Photo Booth Managed by Library in Lion

[kiljoy616]

Apple has always made things to "keep people out" unless those people knew what they were doing. They've never removed access for those who wanted a way in, however. "Show Package Contents" is still a right-click away. I'm all for throwing out our outdated file system metaphor, however. I'd much rather the computer simply keep a database of files, and offer you a presentation of groupings of files based on what program you're using to access it. Apple's headed in the right direction with iOS, and I think Mac OS X has been headed there slower but for a long time. If the whole concept of the folder-based hierarchy could be eliminated, I feel that computing as a whole could move forward with a better approach. It only remains to be seen who will come up with the next metaphor that will be used.

jW

The file system is not going away any time soon, but hiding it behind some well designed ios like apps is in the right direction I am glad that we will be moving in that direction, and hey girls you can always boot up Windows Explorer for a nastangic walk in the "good old days"

Time to come out of the wood and the outhouse and start using nice clean toilets inside.

 

[RMo]

Why not?

I guess it wouldn't be the end of the world, but that's one folder I do routinely browse to in other apps. Having to right-click and do "Show folder contents" every time, then having to dig around and find the file, will get old.

Also, I do occasionally replace files in my iTunes library (e.g., when I bought something years ago on DRMed iTunes and later bought the CD, ripped a better and less restrictive format, and wanted the new file in my library but with all of the old information). Hopefully this wouldn't turn it into a pseudo "read only" mode.

That being said, I think iTunes is at least a little different (e.g., songs have names, pictures do not), so it's less likely that one would not realize the repercussions of deleting a music file. It's also perfectly capable of handling moved files (in HFS, anyway, possibly NTFS) and can help find "missing" files if they are still there and that didn't work.

...but I must confess that, some day, it wouldn't surprise me to see this happen.

 

[MacAddict1978]

Personally, I hated the way iPhoto sorted things before beneath tons of crazy folders, and I don't like the library way either. If I didn't use any other photo program, this wouldn't be a big deal, but I do and millions of others. This works well for IOS because every app is designed to access things this way. For instance, Facebook goes straight to your Camera Roll if you want to upload a photo... but not so much on the Mac.

In Apple programs none of this is really a chore because iWork points right to your media, iLife, etc. but not so much with 3rd party apps. And I can see if developers started pointing their apps the "breakage" issues that could occur.

I don't understand why you can't just have a master photo folder, and iPhoto or whatever just doesn't store it's own data for those pics or whatever media in it's library that way.

I can see how people used to break iPhoto. It was like navigating a maze if you actually went into the folders.

And to whoever suggested iTunes should do it to... OH NO.

 

[iRobby]

This thread is over a half hour old and the "you'll take my file system away when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" crowd hasn't shown up yet?

Maybe they're too busy rearranging their files or defragmenting.

don't worry 'm here now!!! lol

 

[diamond.g]

My only issue with this is that I don't think iPhoto does a good job at storing and organizing your pictures. I think it's a bit unnecessary to store multiple copies of a photo in multiple places at multiple different qualities. Also, when you delete a picture, it's not really deleted and still remains on your hard drive, taking up space. If iPhoto did a better job of storing and organizing your photos, I'd be more inclined to trust it.

Aperture does a better job (there is only 1 copy of a photo in the library). Any changes are just stored as metadata and transforms are applied on the fly.

 

[42streetsdown]

This thread is over a half hour old and the "you'll take my file system away when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" crowd hasn't shown up yet?

Maybe they're too busy rearranging their files or defragmenting.

You aren't seeing this because it's not a big deal. The .app package had been around since the beginning. My only problem is that with most packages in the past it's takes an extra step to do a search with the contents included.

 

[longofest]

You can still get at the files individually by right-clicking on the library and "show package contents".

I'm not really sure about the assertion made in the article that this method is more secure. Secure isn't the right word, IMO, as any evil-doer could still do just as much damage as they could in the past. The new way is more resilient against beginner users who don't know that what they're doing is affecting application reliability.

 

[rmwebs]

About damn time...iPhoto is currently a right mess!

 

[SBlue1]

I can see the Finder (or just the filesystem in general) going the way of Terminal. Still going to be there for those who need it, but the mass majority of consumers won't bother with it.

Last time I remember using a terminal programm was back in the days of my beloved old Amiga computer almost two decades ago. Since I switched to Mac in the mid-90ies I considered typing commands instead of clicking outdated.

 

[RMo]

Last time I remember using a terminal programm was back in the days of my beloved old Amiga computer almost two decades ago. Since I switched to Mac in the mid-90ies I considered typing commands instead of clicking outdated.

I hope the smiley face means you're kidding, but if not...you don't know what you're missing out on. (Of course, it wouldn't have worked too well on that mid-90's Mac... )

 

[jettredmont]

Recent versions of iPhoto and Aperture have ditched the open folder system for a more secure "Library" format and, in Lion, Photo Booth takes the plunge as well.

Ugh. Really? You're really going to drag out this tired canard?

Aperture and iPhoto have file systems with a package descriptor. It is still just a file system. I use the photos directly out of my Aperture library all the time. It's just not a big deal. The only thing you lose with this approach is the ability to go in via Finder and physically reorganize things, but why in the world would you want that?

