Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #94897 > unrolled thread

iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2016-09-28 17:19 -0700
    Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-09-29 13:28 +1300
      Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2016-09-28 17:48 -0700
      Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2016-09-29 21:15 -0400
        Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-30 01:35 +0000
        Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-29 21:40 -0400
          Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? android <here@there.was> - 2016-09-30 05:38 +0200
            Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-09-29 21:03 -0700
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-30 00:07 -0400
                Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-09-29 21:16 -0700
                  Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-30 08:33 -0400
                  Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-30 18:04 +0000
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? android <here@there.was> - 2016-09-30 06:47 +0200
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-09-30 12:01 -0500
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-30 18:03 +0000
                Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-09-30 11:32 -0700
                  Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-30 14:51 -0400
                    Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-09-30 11:52 -0700
                  Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-30 19:28 +0000
                    Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-09-30 13:14 -0700
                      Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-30 16:48 -0400
                        Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-09-30 13:52 -0700
                        Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-30 21:14 +0000
                          Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-30 17:22 -0400
                      Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-01 03:57 +0000
            Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-09-30 12:00 -0500
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2016-10-01 15:46 -0600
        Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-09-30 00:58 -0400
          Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-09-29 22:13 -0700
            Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? android <here@there.was> - 2016-09-30 07:22 +0200
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-09-30 01:38 -0400
                Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-09-29 23:22 -0700
                  Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? android <here@there.was> - 2016-09-30 09:51 +0200
                    Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-30 18:15 +0000
                      Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-09-30 11:44 -0700
                  Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-30 18:14 +0000
                    Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-09-30 11:42 -0700
                      Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-30 19:30 +0000
                      Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-01 03:46 -0400
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-09-29 23:19 -0700
                Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-30 18:15 +0000
          Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-30 18:11 +0000
            Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-01 03:44 -0400
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-01 12:33 -0400
                Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-02 15:36 +1300
                  Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-01 22:36 -0500
                    Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2016-10-02 18:21 +1300
                      Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-02 03:43 -0400
                        Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-10-02 01:00 -0700
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2016-10-01 09:35 -0700
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-01 17:39 +0000
                Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-01 17:10 -0400
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-01 19:00 -0500
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-01 23:21 -0700
    Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-28 17:31 -0700
    Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-09-28 21:13 -0400
      Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2016-09-29 11:02 -0700
    Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-09-29 04:31 +0000
    Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-09-29 16:53 -0500
      Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-29 17:56 -0400
      Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-29 22:03 +0000
        Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-09-29 21:53 -0500
          Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-29 23:12 -0400
          Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-09-29 20:52 -0700
            Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-09-30 12:04 -0500
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-30 13:11 -0400
                Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2016-09-30 22:56 -0400
                  Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-30 23:03 -0400
                    Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2016-09-30 23:51 -0700
                      Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-01 12:33 -0400
                  Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-01 04:10 +0000
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-30 18:18 +0000
                Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-09-30 11:44 -0700
                  Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-30 19:31 +0000
              Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-01 04:02 +0000
                Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2016-10-01 19:07 -0500
                  Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-01 20:14 -0400
          Re: iPhoto - Mothballed or Trashed? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-09-30 18:16 +0000

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#94946

On 2016-09-29, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 09-28-2016 19:19, gtr wrote:
>> Is there any compelling reason to keep from trashing iPhoto?  I
>> accidentally run it sometimes and it gives me some jabber about Photos,
>> I exit and run Photos.
>>
>> But completely discarding an "updated" program, like iMovie as an
>> example, hasn't always been such a good idea?  What about iPhoto?
>
> I never liked iPhoto, but I would occasionally load a bunch of pictures 
> into it to use a feature I did like finding/matching faces, sorting by 
> location.  So I was irritated that Photos did not have some of those 
> features.  But it seems that Faces at least has been restored to Photos.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Faces has always been in
Photos. The "Places" album is missing, but when you view the top-level
Photos section, each moment shows the location of the photos within it.
So geographical tags are still alive and well in Photos.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94954

On 09-29-2016 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2016-09-29, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>> On 09-28-2016 19:19, gtr wrote:
>>> Is there any compelling reason to keep from trashing iPhoto?  I
>>> accidentally run it sometimes and it gives me some jabber about Photos,
>>> I exit and run Photos.
>>>
>>> But completely discarding an "updated" program, like iMovie as an
>>> example, hasn't always been such a good idea?  What about iPhoto?
>>
>> I never liked iPhoto, but I would occasionally load a bunch of pictures
>> into it to use a feature I did like finding/matching faces, sorting by
>> location.  So I was irritated that Photos did not have some of those
>> features.  But it seems that Faces at least has been restored to Photos.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about. Faces has always been in
> Photos. The "Places" album is missing, but when you view the top-level
> Photos section, each moment shows the location of the photos within it.
> So geographical tags are still alive and well in Photos.
>

Haven't used it in a long time.  Probably forgetting what the feature 
was.  But I haven't forgotten that it pissed me off.

