# What Are You Using for Photo Organization/Editing?



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

iPhoto is killing me! It moved a bunch of photos to other libraries on me recently & when I upgraded last time it made a huge mess of my photo libraries so now there are a bunch of "dead" thumbnails.

So, I thought I'd give Lightroom a try since it's a free beta for now. I really like it. I like how you can create collections then add keywords and sort by those keywords. It also organizes photos nicely instead of the awful way iPhoto does and you can tag things really quickly.

I have Adobe Bridge but I thought I'd give Lightroom a go first as I really like the editing features it has & it makes developing photos quick and easy. I have a lot of photos (9 DVDs worth) so you can imagine what back ups are like - I have them on backed up on an external drive using Super Duper, since you can set it to only copy what is missing on the back up, and a full system back up on another external drive that I switch back and forth with another off site drive.

So, I was wondering what others are using for their large photo libraries (I can't use Aperature because my computers don't have the horse power required).


----------



## migs (Apr 2, 2003)

If you shoot RAW give Capture One a try.

www.phaseone.com


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I find Graphic Converters organization to be quite well for my needs. And, it's cheap.


----------



## Aero (Mar 2, 2006)

migs said:


> If you shoot RAW give Capture One a try.
> 
> www.phaseone.com


is that free? their website is kinda weird.


----------



## kastytis (Oct 24, 2006)

Hmm. One of the reasons I switched to a Mac a few weeks ago was for the "easy to use" software that comes with a Mac. A lot of what I've read here and the Apple discussion forums sings the praises of iLife, the beauty and ease of the native software.

From what I've been reading of the experiences of others -- and my own experiences so far with iPhoto -- I'm beginning to wonder why I got this thing. iPhoto is definitely clunky. And it doesn't want to recognize some photos. Definitely disappointing. So why did I get this macbook when programs like iPhoto mess up? I'm still within the two-week window of purchase of my macbook, and I'm seriously thinking of returning it.


----------



## Aero (Mar 2, 2006)

kastytis said:


> Hmm. One of the reasons I switched to a Mac a few weeks ago was for the "easy to use" software that comes with a Mac. A lot of what I've read here and the Apple discussion forums sings the praises of iLife, the beauty and ease of the native software.
> 
> From what I've been reading of the experiences of others -- and my own experiences so far with iPhoto -- I'm beginning to wonder why I got this thing. iPhoto is definitely clunky. And it doesn't want to recognize some photos. Definitely disappointing. So why did I get this macbook when programs like iPhoto mess up? I'm still within the two-week window of purchase of my macbook, and I'm seriously thinking of returning it.


The thing is even if the software is close to perfect but if you don't like the feel of it then that software suck (iyo). If you have tried the macbook and did not like it then return it ASAP, you dont want to be stuck on something that you dont like. If you like some aspect of it that is worth keeping the machine then go for it. If you ask mac fan to keep it or not they will say keep it, if you ask windows fan to keep it or not they will say no, just return it. The best way to know is ask your self, do you like it or not.

iPhoto might be clunky and .... but softwares do get updated, its a risk but its the question of right now. It'll be bad if you regret buying a 1-2k laptop that you hate to use.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

iPhoto is good if you don't have a very big library and use it casually. It integrates nicely with Mail and I use the ordering features for books and calendars but I don't like it as my main organization and editing software for the reasons I mentioned. I will most likely still use it for creating the books, etc. (I haven't found anything even close) by making libraries out of the photos I'd like to use for the books, etc.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have used iPhoto to capture all my photos from my Nikon and the Canon before it. I have never lost a photo or had a dead thumbnail. It has worked through transfers and upgrades from four different Macs.

I use Photoshop CS or Graphic Converter for editing or manipulation.

I guess I wonder what all the fuss is about when mine performs flawlessly on my MacBook Pro and eMac.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

Consider yourself lucky, Sync. I think sometimes some people just have bad luck with a program. I myself love iTunes while others say it's just horrible. Part of my problem I think is the size of the libraries - I actually had to create separate ones & use iPhoto Buddy to access them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

IPhoto sucks. ( and litters )

GraphicConverter for me. :clap:


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Never had an issue with iPhoto, personally. The only drawback to it that I see is if you have a very, very large photo collection, in which case iPhoto may start performing piss-poorly in regards to speed.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

For what it is, I think that iPhoto rocks -- just never go into its folder structure (probably the littering MacDoc was referring to). Using iPhoto as a front-end, you can easily do anything you normally would do with photos via the Finder. If, for example, you want to delete a pic from your library, just delete it. If you quickly want a copy of a picture you see in your iPhoto library on your desktop (not desktop picture; a copy of the file to do something else with it), then just grab iPhoto's thumbnail and drag it to the Desktop. The full-res original will be copied to the Desktop. Done.

