto but I happen to like it. You just have to get used to its way of working.

 

[Passante]

using another app

snipt.

If you want to deal with a particular photo in another app, just drag it or file/export.

snip

Or if you have a favorite app such as photoshop elements go to the preferences and select "double click photo opens picture in" and then select your application.

Joe

 

[Josh]

Or if you have a favorite app such as photoshop elements go to the preferences and select "double click photo opens picture in" and then select your application.

Joe

Wasn't aware of this option. Thanks for the tip!

Now I will just have to get used to not using the finder for images, and using my cameras default naming structure for the files.

The name isnt really important anyway...I could always save a duplicate on the desktop, rename it, then email it or somehting.

Thanks again guys.

 

[munkle]

Wasn't aware of this option. Thanks for the tip!

Now I will just have to get used to not using the finder for images, and using my cameras default naming structure for the files.

The name isnt really important anyway...I could always save a duplicate on the desktop, rename it, then email it or somehting.

Thanks again guys.

You can use the export function to rename your photo or batch of photos.

 

[Josh]

You can use the export function to rename your photo or batch of photos.

Awesome...thanks!

<--- learning something new every minute.

 

[continuum]

i went through the same frustrations. i had to get used to using iphoto for what it is. having recently converted from XP i was accustomed to navigating folders, etc. i need a good photo editor though..something like photoshop. i just started experimenting with graphic converter...must be something simpler.

 

[jxyama]

i went through the same frustrations. i had to get used to using iphoto for what it is. having recently converted from XP i was accustomed to navigating folders, etc.

the thing is, with iTunes, you can do this. the organization even at Finder level is very simple and intuitive. iPhoto, because of the depth of information needed to describe/organize pictures are greater, is hard to deal with at Finder level.

 

[flyfish29]

Now I will just have to get used to not using the finder for images, and using my cameras default naming structure for the files.

I am confused...no matter what, don't your pictures show up in the finder or iPhoto as mx00045 or whatever the camera names them. You either have to change the photo name in iPhoto in the corner or in the finder under or next to the icon????

Also, iPhoto keeps an original of every photo, makes a duplicate when you edit it so you can always revert back to the original as an untouched version of the photo.

I know I keep copies of every photo in a separate folder and then import into iPhoto from the folder...then when I back up my pictures to dvd which I only do about four times a year I can delete those extra pics as they are not only in iPhoto but a back up as well.

 

[jxyama]

I am confused...no matter what, don't your pictures show up in the finder or iPhoto as mx00045 or whatever the camera names them. You either have to change the photo name in iPhoto in the corner or in the finder under or next to the icon????

yeah, the camera assigned name is the default name. when you change the name in iPhoto, i think only the xml database file is updated and the name of the file (as seen under Finder) remains the same as the original..?

EDIT: ok, nevermind, i didn't understand the whole story. so what i wrote above isn't very relevant.

By the way, i highly recommend going to a public library and borrowing a copy of the missing manual: iPhoto by david pogue. lots of useful information there. (of course, you can just buy a copy if you have the money!)

 

[munkle]

i went through the same frustrations. i had to get used to using iphoto for what it is. having recently converted from XP i was accustomed to navigating folders, etc. i need a good photo editor though..something like photoshop. i just started experimenting with graphic converter...must be something simpler.

Don't think it's any simpler but an interesting photoshop alternative is GIMP, and it's free!

Here's another link for an easy install.

 

[continuum]

the thing is, with iTunes, you can do this. the organization even at Finder level is very simple and intuitive. iPhoto, because of the depth of information needed to describe/organize pictures are greater, is hard to deal with at Finder level.

yeah, itunes is simple to navigate at the finder level. i think this is because everything is named. iphoto...well, everything is a number. still easy to find photos if you know when you took them. i think iPhoto could be simplified as far as finder navigation goes. it would need to have the numbered folders somehow in correlation with the names given to the photos in iphoto. a folder string could be like 2004/6/13/lake tahoe. you could simply do a search in finder for "lake tahoe". or is this already possible?

 

[continuum]

Don't think it's any simpler but an interesting photoshop alternative is GIMP, and it's free!

Here's another link for an easy install.

i checked gimp out...i have to install X11 right? is it worth my time?

 

[Josh]

I am confused...no matter what, don't your pictures show up in the finder or iPhoto as mx00045 or whatever the camera names them. You either have to change the photo name in iPhoto in the corner or in the finder under or next to the icon????

Yes...but Im used to windows...so I am used to renaming the actual file. In iPhoto, I can rename the pic, but it wont change the actual filename.

So even though in iPhoto, it might say "Lake" under a picture of the lake, the pictures file name will still be C001101.jpg or whatever.

