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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #22264 > unrolled thread

Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones...

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

Contents

  Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-06-04 21:57 -0700
    Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-05 05:11 +0000
      Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-06-04 23:58 -0700
    Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-05 18:35 +0000
      Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-05 19:24 +0000
        Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-06-06 08:05 +1000
          Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-06-05 23:51 -0400
            Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-06-06 18:46 +1000
              Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-06 19:26 +0000
              Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-06-08 20:58 +0000
                Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-12 19:44 +0200
                  Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-12 13:59 -0400
                  Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-12 22:21 +0000
                  Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-06-13 08:55 +1000
        Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 15:57 -0700
          Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-05 19:00 -0400
            Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-12 19:46 +0200
              Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-12 13:59 -0400
            Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-06-13 14:16 +0000
              Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-13 10:29 -0400
                Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-06-13 21:33 +0000
          Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-06 02:25 +0000
        Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-06 02:08 +0000
          Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-06 02:27 +0000
            Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-06 03:18 +0000
              Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-06 03:31 +0000
              Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-06-06 15:10 +0000
                Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-06 19:27 +0000
                  Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-06 23:30 +0000
                  Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-06-07 13:41 +0000
                    Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-07 21:04 +0000
                Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-06 23:29 +0000
        Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> - 2014-06-07 02:13 +0200
      Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-06-06 15:10 +0000
    Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new   ones... "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-06-06 01:03 +0000
      Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new   ones... Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-06-06 06:37 -0700
        Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-06-06 15:10 +0000
    Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-06-05 23:46 -0400
      Re: Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones... Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-06-06 06:29 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#22264 — Taking a long time to import photo(graph)s especially only for new ones...

Hello.

iPhoto '11 takes a long time to import from a Sony digital camera has 
thousands of photo(graphs). Most of them were already imported, but why 
does it need to rescan all of them to import the new ones (e.g., 250 of 
them)? Is the only way to skip is to remove these old ones from the 
digital camera's memory?

Thank you in advance. :)
-- 
"Oh, look what Kyle got me, it's a red Mega... Ants in the pants? Ants 
in the pants?! Ants in the Pants?!! ..." --Eric Cartman in South Park's 
Damien Episode (Season 1; Episode 8)
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#22265

On 2014-06-05, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> iPhoto '11 takes a long time to import from a Sony digital camera has 
> thousands of photo(graphs). Most of them were already imported, but why 
> does it need to rescan all of them to import the new ones (e.g., 250 of 
> them)?

Because they still exist on the camera, and you are asking iPhoto to
import what is on the camera. ; )

> Is the only way to skip is to remove these old ones from the 
> digital camera's memory?

Yep. Otherwise you'll have to wait while iPhoto compares what is on the
phone with what is on your computer, to skip importing duplicates.

> Thank you in advance. :)

iPhoto asks you whether you want to delete them after importing. Just
choose to delete them:

<http://support.apple.com/kb/ph2352>

-- 
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]

#22267

On 6/4/2014 10:11 PM PT, Jolly Roger typed:
 >
> iPhoto asks you whether you want to delete them after importing. Just
> choose to delete them:
>
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/ph2352>

Heh, my client wanted to keep his already imported photo(graph)s in his 
camera as a backup eventhough he has them on his MBP and external HDD 
(Time Machine). Argh. Whatever, enjoy waiting then.
-- 
"At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants 
said: 'O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts 
crush you (under foot) without knowing it.'" --Surah 27. The Ant, The 
Ants, line 18
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

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

#22318

In message <JKudncwMbp9fZRLOnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@earthlink.com> 
  Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> Hello.

> iPhoto '11 takes a long time to import from a Sony digital camera has 
> thousands of photo(graphs). Most of them were already imported, but why 
> does it need to rescan all of them to import the new ones (e.g., 250 of 
> them)? Is the only way to skip is to remove these old ones from the 
> digital camera's memory?

Why would you pull them directly off the camera instead of off the SD
card (or whatever cards).

-- 
He [Carrot] could lead armies, Angua thought. He really could. Some
people have inspired whole countries to great deeds because of the power
of their vision. And so could he. Not because he dreams about marching
hordes, or world domination, or an empire of a thousand years. Just
because he thinks that everyone's really decent underneath and would get
along just fine if only they made an effort, and he believes that
strongly it burns like a flame that is bigger than he is.

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

#22322

On 2014-06-05, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <JKudncwMbp9fZRLOnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@earthlink.com> 
>   Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>> Hello.
>
>> iPhoto '11 takes a long time to import from a Sony digital camera has 
>> thousands of photo(graphs). Most of them were already imported, but why 
>> does it need to rescan all of them to import the new ones (e.g., 250 of 
>> them)? Is the only way to skip is to remove these old ones from the 
>> digital camera's memory?
>
> Why would you pull them directly off the camera instead of off the SD
> card (or whatever cards).