I have an iPhoto library of over 5,000 pictures and many photo albums. This library has come through unscathed upgrading to EVERY version of iPhoto that there's been. Its integration with the other iLife applications is uniquely beneficial.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Holy crap, MacDoc... you changed your avatar!!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

*MBD*, this is just a theory, but the problem with your files could well be something that was done to it on the Windows side. ALWAYS keeping your originals, try seeing if they indeed open within Graphic Convertor (disclaimer: much as I like iPhoto, I also use "GC" for some functions). If GC can read them all, try doing a batch conversion out of it, making sure that the filetype is a jpeg and maintaining the original's resolution. Then try importing THOSE into iPhoto again. Through this process, GC might be able to re-render these files in a more cleaned-up state.

As great as the Mac platform is, it's not perfect -- but some platforms are LESS PERFECT than others. Before throwing the baby out with the bathwater, remind yourself of the hassles -- and the sometimes more dire consequences of those hassles -- that exist on the Windows platform. Take in the (very consistent -- not always totally consistent) UI conventions of Mac applications... and remember that there's no real need to use anti-virus software on that MacBook.

And, besides... maybe the files were problematic -- or made proprietary in some way -- before?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

More reflective of my current existence.
Besides...it's cute.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

Macaholic - I don't use Windows. You're probably thinking of the poster that wants to take his Macbook back.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MBD said:


> Macaholic - I don't use Windows. You're probably thinking of the poster that wants to take his Macbook back.


DANG! Sorry! I meant *kastytis*.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

Heh heh np!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm with SINC - iPhoto has never failed me... of course, I only have 1500 phots in there, so those with much larger libraries perhaps are hitting a performance wall or something.

It's integration with all the iApps (iMovie and iWeb particularly) is a big sell for me.

One thing some new users of iPhoto don't realize is that you can assign an external editor (e.g., Photoshop) that launches upon a double-click of the images. Check out the iPhoto preferences for this. It's invaluable!

M.


----------



## kastytis (Oct 24, 2006)

You're missing my point. I bought a macbook thinking that have wonderfully integrated software also meant the individual programs worked well alone by themselves. I had no intention of buying Photoshop. Perhaps if Apple would let me know programs such as iPhoto are much more basic than I could realize. That's not the impression. 

I left Windows partially so I wouldn't have to constantly be buying better software than the usual garbage found on a new pc. 

That myth is busted.

I may still keep my macbook. But, hey, I'll think twice before recommending. Advertising does sell. I feel I got a bit sold.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

If you thought that iPhoto -- a free program -- rivals Adobe Photoshop, well then let's just say that your expectations needs a little moderation.. or perhaps more research was required (the attached screenshot shows an interesting text search result in Safari at the iPhoto page).

iPhoto can crop, colour correct, sharpen, adjust exposure and straighten photos, as well as apply some basic, fairly typical effects. Unlike Photoshop, it can't let you put your head on Arnold Schwarzenegger's body.

OTOH, Photoshop cannot let you create hard-bound books, nor let you share any Photoshop photo collections (if such a thing even exists in Photoshop) with a digital video editor (iMovie), a DVD authoring program (iDVD), a website creator (iWeb), a word processing/graphical arranger (Pages), nor a Powerpoint type of application (Keynote). As "consumer" as iPhoto is, some of its capabilities are beyond even those of Photoshop. The whole iLife suite excels at ease of use. But really between iPhoto and Photoshop, one's an orange and the other's an apple (pardon the pun).

Your needs may well require the acquisition of additional software and you wouldnt be alone. That's why there are many thousands of programs out there for the Mac -- and many many thousands for Windows. But, Apple leaves no myserty as to iPhoto's capabilities. On iPhoto's editing features page they show iPhoto's editing capabilities:










brightness, contrast, saturation, temperature, tint, sharpness, straighten (crooked pictures) and exposure. Plus, there's crop, "enhance" (auto tweaking the above parameters), sepia tone and several other one-shot effects... and that's it. But for fixing up shots one taks on a digi camera, do you need much more than that? If, OTOH, you want to "create" a new and different visual thing, well to me that's clearly not part of iPhoto's mandate.

And I'm sorry, but to compare iLife to a typical bundle on a Windows system is pretty unfair -- to the Windows bundle.