For Photo Booth ... if its structure is anything like iPhoto / Aperture, for the rare occasion where you need to get something out of it and into another program, and can't be bothered to just open up Photo Booth and drag the thing over (opening Photo Booth takes, what, about a "quarter-bounce"?), just right-click on the library and select "Show Package Contents".

This isn't difficult.

 

[jettredmont]

In Apple programs none of this is really a chore because iWork points right to your media, iLife, etc. but not so much with 3rd party apps. And I can see if developers started pointing their apps the "breakage" issues that could occur.

You do realize that many of those "iWork" file formats are ... packages. Right? Like .pages is a package containing a bit of meta-data the preview PDF and JPG, and then a zip file which itself contains the XML representation of the content itself? Any hope of just getting that test out of the .pages "file"? None.

I don't understand why you can't just have a master photo folder, and iPhoto or whatever just doesn't store it's own data for those pics or whatever media in it's library that way.

Because a large part of the utility of a library-based application like iPhoto is being able to quickly search and act on media in separate files. Being able to rely on those original media files being in a predictable file system organization greatly simplifies managing that.

And, would you be more happy if your iPhoto library was just a big folder with a bunch of packages named things like "IMG_02123", each of which contains the image itself ("IMG_02123.jpg"), any preview, and some meta-data on the file? Seems like that would "bury" the media far more than the "library" approach does.

I can see how people used to break iPhoto. It was like navigating a maze if you actually went into the folders.

And to whoever suggested iTunes should do it to... OH NO.

Umm ... other than the package extension and properties file on the iTunes Music Library, iTunes effectively already does this.

 

[MartiNZ]

1 more step towards iOS Lion...

Or just iON for short?

 

[jettredmont]

I guess it wouldn't be the end of the world, but that's one folder I do routinely browse to in other apps. Having to right-click and do "Show folder contents" every time, then having to dig around and find the file, will get old.

Here. Open Terminal and type:

cd ~/Pictures
ln -s iPhoto\ Library/Originals/ iphoto-originals

Tada! Now "iphoto-originals" shows up as just a "normal" directory in ~/Pictures, and is easily navigated in Open File dialogs. Now, just don't move things around in there.

You are welcome.

(You could do similar in Finder by dragging an alias of any folder inside that package out to your Desktop or wherever.)

If you are a big file system aficionado, you should learn how to use symbolic links and aliases to your benefit. For the folks who just want to make sure their apps don't break, this is hidden. As it should be.

Also, I do occasionally replace files in my iTunes library (e.g., when I bought something years ago on DRMed iTunes and later bought the CD, ripped a better and less restrictive format, and wanted the new file in my library but with all of the old information). Hopefully this wouldn't turn it into a pseudo "read only" mode.

iTunes being or not being a "package" rather than just an unadorned folder does nothing to that workflow. In Aperture, I fairly often replace "master" .CR2 files with replacements (adding in geocoding, for instance) and all works just fine there as well.

 

[MartiNZ]

Personally, I hated the way iPhoto sorted things before beneath tons of crazy folders, and I don't like the library way either. If I didn't use any other photo program, this wouldn't be a big deal, but I do and millions of others. This works well for IOS because every app is designed to access things this way. For instance, Facebook goes straight to your Camera Roll if you want to upload a photo... but not so much on the Mac.

In Apple programs none of this is really a chore because iWork points right to your media, iLife, etc. but not so much with 3rd party apps. And I can see if developers started pointing their apps the "breakage" issues that could occur.

I don't understand why you can't just have a master photo folder, and iPhoto or whatever just doesn't store it's own data for those pics or whatever media in it's library that way.

I can see how people used to break iPhoto. It was like navigating a maze if you actually went into the folders.

And to whoever suggested iTunes should do it to... OH NO.

Not sure what you mean by 'break iPhoto'. I far preferred the old iPhoto way (the iTunes way!) to the new, mainly because I like to keep folder structures tidy, and album/event name folders made more sense to me than dates, especially because the dates have nothing to do with when the photos were taken.

It made it easier, in my mind, to back up the library reliably with the event name folders - AND I had gone to the trouble of exporting all photos with their titles as filenames, again to keep it tidy ... or to keep it OCD if you like . When I started afresh with iPhoto 9, sensibly it turns out not trusting it, all my photos from '03–'10 ended up in a folder with a date from late 2010. So sad.

I guess that's a benefit of having no access to the file system in iOS, who knew!

 

[jowie]

I really hope Apple will do something to address the fact that an iPhoto library seems to take up about 3 times as much space as a manually managed library!

Apple keeps different versions of the photos, including thumbnails and the originals. Photos don't really take up much space, so I'd rather it kept the originals as a backup than was smaller when I don't need the space.

 

[jowie]

I guess it wouldn't be the end of the world, but that's one folder I do routinely browse to in other apps. Having to right-click and do "Show folder contents" every time, then having to dig around and find the file, will get old.

I understand that you need to browse to iTunes files in other apps. So do I. But you wouldn't need to "Show package contents" every time. The Open Dialog's Media selector and its search box would both allow you to find any song file.