Overall, I find both programs irritating, for the same reason that 
others find iTunes irritating, i.e., Apple knows better than I do how I 
want to organize things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94955

In article <nskk2j$1k51$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
<Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

> >> I never liked iPhoto, but I would occasionally load a bunch of pictures
> >> into it to use a feature I did like finding/matching faces, sorting by
> >> location.  So I was irritated that Photos did not have some of those
> >> features.  But it seems that Faces at least has been restored to Photos.
> >
> > I have no idea what you are talking about. Faces has always been in
> > Photos. The "Places" album is missing, but when you view the top-level
> > Photos section, each moment shows the location of the photos within it.
> > So geographical tags are still alive and well in Photos.
> >
> 
> Haven't used it in a long time.  Probably forgetting what the feature 
> was.  But I haven't forgotten that it pissed me off.
> 
> Overall, I find both programs irritating, for the same reason that 
> others find iTunes irritating, i.e., Apple knows better than I do how I 
> want to organize things.

apple isn't the one organizing anything. it's *entirely* up to the user
and always has been.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94957

On 2016-09-30 02:53:10 +0000, "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> said:

> On 09-29-2016 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2016-09-29, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>> On 09-28-2016 19:19, gtr wrote:
>>>> Is there any compelling reason to keep from trashing iPhoto?  I
>>>> accidentally run it sometimes and it gives me some jabber about Photos,
>>>> I exit and run Photos.
>>>> 
>>>> But completely discarding an "updated" program, like iMovie as an
>>>> example, hasn't always been such a good idea?  What about iPhoto?
>>> 
>>> I never liked iPhoto, but I would occasionally load a bunch of pictures
>>> into it to use a feature I did like finding/matching faces, sorting by
>>> location.  So I was irritated that Photos did not have some of those
>>> features.  But it seems that Faces at least has been restored to Photos.
>> 
>> I have no idea what you are talking about. Faces has always been in
>> Photos. The "Places" album is missing, but when you view the top-level
>> Photos section, each moment shows the location of the photos within it.
>> So geographical tags are still alive and well in Photos.
>> 
> 
> Haven't used it in a long time.  Probably forgetting what the feature 
> was.  But I haven't forgotten that it pissed me off.
> 
> Overall, I find both programs irritating, for the same reason that 
> others find iTunes irritating, i.e., Apple knows better than I do how I 
> want to organize things.

Lightroom relieves all that frustration.
-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94976

On 09-29-2016 22:52, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2016-09-30 02:53:10 +0000, "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> said:
>
>> On 09-29-2016 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2016-09-29, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 09-28-2016 19:19, gtr wrote:
>>>>> Is there any compelling reason to keep from trashing iPhoto?  I
>>>>> accidentally run it sometimes and it gives me some jabber about
>>>>> Photos,
>>>>> I exit and run Photos.
>>>>>
>>>>> But completely discarding an "updated" program, like iMovie as an
>>>>> example, hasn't always been such a good idea?  What about iPhoto?
>>>>
>>>> I never liked iPhoto, but I would occasionally load a bunch of pictures
>>>> into it to use a feature I did like finding/matching faces, sorting by
>>>> location.  So I was irritated that Photos did not have some of those
>>>> features.  But it seems that Faces at least has been restored to
>>>> Photos.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you are talking about. Faces has always been in
>>> Photos. The "Places" album is missing, but when you view the top-level
>>> Photos section, each moment shows the location of the photos within it.
>>> So geographical tags are still alive and well in Photos.
>>>
>>
>> Haven't used it in a long time.  Probably forgetting what the feature
>> was.  But I haven't forgotten that it pissed me off.
>>
>> Overall, I find both programs irritating, for the same reason that
>> others find iTunes irritating, i.e., Apple knows better than I do how
>> I want to organize things.
>
> Lightroom relieves all that frustration.