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

Aperture is the way to go for me. iPhoto got to bogged down with my 5000+ photo library and wasn't very good with RAW files so I switched. I currently have almost 12,000 photos in a multitude of library folders and Aperture allows for fine tuning of the RAW file without changing the original file (multiple ways too). In iPhoto the original is changed with every "correction". 

The old saying applies here - "you get what you pay for"


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

And to throw in another $0.02, I think many users give iPhoto short-shrift. I find it surprisingly powerful and feature-packed (Photcasting!). There is a certain amount of exploration required to really understand its abilities.

There are also several add-on freeware programs to fill in what some people see as missing pieces, or needed features, such as:

Flickr plug-in
Keyword Assistant
Google Maps Geocaching tags
Batch Effects Enhancer

and there's the freeware iPhoto Diet to keep the iPhoto library nice and neat. If you're willing to spend a few bucks, there is also the iPhoto Library Manager to assist in handling very large collections of photos (or for people for whom categorization is akin to breathing).


M


----------



## Stonehead (Jun 5, 2005)

I have approx 8500 photos in my library and i think Iphoto is an excellent entry level program, I also use Aperture for my high end stuff, it integrates well with Iphoto and you can use the same data base if you want. I don't find Iphoto slow and i have never lost a picture due to an upgrade.. But in the end its to each his own.


----------



## macsackbut (Dec 15, 2004)

I use and love iPhoto for what it is. If you're seriously into photography as a hobby or a profession, then it is probably not going to cut the mustard, but it was never designed to do that.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

Anyone tried Adobe Lightroom? I downloaded it & it seems pretty good. I like how you can tag things easily & organize based on keywords. My systems can't run Aperature.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

I mostly use Graphic Converter and manage my own directories in the Finder. I use iPhoto in order to work on iLife projects.


----------



## Wako (Oct 11, 2006)

I've hooked my mother with iPhoto since her first iMac. She has upwards of 8K images, and her 20" G5 handles it pretty well. She doesn't do amazing editing with it, but she's done some really nice things, and she loves it. My iPhoto library has 57 images, so I'll shut up.


----------



## kastytis (Oct 24, 2006)

Once again you miss the point. I feel I got sold a bill of goods. Nowhere in all I have read -- here and elsewhere -- told me iPhoto is a free program. If it is, then fine. I bought into the idea of well thought out software, well integrated one with the other. I had no expectation of iPhoto being Photoshop. I'm not looking for professional. I was looking for uber stable, uber reliable software. Seamless. Learning curve, yes. Hassle-free. 

But what good is all that if the program cannot read a simple photo off a cd? Blame Windows? Yeah, maybe. There's a lot of that that goes on here and other Mac sites.

What hoops do I have to jump to figure this out? Nah, been there, done that with Windows. 

I paid a premium price for what I thought is a premium product, which I also thought had premium software. I think much of my money has gone to a well-funded marketing department. 

See, maybe I'm too much a neophyte, but I'm not really getting the "thing" for Macs that Mac users have for their computers. Lovely machines -- but I'm finding there's less than meets the eye. Kinda like dating the stereotypical beautiful woman: Nice to look at, but Lordy, Lordy, she ain't all that.

Maybe no viruses or shareware problems on a Mac, but damn... can't I open a simple photo on a cd? And I've read all about good brand of cd/v. bad, jpegs, etc. It's just not what I expected.

It's just a computer. Not the meaning of life.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

I'm in the "iPhoto rocks" camp. For more features, I use Photoshop. I also archive iPhoto images as the library grows. Keeping the library under 2,000 images ensures smooth operations.


----------



## Repeater04 (Nov 29, 2004)

If it's just a computer,and not the meaning of life,....why not stop whining and just learn how to operate your Mac computer. Once you spend some time on it and learn the basics,maybe then, you'll know what all us are talking about.


----------



## kastytis (Oct 24, 2006)

And I do wish when someone has a criticism of macs on these boards, that they not be referred to as whining. It's not at all constructive. 

I'm just telling you my impressions coming into the Mac world. Kneejerk responses won't make me come to my senses. Gates-bashing and all the rest is very tiresome when you read it over and over and over. It's really quite childish. You impress only yourself and likeminded folk. Enough cyber-xenophobia.


----------



## migs (Apr 2, 2003)

Aero said:


> is that free? their website is kinda weird.


