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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #72962 > unrolled thread

Photos

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

Contents

  Photos Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-09 17:47 -0700
    Re: Photos tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-04-09 18:02 -0700
      Re: Photos Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-09 18:41 -0700
        Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-09 18:48 -0700
          Re: Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-10 12:14 +0000
      Re: Photos awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-04-10 05:29 -0700
    Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-09 18:24 -0700
      Re: Photos John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-09 19:42 -0700
        Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-09 20:24 -0700
          Re: Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-10 12:19 +0000
            Re: Photos Me, myself and I <baiheli.pip.li@xs4all.nl> - 2015-04-10 19:50 +0200
              Re: Photos Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-10 13:53 -0700
                Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-10 15:43 -0700
                  Re: Photos Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-10 22:56 -0700
                    Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-11 01:23 -0700
                      Re: Photos Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-04-11 18:25 -0700
                        Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-11 18:53 -0700
              Re: Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-11 12:12 +0000
                Re: Photos Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 09:24 -0400
                  Re: Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-11 16:02 +0000
                    Re: Photos erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-04-11 16:00 -0500
                Re: Photos erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-04-11 15:59 -0500
                  Re: Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-11 17:28 -0400
                    Re: Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-11 22:01 +0000
                      Re: Photos Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 19:03 -0400
                        Re: Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-11 19:05 -0400
                          Re: Photos Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 19:25 -0400
                          Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-11 16:50 -0700
                            Re: Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-11 20:28 -0400
                              Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-11 17:43 -0700
                                Re: Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-11 20:56 -0400
                                  Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-11 18:47 -0700
                                    Re: Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-11 22:23 -0400
                                      Re: Photos erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-04-13 11:45 -0500
                                    Re: Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-12 02:36 +0000
                                  Re: Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-11 21:51 -0400
                                    Re: Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-11 22:23 -0400
                                      Re: Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-11 22:40 -0400
                                        Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-11 19:47 -0700
                                        Re: Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-11 22:50 -0400
                                          Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-11 20:17 -0700
                                          Re: Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-12 00:11 -0400
                                            Re: Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-12 07:16 -0400
                                              Re: Photos erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-04-13 11:43 -0500
                                    Re: Photos erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-04-13 11:40 -0500
                                      Re: Photos John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-13 10:03 -0700
                                      Re: Photos dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-04-14 08:00 +1000
                                        Re: Photos sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-04-15 22:38 +0000
                                          Re: Photos erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-04-16 18:37 -0500
                                Re: Photos David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2015-04-11 20:20 -0500
                                  Re: Photos John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-11 18:31 -0700
                                    Re: Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-11 21:40 -0400
                                    Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-11 19:12 -0700
                                  Re: Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-11 21:40 -0400
                                  Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-11 18:51 -0700
                                Re: Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-12 02:34 +0000
                              Re: Photos John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-11 18:29 -0700
                                Re: Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-11 21:40 -0400
                                Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-11 19:10 -0700
                          Re: Photos erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-04-13 11:36 -0500
                    Re: Photos erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-04-13 11:34 -0500
                      Re: Photos John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-13 10:05 -0700
                        Re: Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-13 13:18 -0400
                          Re: Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-13 13:28 -0400
                        Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-13 10:46 -0700
                          Re: Photos John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-13 19:01 -0700
                        Re: Photos erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-04-16 18:39 -0500
                          Re: Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-17 00:09 +0000
                            Re: Photos erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-04-17 13:02 -0500
                              Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-17 11:53 -0700
                              Re: Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-17 19:06 +0000
                                Re: Photos erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2015-04-17 18:57 -0500
                                Re: Photos John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-04-18 15:09 -0700
                      Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-13 10:47 -0700
                        Re: Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-13 14:59 -0400
                          Re: Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-04-13 15:27 -0700
    Re: Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-10 12:07 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#73154

On 2015-04-12 02:50:40 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <5529db0f$0$34452$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
>>> why wouldn't they? what developer *doesn't* add features in later
>>> versions?
>> 
>> The developper who decides there are to be no new versions.
> 
> that's very rare and usually because it's shitty freeware.
> 
> do you really think apple is going to abandon photos just months after
> releasing it?? what are you smoking?