For images, Finder and Terminal are my organizing tools and 
GraphicConverter does almost everything else.  Once in a while, I let 
Photos touch my images.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94978

In article <nsm5vk$24l$3@gioia.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
<Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

> >>
> >> Overall, I find both programs irritating, for the same reason that
> >> others find iTunes irritating, i.e., Apple knows better than I do how
> >> I want to organize things.
> >
> > Lightroom relieves all that frustration.
> 
> For images, Finder and Terminal are my organizing tools and 
> GraphicConverter does almost everything else.  Once in a while, I let 
> Photos touch my images.

finder and terminal are not organizational tools.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95013

On 9/30/16 1:11 PM, nospam wrote:
> finder and terminal are not organizational tools.

Maybe not terminal, but (for photos) the finder certainly is.

I've never permitted any image editing app (iPhoto, 
Aperture, Photos, etc.) to maintain and "organize" my originals.

Instead, on an entirely separate volume, I've created my own 
"library" using the finder.

When I take new photos, I create a new folder (with a 
meaningful name and date), and copy the new pics into it.

These are nested into a single folder (in which all my 
originals reside).

In my photo editing apps, I set it up so that NONE of them 
actually import the masters -- they're "referenced 
libraries" only.

More work...   yes.
Fewer problems...  yes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95014

In article <bBFHz.431$lA2.378@fx15.iad>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> > finder and terminal are not organizational tools.
> 
> Maybe not terminal, but (for photos) the finder certainly is.

no it isn't.

finder is an interface to the file system.

> I've never permitted any image editing app (iPhoto, 
> Aperture, Photos, etc.) to maintain and "organize" my originals.

a comment like that shows that you don't understand what those apps can
do.

they do not organize anything. *you* do, in ways not possible with
finder, with the app doing the grunt work *for* you. you are always in
control.

> Instead, on an entirely separate volume, I've created my own 
> "library" using the finder.
> 
> When I take new photos, I create a new folder (with a 
> meaningful name and date), and copy the new pics into it.
> 
> These are nested into a single folder (in which all my 
> originals reside).
> 
> In my photo editing apps, I set it up so that NONE of them 
> actually import the masters -- they're "referenced 
> libraries" only.
> 
> More work...   yes.

way the hell more work, with absolutely no benefit and a total
clusterfuck to maintain.

> Fewer problems...  yes.

definitely not.

you also neglected to say 'fewer capabilities and far less flexible."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95022

On 2016-10-01 03:03:34 +0000, nospam said:

>> I've never permitted any image editing app (iPhoto,
>> Aperture, Photos, etc.) to maintain and "organize" my originals.
> 
> a comment like that shows that you don't understand what those apps can
> do.
> 
> they do not organize anything. *you* do, in ways not possible with
> finder, with the app doing the grunt work *for* you. you are always in
> control.

You so, *IF* you learn how to operate the program so it can do what it 
was supposed to for you.  A lot of people have "control" issues with 
software, having spent a lifetime being burned by problematic or 
self-destructive programs and operating systems. So I can sympathize 
with control-meisters wanting to do it "their own way" even if it 
provides less control and is more time-consuming. First, you gotta feel 
comfortable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95025

In article <2016093023510139571-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> 
> >> I've never permitted any image editing app (iPhoto,
> >> Aperture, Photos, etc.) to maintain and "organize" my originals.
> > 
> > a comment like that shows that you don't understand what those apps can
> > do.
> > 
> > they do not organize anything. *you* do, in ways not possible with
> > finder, with the app doing the grunt work *for* you. you are always in
> > control.
> 
> You so, *IF* you learn how to operate the program so it can do what it 
> was supposed to for you. 

which is *very* easy, certainly much easier than doing it manually.

> A lot of people have "control" issues with 
> software, having spent a lifetime being burned by problematic or 
> self-destructive programs and operating systems. So I can sympathize 
> with control-meisters wanting to do it "their own way" even if it 
> provides less control and is more time-consuming. First, you gotta feel 
> comfortable.

they have ignorance issues, not control issues. 

the user is always in control, not an app. in fact, if someone is
obsessed about being in control, then an asset management app is
*ideal* because it gives the user *more* control than they otherwise
would have had.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95019

In message <bBFHz.431$lA2.378@fx15.iad> 
  John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
> On 9/30/16 1:11 PM, nospam wrote:
>> finder and terminal are not organizational tools.

> Maybe not terminal, but (for photos) the finder certainly is.

Nope.