I would recommend, without hesitation, that if you shoot RAW, C1 Pro an app you should definitely consider. No, it's not free, but you get what you pay for: a robust and sophisticated RAW converter that doubles as a capturing app for all Phase One digital backs and most Canon DSLRs. It currently holds the lions share in the professional medium format shooters' market. The image quality can't be beat.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

KT 0Your attitude is not helping your cause - no one here says Macs are perfect - they are just far far ahead of PCs for ease of use.

You admit to being a neophyte yet have the temerity to criticize without correctly outlining the problem you have and asking for a solution.

Macs and Mac users having been living in a multiplatform universe for a long while and over 1 million users switched last year and some 330,000 in the last quarter and with good reason.

The iLife Suite is extremely powerful and integrated in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing.
I dare say every professional media content person here has used parts of it from time to time and iTunes/iPod OWNS the personal music universe.

Each iteration gets better and more sophisticated.

You remind me of my finance guy who switched recently. He came to me and said I don't think I'm getting eough use from this machine. I thought it could do music and movies and such.

Then I asked him perhaps the "not obvious" question.

* Have you opened iTunes*?

answer> *No*

.....'nuff said.

By all means if you don't like it take it back.
If you want to learn and find out what all the fuss is about.....listen and ask grasshopper.

You will soon understand the difference between Apple hype ( Steve's reality distortion field) and what really and truly is a better computing universe, especially for content creation.

YOU bought into the "hype" - we're all here to help sort out the hype from the reality that "Yes Dorothy you're not in Kansas anymore but rendering an iMovie still takes time" ....just as in the real world.

Uninformed whining and prickly attitude doesn't help you learn why it's a better choice.
It IS a better choice....up to you to find out why.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

kastytis said:


> I was looking for uber stable, uber reliable software. Seamless. Learning curve, yes. Hassle-free.
> 
> But what good is all that if the program cannot read a simple photo off a cd? Blame Windows? Yeah, maybe. There's a lot of that that goes on here and other Mac sites.
> 
> ...


kastytis, we're here and sincerely trying to provide some peer support - but... what exactly is the problem? "Can't read a simple photo off a CD" - what does that mean? What format is the photo? JPG? TIFF? BMP? Other?

And, you're "... looking for uber stable, uber reliable software..." Well, who isn't? But is the software really the problem?

With all due respect, in my (extensive) experience in supporting Windows-->Mac converts, including teaching Windows users how to handle a Mac-based Avid Digital Media Composer system, I have found that the first challenge is "de-programming" the Windows folk, who tend to over-think very simple tasks, letting "The Microsoft Method" get in the way of intuitive interaction with the GUI.

So - let's try again. What is the problem. Specifics. Then we'll move toward resolving your issues.

M.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

1) Wait for iLife '07 to come in January; hopefully, iPhoto will be substantially improved to fix or optimize all said issues.
2) Complain that you'll be charged $89 for it, even though you just bought your MacBook; and no, there are no "upgrade deals."
3) Buy iLife '07 and be happy. 

BTW - iPhoto isn't a free application unless you purchase a new Mac with it pre-installed.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

kastytis said:


> But what good is all that if the program cannot read a simple photo off a cd? Blame Windows?


I'm sorry but if you're having trouble with such a fundamental process -- a process I and many others have used successfully all the time on a Mac -- then we're at a loss as to what it could be and we start to suspect something that happened to the file on the Windows side. It's not Windows bashing in this case; you could have migrated from Linux. Do you understand?

And besides, you give us only dribs and drabs of information throughout this thread. First, it can't read some file types. Then, it can't read a CD. So, is it the CD? Or the filetype? In my experience, a Mac can read a Windows formatted CD and can read _most any typical_ graphical format. I've done it often. But anything could have happened.



> What hoops do I have to jump to figure this out? Nah, been there, done that with Windows.


If these pictures or the CD are in a non-standard format, that could be the problem. Say, what is one of the filenames with the problem -- including its extender (the three letters at the end _after the period_). Who knows, it could have been saved as some kind of proprietary Kodak "photo archive" format or something? Just guessing, but if they're non-standard, that could be the problem. Having said hat, iPhoto is still reasonably "fluent" in different filetypes. iPhoto can import photos saved in any format recognized by QuickTime, including:

BMP
GIF
JPEG/JFIF
MacPaint
PICT
PNG
Photoshop (with layers)
SGI
Targa
FlashPix
TIFF

Any edited or rotated GIF images are saved in JPEG (.jpg) format. Any other file type, or unedited GIFs, retain their original file type. When exporting a file, you can choose from three file types: JPEG, TIFF, or PNG.



> I think much of my money has gone to a well-funded marketing department.