No, because they have achieved just what Ive intended, with Photos they 
have the OSX analog of the iOS Photos. They are indistiguishable from 
one another. I doubt that there will be any Apple initiated changes 
other than superficial and matching tweaks in the iOS-OSX cousins.

Apple might sometime in the future make a second attempt at an Aperture 
type app, but who would trust them if they did, particularly since 
their potential customers for any such app would already be using 
Lightroom and have been seriously burned.
To go with a new pro/semi-pro/enthusiast app now, the customers would 
have to be very trusting followers of Jon Ive. Personnally I don't 
believe I can trust Ive to determine what I need, or should use in a 
photo editor or asset manager.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

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

#73157

On 15-04-11 22:50, nospam wrote:

> do you really think apple is going to abandon photos just months after
> releasing it?? what are you smoking?

If you are a teenage girl and only concerned about selfies and pictures
of your boyfriend-du-jour (promptly deleting them once you break up and
find next boyfriend) then it doesn't matter.

But if you are collecting a life's worth of images, then longevity
becomes important. When Apple pulls the rug from under an application,
you become entirely dependent on a process to migrate to another
application and this is a real pain. That is what relying on a
proprietary photo storage database becomes dangerous when you care about
long term access to images.

I can't judge how well Apple converts iPhoto database to the new
proprietary format, and whether all of the metadata is converted
properly.  (for instance, data stored in iPhoto database such as
comments and not stored in exif inside the image file).

If the conversion is done fully and truly complete, then it is just a
pain to have to go through it and verify it.

Same for aperture. You will have to buy a new app to replace it and
learn about that new app. And swallow your pride if you swore never to
buy anything from Adobe anymore.

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

#73163

In article <5529f087$0$24568$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> But if you are collecting a life's worth of images, then longevity
> becomes important. When Apple pulls the rug from under an application,
> you become entirely dependent on a process to migrate to another
> application and this is a real pain. That is what relying on a
> proprietary photo storage database becomes dangerous when you care about
> long term access to images.

thy pulled the rug from an application that wasn't selling very well.
plenty of companies do that.

> I can't judge how well Apple converts iPhoto database to the new
> proprietary format, and whether all of the metadata is converted
> properly.  (for instance, data stored in iPhoto database such as
> comments and not stored in exif inside the image file).

using a separate database is the correct way to do it.

the original images should *never* be modified.

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

#73197

In article <120420150716534914%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> the original images should *never* be modified.

That's why I keep them in nested folders rather than somethingPhoto.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

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

#73196

In article <5529cf87$0$19999$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 15-04-11 20:56, nospam wrote:
> 
> > while photos won't ever be a full replacement for aperture, it will
> > gain functionality over time, particularly with non-destructive
> > plug-ins.
> 
> 
> That is fine if you have FAITH. You can believe Apple will improve
> product X in the future.

Yosemite is a collection of downgrades of software demonstrating yet 
again that Apple software is going down, not up.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

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

#73200

On 4/13/15   PDT 9:40 AM, erilar wrote:
> In article <5529cf87$0$19999$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>,
>   JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 15-04-11 20:56, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> while photos won't ever be a full replacement for aperture, it will
>>> gain functionality over time, particularly with non-destructive
>>> plug-ins.
>>
>>
>> That is fine if you have FAITH. You can believe Apple will improve
>> product X in the future.
>
> Yosemite is a collection of downgrades of software demonstrating yet
> again that Apple software is going down, not up.
>
Please try to use correct terms; we understand your disdain.

Downgrading software means to replace a newer version with a previous 
version.

You apparently mean "degraded" or "crippled" or " changes I don't like".

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

#73211

In article <drache-10B993.11405713042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
 erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:

> Yosemite is a collection of downgrades of software demonstrating yet 
> again that Apple software is going down, not up.