Why wouldn't you? If you don't have a card reader, transferring from the
camera itself (with the card still in it) works just fine.

-- 
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]

#22324

In article <bvbuf8Fq80qU2@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2014-06-05, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > In message <JKudncwMbp9fZRLOnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@earthlink.com> 
> >   Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> >> Hello.
> >
> >> iPhoto '11 takes a long time to import from a Sony digital camera has 
> >> thousands of photo(graphs). Most of them were already imported, but why 
> >> does it need to rescan all of them to import the new ones (e.g., 250 of 
> >> them)? Is the only way to skip is to remove these old ones from the 
> >> digital camera's memory?
> >
> > Why would you pull them directly off the camera instead of off the SD
> > card (or whatever cards).
> 
> Why wouldn't you? If you don't have a card reader, transferring from the
> camera itself (with the card still in it) works just fine.

That's what I do and my Image Capture.app (rather than the Canon 
software) does a fine job, allowing me to import just what I want and 
to where. I think this software came with my Mac, at least it is Apple 
and I've had it a long time. 

Sticking in a USB is as easy if not more so than fiddling with cards. 
If you have a few cards, that's a different matter. But I have just 
one on philosophical grounds because I believe there should be less 
photos in the world

If anyone finds this philosophy compelling, let me be your guru. 
Please contribute to my movement. $50 to kick it along anyone?  
Michelle?

-- 
dorayme

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

#22352

dorayme:

> Sticking in a USB is as easy if not more so than fiddling with cards.

Not just wrong, but dead wrong.

> If you have a few cards, that's a different matter. But I have just 
> one on philosophical grounds because I believe there should be less 
> photos in the world.

Ah, so you insist on doing it the hard way on "philosophical" grounds.
Good thinking. Now take the final step and stop making photographs
altogether. Saves time, shrinks your carbon footprint, reduces entropy,
has no downside. Not your fault I have multiple DSLR bodies and am
contributing to the heat death of the Universe by making so many
photos.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

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

#22357

In article <050620142351138700%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> dorayme:
> 
> > Sticking in a USB is as easy if not more so than fiddling with cards.
> 
> Not just wrong, but dead wrong.
>

You have amazed me with your logic from time to time. For me, a 
moment's reflection tells me that if p is false, it cannot be more 
than false. But you seem to operate with a multi-value truth logic.

It's hardly wrong, in any case. Keep the cable near or even attached 
to a USB hub on your desktop. Plug the other end into the camera and 
Image Capture.app comes up (if you set up this way) and it takes no 
time after that to grab whatever you want. I don't think you 
understand the issue, choosing to go with what you do. You seem to 
think everyone's situation is millions of snaps on millions of cards.

> > If you have a few cards, that's a different matter. But I have just 
> > one on philosophical grounds because I believe there should be less 
> > photos in the world.
> 
> Ah, so you insist on doing it the hard way on "philosophical" grounds.

Again, your logic is amazing. This time it is about simple non 
sequitur. It does not follow from that I have one card (on ony ground, 
philosophical or not) that I do it the hard way when I have one card.

Why are you talking such rubbish, Davoud? 

> Good thinking. Now take the final step and stop making photographs
> altogether. Saves time, shrinks your carbon footprint, reduces entropy,
> has no downside. Not your fault I have multiple DSLR bodies and am
> contributing to the heat death of the Universe by making so many
> photos.

It has little to do with environmentalism (though perhaps it should). 
I cannot break the habit of taking pictures, but I have calmed down 
from the days of averaging 5 x 36 35mm rolls a day. Now without a 
darkroom, the smell of fixer and wetness, it's just not the same and I 
resent you enjoying digital so much. Now its just a few snaps with 
digitals (the Canon G11 and a small Sony) for me.

-- 
dorayme

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

#22392

In message <do_ray_me-DA2A98.18461206062014@aioe.org> 
  dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote:
> In article <050620142351138700%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> wrote:

>> dorayme:
>> 
>> > Sticking in a USB is as easy if not more so than fiddling with cards.
>> 
>> Not just wrong, but dead wrong.
>>

> You have amazed me with your logic from time to time. For me, a 
> moment's reflection tells me that if p is false, it cannot be more 
> than false. But you seem to operate with a multi-value truth logic.

Wrong: That's not a parrot, it's a cockatoo.

More wrong: That's not a parrot, it's a rhinoceros.

-- 
"There will always be women in rubber flirting with me."