> I've never permitted any image editing app (iPhoto, 
> Aperture, Photos, etc.) to maintain and "organize" my originals.

then you are living in the 1970s and have no ability to do any sensible
organization of your photos.

> Instead, on an entirely separate volume, I've created my own 
> "library" using the finder.

And it can't do 1% of what even the simplest management application can
do.

> When I take new photos, I create a new folder (with a 
> meaningful name and date), and copy the new pics into it.

Quick, find all the pictures that include your parents and their
grandkids. I'll give you a head start of 2 hours, because it will take me
less than 20 seconds to find all those photos in my library, and half of
that will be typing the query.

> These are nested into a single folder (in which all my 
> originals reside).

Whiuch is stupid, because photos fit into a wide variety of catagories
based on where they were taken, when they were taken, what the are of,
and possibly even what camera they were taken with.

Just last week I was looking for a picture my kid took of himself some
time around 2002-2005. So I searched for photos that contained him and
where taken with the camera he had use of (an old Canon Sureshot) and...
wow, there was the picture I wanted. Turns out it was January 2006.

Or, another picture I wanted a photo where he was dressed up as Harry
Potter for Halloween, so I typed in "broom" and there he was.

> In my photo editing apps, I set it up so that NONE of them 
> actually import the masters -- they're "referenced 
> libraries" only.

> More work...   yes.
> Fewer problems...  yes.

Less options? yes.
Total lack of organization? yep.
Inability to find anything other than knowing the exact date? Yep.
Lots of wasted time trying to tag photos to make up for total lack of
organization? Probably.


-- 
IT IS NOT YET MIDNIGHT?  'I shouldn't think it's more than a quarter
past eleven.' THEN WE HAVE THREE-QUARTERS OF AN HOUR 'How can you be
sure?' BECAUSE OF DRAMA, MISS FLITWORTH.. THE KIND OF DEATH WHO POSES
AGAINST THE SKYLINE AND GETS LIT UP BY LIGHTNING FLASHES, said Bill
Door, disapprovingly, DOESN'T TURN UP AT FIVE-AND-TWENTY PAST ELEVEN IF
HE CAN POSSIBLY TURN UP AT MIDNIGHT.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94988

On 2016-09-30, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>
> For images, Finder and Terminal are my organizing tools and 
> GraphicConverter does almost everything else.

LOL! I can quickly find any image I need in Photos and change the
organization in any way I want with rich metadata. To do that in the
Finder with file system based organization would be impossible or
cumbersome at best. That's how we did things in the 80s, for crying out
loud. I'm not interested in time travelling back to the past. Fuck that.
My computer should do the work for me - not the other way around.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94992

On 2016-09-30 18:18:51 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said:

> On 2016-09-30, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> For images, Finder and Terminal are my organizing tools and
>> GraphicConverter does almost everything else.
> 
> LOL! I can quickly find any image I need in Photos and change the
> organization in any way I want with rich metadata. To do that in the
> Finder with file system based organization would be impossible or
> cumbersome at best. That's how we did things in the 80s, for crying out
> loud. I'm not interested in time travelling back to the past. Fuck that.
> My computer should do the work for me - not the other way around.

That is why I use Lightroom.
-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94999

On 2016-09-30, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2016-09-30 18:18:51 +0000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> said:
>
>> On 2016-09-30, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> For images, Finder and Terminal are my organizing tools and
>>> GraphicConverter does almost everything else.
>> 
>> LOL! I can quickly find any image I need in Photos and change the
>> organization in any way I want with rich metadata. To do that in the
>> Finder with file system based organization would be impossible or
>> cumbersome at best. That's how we did things in the 80s, for crying out
>> loud. I'm not interested in time travelling back to the past. Fuck that.
>> My computer should do the work for me - not the other way around.
>
> That is why I use Lightroom.