Also, I do occasionally replace files in my iTunes library (e.g., when I bought something years ago on DRMed iTunes and later bought the CD, ripped a better and less restrictive format, and wanted the new file in my library but with all of the old information). Hopefully this wouldn't turn it into a pseudo "read only" mode.

I see what you mean. Usually if you replace the song with a new one then you lose things like "play count". But as it stands, you'd still need to replace the old audio file with a new one in the same format, or it'd have problems finding the file. And if you get it wrong then you can end up with missing links, or at worst, corrupting your library. But if Apple decided to make the iTunes Library a closed package directory, it would indeed be nice to have some kind of "replace file..." option on each song.

 

[jowie]

And to whoever suggested iTunes should do it to... OH NO.

I reckon it is very likely to happen in the near future. But there are work-arounds for all your woes you mentioned in your post. You can't have a media library that works well without the media application having complete control over its data.

 

[jowie]

I guess that's a benefit of having no access to the file system in iOS, who knew!

You need to let go of the file system, and put your trust and faith in the app...

 

[Corban987]

You need to let go of the file system, and put your trust and faith in the app...

No Way! I want to be able to view photos on multiple machines, iPhoto sux. Google Picaso is so much better and doesn't mess with my thousands of photos. All my photos are stored on a NAS, all my computers connect to it.

If I move my pics to a new system I don't want them locked away inside iPhoto.

 

[RMo]

Usually if you replace the song with a new one then you lose things like "play count".

Actually, I've never had that problem. I think the trick is to delete, even from Trash, the current file first (make a copy if desired). I'm assuming this is an HFS[+] feature, but regardless, it will follow the original wherever it goes, so you need to trick it into thinking it's missing. Then, when iTunes complains it can't find the file and asks if you want to find it, do it--then point it to the new one. (If you don't have it organizing your Music folder for you, you might want to put it somewhere logical first; otherwise, of course, it won't matter.)

You might lose metadata (like exact album name, composer, etc.), but I've never lost iTunes database data like play count or date added. In fact, those two things alone are why I do this instead of just importing the new one and deleting the old one in iTunes.

I guess this would still be possible unless they change anything besides simply making the iTunes Music folder appear as a bundle instead of a folder.

As for your other point that the "Open Media" dialog will let me browse to anything in iTunes regardless of whether the iTunes Music directory is a folder or a bundle in Finder, isn't "Open Media" just a feature in iLife? Personally I'm talking about opening an audio file in something like Audacity, which is very easy to do at the moment. Because the "Open" dialog won't let you "Show Package Contents," you'd either have to do it in Finder yourself and copy the file somewhere, or start iTunes and drag-to-copy the item where you want it.

 

[kockgunner]

Totally agree with all these points. However, what it does do is drive people nuts who are used to the Windows way of doing things.

I convinced a friend of mine to get a MacBook and he hated that he never knew where his 'damn photos were'. I told him to just let go of file structures and use iPhoto to manage it, but he just couldn't. And that's even after showing him the show package contents - he hated the way iPhoto decided. After 6 months, the MacBook got sold.

And that's ultimately the problem with file systems. They are a useful paradigm. They mirror the real world of documents inside folders, we can organize them and move them around and put them in orders that make sense to us. They are just not as efficient as having a computer do it.

Computers were made to get rid of these old paradigms. Thousands of photos in hundreds of folders in real like would not be practical and it's even less practical in the digital world.

It would be neat to see apps even more contained like this. Like if even preferences were saved inside an icon container so if we transfer an app to another computer, all the preferences would be preserved. This would also make removing apps completely easier. Of course, you would still be able to show package contents.

 

[caspersoong]

This is great. My father always gets all sorts of problems on his computer because of incidents like these. It might be safe now for my father to get a Mac.

 

[bpaluzzi]

I think you're missing my point.
(My point is that this is less convenient, and not only less convenient, but also confusing and not immediately obvious.)

It's not supposed to be immediately obvious. It's only for users that know what they're doing. For the general user, it should be seen as "impossible"

 

[saltyzoo]

You need to let go of the file system, and put your trust and faith in the app...

If ya use Apple, you gotta think like Apple.

Very nice. Now of course the old fart need to die off before we move on. Oh the days of "real men type out their commands" comes to mind with some of the comments.

These three posts really frame the issue well for me.

It's all about control and flexibility vs ease of use.

As an "old fart", I want the freedom to use any app I wish to manipulate my data. This movement of allowing the app to own the data is actually going backwards in many ways. Sure, it's harder to do damage, and it's easier to learn new things, but youre screwed if you find a better app and don't want to go through a nightmare conversion process.

I want to own my data. I want apps that work on standard data formats. Not apps that shackle me to them forever. This is my fear with the "iOS" direction apple is going. I'm already considering jumping ship for my next phone due to the lack of control apple gives me in my own device.

I want to be able to use iPhoto sometimes, and photoshop other times. The more the app owns the data, the less this type of flexibility will be available.

As an "old fart" that's been through many painful platform migrations, I don't like this direction that locks up my data more and more.