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

#22565

On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:46:12 UTC, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> 
wrote:

> In article <050620142351138700%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> > dorayme:
> > 
> > > Sticking in a USB is as easy if not more so than fiddling with cards.
> > 
> > Not just wrong, but dead wrong.
> >
> 
> You have amazed me with your logic from time to time. For me, a 
> moment's reflection tells me that if p is false, it cannot be more 
> than false. But you seem to operate with a multi-value truth logic.
> 
> It's hardly wrong, in any case. Keep the cable near or even attached 
> to a USB hub on your desktop. Plug the other end into the camera and 
> Image Capture.app comes up (if you set up this way) and it takes no 
> time after that to grab whatever you want. I don't think you 
> understand the issue, choosing to go with what you do. You seem to 
> think everyone's situation is millions of snaps on millions of cards.

I have a single 32 GB card in my camera. That's more than enough to 
store HD movies and 12MB stills for a two-week vacation. After 
culling about 2/3 of the movies and half of the stills I am left 
with a 20-minute HD movie and several hundred stills.

Why would I want to mess with multiple cards? Oh, and I upload each 
day's movies and photos to the laptop each evening of the vacation, 
so each upload doesn't take very long. That way I have my photos 
secure in case I somehow lose the camera or have it stolen.

-- 
John Varela

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

#22818

On 2014-06-08, John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> I have a single 32 GB card in my camera. That's more than enough to 
> store HD movies and 12MB stills for a two-week vacation. After 
> culling about 2/3 of the movies and half of the stills I am left 
> with a 20-minute HD movie and several hundred stills.
>
> Why would I want to mess with multiple cards? Oh, and I upload each 
> day's movies and photos to the laptop each evening of the vacation, 
> so each upload doesn't take very long. That way I have my photos 
> secure in case I somehow lose the camera or have it stolen.

I have a friend who keeps the photos he wants on the cards and buys a new
card when the last one is nearly full. He also keeps copies on his computers
and on a separate backup disk.  He uses a local print shop for selected
photos; they have a machine which can print directly from cards.

For someone who is not very computer savvy I think his approach is pretty
good.

-- 
You can't look at a glass as half full or half empty if it's overflowing.

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

#22821

In article <6h5p6b-2k5.ln1@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture
<nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> I have a friend who keeps the photos he wants on the cards and buys a new
> card when the last one is nearly full. He also keeps copies on his computers
> and on a separate backup disk.  He uses a local print shop for selected
> photos; they have a machine which can print directly from cards.
> 
> For someone who is not very computer savvy I think his approach is pretty
> good.

it doesn't take much savviness to copy the images to the computer and
use an asset management app to keep track of them.

he's stuck in the film age and thinks the cards are film.

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

#22827

In message <6h5p6b-2k5.ln1@news.chingola.ch> 
  Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> On 2014-06-08, John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> I have a single 32 GB card in my camera. That's more than enough to 
>> store HD movies and 12MB stills for a two-week vacation. After 
>> culling about 2/3 of the movies and half of the stills I am left 
>> with a 20-minute HD movie and several hundred stills.
>>
>> Why would I want to mess with multiple cards? Oh, and I upload each 
>> day's movies and photos to the laptop each evening of the vacation, 
>> so each upload doesn't take very long. That way I have my photos 
>> secure in case I somehow lose the camera or have it stolen.

> I have a friend who keeps the photos he wants on the cards and buys a new
> card when the last one is nearly full. He also keeps copies on his computers
> and on a separate backup disk.  He uses a local print shop for selected
> photos; they have a machine which can print directly from cards.

> For someone who is not very computer savvy I think his approach is pretty
> good.

It's an extremely expensive way to backup your photos.

-- 
Hudd: 'I've just done this radio show where I never met any of the other
actors and I didn't understand what any of it was about' Moore: 'Ah, yes
I expect that's the thing I'm in.'

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

#22828

In article <6h5p6b-2k5.ln1@news.chingola.ch>,
 Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> I have a friend who keeps the photos he wants on the cards and buys a new
> card when the last one is nearly full. He also keeps copies on his computers
> and on a separate backup disk.  He uses a local print shop for selected
> photos; they have a machine which can print directly from cards.
> 
> For someone who is not very computer savvy I think his approach is pretty
> good.

And potentially pretty expensive!