I'm sorry, but it sounds to me like you're getting bitter and losing your objectivity. Find some patience within yourself and we can perhaps help solve the problem.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Lars said:


> BTW - iPhoto isn't a free application unless you purchase a new Mac with it pre-installed.


Which kastytis did.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

As far as I know GraphicConverter will read any image file ever concieved of.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> As far as I know GraphicConverter will read any image file ever concieved of.


Yeah. That's why I suggested for kastytis to try a bulk convert out of GraphicConverter of the ones iPhoto couldn't tummy. But, we don't know what type of program kastytis used in Windows before... it could have rendered them in some non-standard format. Who knows?


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

kastytis said:


> I'm still within the two-week window of purchase of my macbook, and I'm seriously thinking of returning it.


If you do, can you tell us again?



kastytis said:


> But what good is all that if the program cannot read a simple photo off a cd? Blame Windows?


User error?

*Edited for spelling.


----------



## slowzuki (Jun 6, 2006)

Weighing in with another satified Iphoto user. I'm at about 6000 photos and things are getting slower. My biggest problem with iphoto (and my fathers problem too) was getting it into roll view. Being photographers in the film world it is a lot easier to group the files by roll and label the rolls. It is nice to be able to drag stuff into other rolls. I break my rolls up by shoot and or trips. I then apply keywords to the rolls or individual photos in the rolls.

I wish iphoto would come setup like this by default.


----------



## green_ears (Feb 26, 2005)

MBD said:


> iPhoto is killing me! It moved a bunch of photos to other libraries on me recently & when I upgraded last time it made a huge mess of my photo libraries so now there are a bunch of "dead" thumbnails.


I use iPhoto and backup the entire Pictures directory to DVDR. If I need to restore my pictures after a drive failure or something, I just copy it all into a fresh iPhoto folder and run a Repair Permissions from the Disk Utility. Then, all my pictures and thumbnails are A_OK. iPhoto rocks! But I guess this manual process will be resolved once we get Time Machine...


----------



## Wako (Oct 11, 2006)

First thing you have to learn when you first switch from a Windows machine is : FORGET EVERYTHING. imo, pebkac.


----------



## rhythms (Sep 24, 2003)

WOW... long digression...

MBD, yes, someone else here uses Lightroom Beta. I've been on it since beta 1, and it has definitely come a long way. I'm with you, Aperture won't run on my current hardware, but Lightroom will, and it performs admirably considering it is a Beta and the performance optimisations haven't been done yet.

Because i'm a total geek, I've been checking out the lightroom podcasts... it's pretty interesting to hear the developers blab on and on about colour space and why it doesn't work as fast as ACR, and blah blah...

It's not aimed at the iPhoto crowd, and for sure, iPhoto has that nice book ordering function. But I've used Lightroom to do several commercial portrait shoots, and it has performed like a champ, both on location to do card dumps and quick checks of the files on a bigger screen, and also back home for post-processing. The ease of manipulating the sliders and getting something that looks good is awesome.

If/when I get a new machine, I'd like to do a comparison between LR and Aperture, but until then... LR it is!

you can check out some of my photos on my blog listed below, or on my website:

www.inthelight7.com


----------



## kastytis (Oct 24, 2006)

Photos are jpg format. I used a canon 5.1 mp powershot for the photos. I burned the photos to cd. I've used the cds in several computers, no problem. I have the photos on pc hard drive, mac hard drive and on cd burned on pc. 

I looked at, say, one photo numbered 0714. 
On the pc it's jpg format. It shows it as 803 kb in size. 
On the mac hard drive, it's in jpg format. It shows 803 kb in size.
On cd, when viewed from cd drive in the pc, it's in jpg format. It shows 803 kb in size.
Now... on cd, when viewed from cd drive in mac, it's in jpg format. It shows 316kb.

Somehow the mac is reading a photo from my cd as being 316kb as opposed to 803 kb in the other instances.

And it is only 10 percent of photos where this occurs. 

Is it the cd burning process? If it is, why can I still view the photo on cd on other computers?

Somehow the macbook or iPhoto is not able to read the full photo from cd. but all photos downloaded into the macbook from sd card no problem.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Good info. But nothing is coming to mind as to why this is occurring. Recently, however, I received a data CD burned in Windows from three different people who were on a European trip with me. Every photo was properly read by OS X and imported by iPhoto. CD media is cheap, so you could try another burn of those particular pics, see if the MacBook can read that try. Or, export them out of your Windows app before burning, first. Maybe some EXIF data got corrupted??


----------