I am reminded of a forceful argument that was put to an Apple mailing 
list group years ago by a major subscriber about Apple being primarily 
hardware company. Things have changed over the years but maybe a Mac 
is a better Mac, not a particularly cheap one, if it is decked out in 
better quality third party software.

-- 
dorayme

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

#73278

On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:00:57 +1000, dorayme wrote:

> In article <drache-10B993.11405713042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
>  erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Yosemite is a collection of downgrades of software demonstrating yet
>> again that Apple software is going down, not up.
> 
> I am reminded of a forceful argument that was put to an Apple mailing
> list group years ago by a major subscriber about Apple being primarily
> hardware company. Things have changed over the years but maybe a Mac is
> a better Mac, not a particularly cheap one, if it is decked out in
> better quality third party software.

Do you mean if an iMac is a better computer if it were running, say, 
Linux, instead of OSX?

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

#73297

In article <mgmp94$jds$1@dont-email.me>,
 sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:00:57 +1000, dorayme wrote:
> 
> > In article <drache-10B993.11405713042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
> >  erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> Yosemite is a collection of downgrades of software demonstrating yet
> >> again that Apple software is going down, not up.
> > 
> > I am reminded of a forceful argument that was put to an Apple mailing
> > list group years ago by a major subscriber about Apple being primarily
> > hardware company. Things have changed over the years but maybe a Mac is
> > a better Mac, not a particularly cheap one, if it is decked out in
> > better quality third party software.
> 
> Do you mean if an iMac is a better computer if it were running, say, 
> Linux, instead of OSX?

I don't know enough about Linux to say, but these constant "up"grades 
don't offer anything I have any use for and every single one except for 
three, two very small, has dropped something I found useful or even 
vital, without ev3r offering anything new of any earthly use for me.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

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

#73128

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On Saturday, 11 April 2015 17:43 -0700, 
 in article <2015041117432350410-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMme.com>, 
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2015-04-12 00:28:04 +0000, nospam said:

>> apple doesn't need to make every app with every feature.

> Then the hype for Photos needs to be toned down. It is all too 
> obvious that Apple has left the field of grahics apps for the photo 
> enthusiast, ...

Where did you get the notion Apple ever entered the field?

-- 
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com>
 Be kind to animals; kiss a shark.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlUpyEgACgkQUrwpmRoS3usIVwCg2izWJeR7Q+FRNo3OXD0rX0Cn
Jq0An3Su3uaOdP4EZWxUPhR3YazPdnHn
=TNMi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#73133

On 4/11/15   PDT 6:20 PM, David Ritz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> On Saturday, 11 April 2015 17:43 -0700,
>   in article <2015041117432350410-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMme.com>,
>   Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-04-12 00:28:04 +0000, nospam said:
>
>>> apple doesn't need to make every app with every feature.
>
>> Then the hype for Photos needs to be toned down. It is all too
>> obvious that Apple has left the field of grahics apps for the photo
>> enthusiast, ...
>
> Where did you get the notion Apple ever entered the field?
>
Hah! They did make an effort, and I tried Aperture a long time ago, but 
LR had a good jump.

Anyone remember the size of v1 of LR?

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

#73135

In article <mgchrm$3lt$2@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> Then the hype for Photos needs to be toned down. It is all too
> >> obvious that Apple has left the field of grahics apps for the photo
> >> enthusiast, ...
> >
> > Where did you get the notion Apple ever entered the field?
> >
> Hah! They did make an effort, and I tried Aperture a long time ago, but 
> LR had a good jump.

aperture never caught up.