It's good that we have a choice of several applications that offer such
powerful media management capabilities.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95018

In message <nsm5vk$24l$3@gioia.aioe.org> 
  Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 09-29-2016 22:52, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2016-09-30 02:53:10 +0000, "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> said:
>>
>>> On 09-29-2016 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> On 2016-09-29, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 09-28-2016 19:19, gtr wrote:
>>>>>> Is there any compelling reason to keep from trashing iPhoto?  I
>>>>>> accidentally run it sometimes and it gives me some jabber about
>>>>>> Photos,
>>>>>> I exit and run Photos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But completely discarding an "updated" program, like iMovie as an
>>>>>> example, hasn't always been such a good idea?  What about iPhoto?
>>>>>
>>>>> I never liked iPhoto, but I would occasionally load a bunch of pictures
>>>>> into it to use a feature I did like finding/matching faces, sorting by
>>>>> location.  So I was irritated that Photos did not have some of those
>>>>> features.  But it seems that Faces at least has been restored to
>>>>> Photos.
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea what you are talking about. Faces has always been in
>>>> Photos. The "Places" album is missing, but when you view the top-level
>>>> Photos section, each moment shows the location of the photos within it.
>>>> So geographical tags are still alive and well in Photos.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Haven't used it in a long time.  Probably forgetting what the feature
>>> was.  But I haven't forgotten that it pissed me off.
>>>
>>> Overall, I find both programs irritating, for the same reason that
>>> others find iTunes irritating, i.e., Apple knows better than I do how
>>> I want to organize things.
>>
>> Lightroom relieves all that frustration.

> For images, Finder and Terminal are my organizing tools and 
> GraphicConverter does almost everything else.  Once in a while, I let 
> Photos touch my images.

I suggest you look up the word "Organizing" and study the definitions.

Yesterday I did a search for the names of my kids and "dog" and
immediately found the pictures with both kids and the dog.

Your demented and sad flat "organization" can't do that.


-- 
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea
is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both
of them together is certain death.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95047

On 09-30-2016 23:02, Lewis wrote:
> In message <nsm5vk$24l$3@gioia.aioe.org>
>   Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid>, who knows how to snip, wrote:

>> For images, Finder and Terminal are my organizing tools and
>> GraphicConverter does almost everything else.  Once in a while, I let
>> Photos touch my images.
>
> I suggest you look up the word "Organizing" and study the definitions.
>
> Yesterday I did a search for the names of my kids and "dog" and
> immediately found the pictures with both kids and the dog.
>
> Your demented and sad flat "organization" can't do that.

I suggest you look up the word "flat" and study the definitions.

Whether demented, sad, or none of the above, my system has yet to tell 
me it knows better than I do where I should put things.


   "To know what you prefer, instead of humbly saying
    Amen to what the world tells you you should prefer,
    is to have kept your soul alive."
                          -- Robert Louis Stevenson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#95049

In article <nspj3v$lqm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Happy.Hobo
<Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:

> >> For images, Finder and Terminal are my organizing tools and
> >> GraphicConverter does almost everything else.  Once in a while, I let
> >> Photos touch my images.
> >
> > I suggest you look up the word "Organizing" and study the definitions.
> >
> > Yesterday I did a search for the names of my kids and "dog" and
> > immediately found the pictures with both kids and the dog.
> >
> > Your demented and sad flat "organization" can't do that.
> 
> I suggest you look up the word "flat" and study the definitions.
>
> Whether demented, sad, or none of the above, my system has yet to tell 
> me it knows better than I do where I should put things.

i suggest you read up on what asset managers can do and how they work,
because you haven't a clue. they don't tell you how to organize stuff.

what they do is make organizing way the hell easier and with a lot more
flexibility.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94987

On 2016-09-30, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
> On 09-29-2016 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2016-09-29, Happy.Hobo <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> wrote:
>>> On 09-28-2016 19:19, gtr wrote:
>>>> Is there any compelling reason to keep from trashing iPhoto?  I
>>>> accidentally run it sometimes and it gives me some jabber about Photos,
>>>> I exit and run Photos.
>>>>
>>>> But completely discarding an "updated" program, like iMovie as an
>>>> example, hasn't always been such a good idea?  What about iPhoto?
>>>
>>> I never liked iPhoto, but I would occasionally load a bunch of pictures
>>> into it to use a feature I did like finding/matching faces, sorting by
>>> location.  So I was irritated that Photos did not have some of those
>>> features.  But it seems that Faces at least has been restored to Photos.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about. Faces has always been in
>> Photos. The "Places" album is missing, but when you view the top-level
>> Photos section, each moment shows the location of the photos within it.
>> So geographical tags are still alive and well in Photos.
>>
>
> Haven't used it in a long time.  Probably forgetting what the feature 
> was.  But I haven't forgotten that it pissed me off.
>
> Overall, I find both programs irritating, for the same reason that 
> others find iTunes irritating, i.e., Apple knows better than I do how I 
> want to organize things.

Bull. I can organize my photos any way I want.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web