-- 
dorayme

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

#22329

In article <bvbuf8Fq80qU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2014-06-05, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > In message <JKudncwMbp9fZRLOnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@earthlink.com> 
> >   Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> >> Hello.
> >
> >> iPhoto '11 takes a long time to import from a Sony digital camera has 
> >> thousands of photo(graphs). Most of them were already imported, but why 
> >> does it need to rescan all of them to import the new ones (e.g., 250 of 
> >> them)? Is the only way to skip is to remove these old ones from the 
> >> digital camera's memory?
> >
> > Why would you pull them directly off the camera instead of off the SD
> > card (or whatever cards).
> 
> Why wouldn't you? If you don't have a card reader, transferring from the
> camera itself (with the card still in it) works just fine.

Two reasons:

1. A card reader might be faster than the camera.
2. Saving the camera's battery power.

-- 
Jim Gibson

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

#22331

In article <050620141557024060%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson
<jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >> iPhoto '11 takes a long time to import from a Sony digital camera has 
> > >> thousands of photo(graphs). Most of them were already imported, but why 
> > >> does it need to rescan all of them to import the new ones (e.g., 250 of 
> > >> them)? Is the only way to skip is to remove these old ones from the 
> > >> digital camera's memory?
> > >
> > > Why would you pull them directly off the camera instead of off the SD
> > > card (or whatever cards).
> > 
> > Why wouldn't you? If you don't have a card reader, transferring from the
> > camera itself (with the card still in it) works just fine.
> 
> Two reasons:
> 
> 1. A card reader might be faster than the camera.

it usually is, but if you don't have a card reader handy, then the
camera will be faster.

> 2. Saving the camera's battery power.

it doesn't take that long to copy photos and it uses minimal power
anyway.

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

#22819

On 2014-06-05, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <050620141557024060%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson
><jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > >> iPhoto '11 takes a long time to import from a Sony digital camera has 
>> > >> thousands of photo(graphs). Most of them were already imported, but why 
>> > >> does it need to rescan all of them to import the new ones (e.g., 250 of 
>> > >> them)? Is the only way to skip is to remove these old ones from the 
>> > >> digital camera's memory?
>> > >
>> > > Why would you pull them directly off the camera instead of off the SD
>> > > card (or whatever cards).
>> > 
>> > Why wouldn't you? If you don't have a card reader, transferring from the
>> > camera itself (with the card still in it) works just fine.
>> 
>> Two reasons:
>> 
>> 1. A card reader might be faster than the camera.
>
> it usually is, but if you don't have a card reader handy, then the
> camera will be faster.
>
>> 2. Saving the camera's battery power.
>
> it doesn't take that long to copy photos and it uses minimal power
> anyway.

That wasn't the case with my old iBook.  It only supported USB-1 so it
was slow and hammered the camera battery.

-- 
You can't look at a glass as half full or half empty if it's overflowing.

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

#22820

In article <7k5p6b-2k5.ln1@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture
<nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> >> 1. A card reader might be faster than the camera.
> >
> > it usually is, but if you don't have a card reader handy, then the
> > camera will be faster.
> >
> >> 2. Saving the camera's battery power.
> >
> > it doesn't take that long to copy photos and it uses minimal power
> > anyway.
> 
> That wasn't the case with my old iBook.  It only supported USB-1 so it
> was slow and hammered the camera battery.

that's not the fault of the camera.

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

#22839

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 23:00:41 UTC, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> 
wrote:

> In article <050620141557024060%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson
> <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > >> iPhoto '11 takes a long time to import from a Sony digital camera has 
> > > >> thousands of photo(graphs). Most of them were already imported, but why 
> > > >> does it need to rescan all of them to import the new ones (e.g., 250 of 
> > > >> them)? Is the only way to skip is to remove these old ones from the 
> > > >> digital camera's memory?
> > > >
> > > > Why would you pull them directly off the camera instead of off the SD
> > > > card (or whatever cards).
> > > 
> > > Why wouldn't you? If you don't have a card reader, transferring from the
> > > camera itself (with the card still in it) works just fine.
> > 
> > Two reasons:
> > 
> > 1. A card reader might be faster than the camera.
> 
> it usually is, but if you don't have a card reader handy, then the
> camera will be faster.
> 
> > 2. Saving the camera's battery power.
> 
> it doesn't take that long to copy photos and it uses minimal power
> anyway.

Unless you forget to turn off the camera afterwards, which I often 
do. Which is why I have two spare batteries. One card; three 
batteries.

-- 
John Varela

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

#22840

In article <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-TSV14iPTqRVJ@localhost>, John Varela
<newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:

> > > 2. Saving the camera's battery power.
> > 
> > it doesn't take that long to copy photos and it uses minimal power
> > anyway.
> 
> Unless you forget to turn off the camera afterwards, which I often 
> do. Which is why I have two spare batteries. One card; three 
> batteries.

a card reader is a lot cheaper than spare batteries.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web