> Anyone remember the size of v1 of LR?

v 1.3 was 72.8 mb

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

#73144

On 2015-04-12 01:31:26 +0000, John McWilliams said:

> On 4/11/15   PDT 6:20 PM, David Ritz wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>> 
>> On Saturday, 11 April 2015 17:43 -0700,
>> in article <2015041117432350410-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMme.com>,
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-04-12 00:28:04 +0000, nospam said:
>> 
>>>> apple doesn't need to make every app with every feature.
>> 
>>> Then the hype for Photos needs to be toned down. It is all too
>>> obvious that Apple has left the field of grahics apps for the photo
>>> enthusiast, ...
>> 
>> Where did you get the notion Apple ever entered the field?
>> 
> Hah! They did make an effort, and I tried Aperture a long time ago, but 
> LR had a good jump.
> 
> Anyone remember the size of v1 of LR?

I have the LR Beta on my old, dust gathering, G4.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

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

#73134

In article <alpine.OSX.2.20.1504112013400.47488@mako.ath.cx>, David
Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote:

> > Then the hype for Photos needs to be toned down. It is all too 
> > obvious that Apple has left the field of grahics apps for the photo 
> > enthusiast, ...
> 
> Where did you get the notion Apple ever entered the field?

aperture

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

#73139

On 2015-04-12 01:20:08 +0000, David Ritz said:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
> 
> On Saturday, 11 April 2015 17:43 -0700,
>  in article <2015041117432350410-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMme.com>,
>  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-04-12 00:28:04 +0000, nospam said:
> 
>>> apple doesn't need to make every app with every feature.
> 
>> Then the hype for Photos needs to be toned down. It is all too
>> obvious that Apple has left the field of grahics apps for the photo
>> enthusiast, ...
> 
> Where did you get the notion Apple ever entered the field?

I never did.
They did however, try to imply that Aperture was their pro/enthusiast 
photo asset manager/editor/RAW processor.
I never bit.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

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

#73149

In message <2015041117432350410-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMme.com> 
  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2015-04-12 00:28:04 +0000, nospam said:

>> In article <201504111650363048-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMme.com>,
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> Even Photos basic filtering and touch up are much better than the
>>>>>> similar features in iPhoto.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's what gawd invented Photoshop for. You're the one who won't let
>>>>> Adobe's lips kiss his, though, right?
>>>> 
>>>> photoshop is overkill for the vast majority of images.
>>> 
>>> ...and iPhoto & Photos are inadequate.
>> 
>> for most people they're more than adequate.
>> 
>> for photo enthusiasts like you or i, they are not. that's why there is
>> lightroom, photoshop, capture 1, etc.
>> 
>>> Hell! At least those that don't
>>> want to go down the Adobe road can use Pixelmator. That supports a
>>> layered environment and has some powerful features which it seems the
>>> folks at 1 Infinity Loop, are unable to incorporate in an Apple image
>>> editor.
>> 
>> apple doesn't need to make every app with every feature.

> Then the hype for Photos needs to be toned down.

IIf you mean the hype against Photos, I agree.

No one has said Photos is a replacement for Photoshop. All anyone has
said is that it is better than iPhoto in many ways.

People like you and Warren, who would never ever use iPhoto, have
crapped on how terrible Photos is and how much worse than the old
iPhotos it is.

You are both wrong. Photos is a marked improvement especially in speed
and in image editing capabilities.

> It is all too obvious that Apple has left the field of grahics apps
> for the photo enthusiast,

THat entirely dependss on where you draw the line for "Photo Enthusiast"
and, since it is a meaningless phrase in and of itself, that evaluation
is also meaningless.

Does Photos handle libraries of 100,000 images without crapping out? Yes
it does.

Does Photos offer some very capable image editing features that are much
improved over iPhoto? Yep.

Is Photos more stable than iPhoto? In my experience, yes, even from the
first beta.

Is Photos as feature rich at organizing and editing photos as Aperture
was? Nope, and no one said that.

Is it stupid that people who wold never use Photos and have long moved
to more advanced (and extra costs) solutions shit all over Photos? Yes,
that is *very* stupid.

> and with the blow to the head of Aperture, any pretense at offering a 
> pro, or semi-pro level asset manager/RAW processor has been abandoned.

iPhoto was *never* intended for professionals. I won't comment on
semi-pro because that is a weasel phrase that means anything anyone
wants it to mean.