In windows, renaming the pic renamed the actual file..and I could send people "Lake.jpg" very easily. Now, I will have to export the pic and save a duplicate of it renamed as "lake.jpg" or I will just have to send them C001101.jpg

 

[continuum]

Yes...but Im used to windows...so I am used to renaming the actual file. In iPhoto, I can rename the pic, but it wont change the actual filename.

So even though in iPhoto, it might say "Lake" under a picture of the lake, the pictures file name will still be C001101.jpg or whatever.

In windows, renaming the pic renamed the actual file..and I could send people "Lake.jpg" very easily. Now, I will have to export the pic and save a duplicate of it renamed as "lake.jpg" or I will just have to send them C001101.jpg

that's retarded that it won't change the actual filename. what is the point in retaining the original name? the letters and numbers given to a filename by a camera don't actually mean anything. hmm...

 

[munkle]

i checked gimp out...i have to install X11 right? is it worth my time?

Yeah you have to install X11, and it's worth your time if you want a free, decent alternative to Photoshop. I haven't actually used it (I have Photoshop ) but I've only heard good reviews.

 

[munkle]

that's retarded that it won't change the actual filename. what is the point in retaining the original name? the letters and numbers given to a filename by a camera don't actually mean anything. hmm...

Admittedly this is a bit of an odd thing, and very annoying when you try to burn pics to CD by just dragging and find out you have tonnes of duplicates! I've since learnt to export!

Hopefully they will change this.

 

[continuum]

Yeah you have to install X11, and it's worth your time if you want a free, decent alternative to Photoshop. I haven't actually used it (I have Photoshop ) but I've only heard good reviews.

thanks...i'll try it out tonight if i get a chance.

 

[continuum]

Admittedly this is a bit of an odd thing, and very annoying when you try to burn pics to CD by just dragging and find out you have tonnes of duplicates! I've since learnt to export!

Hopefully they will change this.

let me ask a seriously stupid question...what does export do? i've only ever dragged and dropped. does it send the file to another user defined app?

 

[Tusk]

Wasn't aware of this option. Thanks for the tip!

Now I will just have to get used to not using the finder for images, and using my cameras default naming structure for the files.

The name isnt really important anyway...I could always save a duplicate on the desktop, rename it, then email it or somehting.

Thanks again guys.

You can also prepare photos directly for e-mail through iPhoto to mail.app, entourage or several other mail programs. My wife loves this feature. When we used windows, she had to manually resize and save each picture before sending. This way, she clicks on the pictures she wants to send, they are sized down, and inserted into a new e-mail.

 

[MacBoyX]

Yes...but Im used to windows...so I am used to renaming the actual file. In iPhoto, I can rename the pic, but it wont change the actual filename.

So even though in iPhoto, it might say "Lake" under a picture of the lake, the pictures file name will still be C001101.jpg or whatever.

In windows, renaming the pic renamed the actual file..and I could send people "Lake.jpg" very easily. Now, I will have to export the pic and save a duplicate of it renamed as "lake.jpg" or I will just have to send them C001101.jpg

This is simple...use iPhoto to email the pics. It will ask you if you want to resize them and will include if you like the title and comments for the picture. You can grab 4 pics resize them to 640x480 and have the titles appear below them. It's awesome. It is far superior to organizing your pics yourself in the finder (or explorer in Windows).

mbx.

 

[continuum]

This is simple...use iPhoto to email the pics. It will ask you if you want to resize them and will include if you like the title and comments for the picture. You can grab 4 pics resize them to 640x480 and have the titles appear below them. It's awesome. It is far superior to organizing your pics yourself in the finder (or explorer in Windows).

mbx.

Maybe i didn't look close enough but I don't remember it giving you the option to rename prior to sending...

 

[jxyama]

that's retarded that it won't change the actual filename. what is the point in retaining the original name? the letters and numbers given to a filename by a camera don't actually mean anything. hmm...

one thing is that by not changing the original name, you can have multiple pictures in iPhoto being "named" the same.

if it was changed at the Finder level, you'd have to attach a sequence number or something.

it's may be odd, but i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. afterall, there's absolutely no problem if you use iPhoto as a front-end and used export features.

 

[AdamZ]

iPhoto is great! It took me a little time to get used to trusting iPhoto for ALL my photos. I would drag my photoshop images into it to store a copy, but keep the originals. I wanted to keep all the layers intact. But then I found out a great thing! iPhoto KEEPS all photoshop layers! You can import your file, delete the original, and whenever you want to work on it just drag to the desktop, open up in photoshop and all the layers and settings are there! Can't wait for Automater to make my workflow smoother. So I now have every photo or digital image stored in iPhoto, but I admit it, there NEEDS to be multiply libraries. As of now, I just have multiple users for myself, work, personal, and "private" and bounce between them easily with fast user switching. Perhaps this is what Apple intends us to do.