As for what Apple is doing in the future with Photos, that is also
speculation and irrelevant to what it is today: a much improved
replacement to iPhoto.

-- 
"A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely
foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.: -
Douglas Adams

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

#73132

On 4/11/15   PDT 5:28 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <201504111650363048-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMme.com>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Even Photos basic filtering and touch up are much better than the
>>>>> similar features in iPhoto.
>>>>
>>>> That's what gawd invented Photoshop for. You're the one who won't let
>>>> Adobe's lips kiss his, though, right?
>>>
>>> photoshop is overkill for the vast majority of images.
>>
>> ...and iPhoto & Photos are inadequate.
>
> for most people they're more than adequate.
>
> for photo enthusiasts like you or i, they are not. that's why there is
> lightroom, photoshop, capture 1, etc.
>
>> Hell! At least those that don't
>> want to go down the Adobe road can use Pixelmator. That supports a
>> layered environment and has some powerful features which it seems the
>> folks at 1 Infinity Loop, are unable to incorporate in an Apple image
>> editor.
>
> apple doesn't need to make every app with every feature.
>
WaaaadaMinute!!! What happened to the folks who harp on getting it right 
in camera??
:)

I shoot RAW, frequently frame too tightly for todays world of hi-rez and 
easy cropping in post. LR is my fav., but I do use Photos for my iPhone 
pix. Have considered using LR for all, but just haven't got a round tuit 
yet.

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

#73136

In article <mgchof$3lt$1@dont-email.me>, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> WaaaadaMinute!!! What happened to the folks who harp on getting it right 
> in camera??
> :)

that's always preferred but not every situation is ideal.

aperture and lightroom are at their core, asset managers. you don't
*have* to adjust anything. you can organize, rate, print, etc.

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

#73143

On 2015-04-12 01:29:42 +0000, John McWilliams said:

> On 4/11/15   PDT 5:28 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <201504111650363048-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMme.com>,
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> Even Photos basic filtering and touch up are much better than the
>>>>>> similar features in iPhoto.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's what gawd invented Photoshop for. You're the one who won't let
>>>>> Adobe's lips kiss his, though, right?
>>>> 
>>>> photoshop is overkill for the vast majority of images.
>>> 
>>> ...and iPhoto & Photos are inadequate.
>> 
>> for most people they're more than adequate.
>> 
>> for photo enthusiasts like you or i, they are not. that's why there is
>> lightroom, photoshop, capture 1, etc.
>> 
>>> Hell! At least those that don't
>>> want to go down the Adobe road can use Pixelmator. That supports a
>>> layered environment and has some powerful features which it seems the
>>> folks at 1 Infinity Loop, are unable to incorporate in an Apple image
>>> editor.
>> 
>> apple doesn't need to make every app with every feature.
>> 
> WaaaadaMinute!!! What happened to the folks who harp on getting it 
> right in camera??
> :)
> 
> I shoot RAW, frequently frame too tightly for todays world of hi-rez 
> and easy cropping in post. LR is my fav., but I do use Photos for my 
> iPhone pix. Have considered using LR for all, but just haven't got a 
> round tuit yet.

With LR Mobile I have a collection with *auto upload* enabled, synced 
to LR5 on my Mac. That sends all shots from my iPhone to my desktop 
LR5. That shows up in LR5 *Collections* as a *Collection Set* which 
wraps the iPhone Camera Roll collection:
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_88.jpg>

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

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

#73195

In article <110420151905201357%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <5529a83a$0$26180$b1db1813$79461190@news.astraweb.com>,
> Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Even Photos basic filtering and touch up are much better than the
> > > similar features in iPhoto.
> > 
> > That's what gawd invented Photoshop for. You're the one who won't let 
> > Adobe's lips kiss his, though, right?
> 
> photoshop is overkill for the vast majority of images.

Exactly, but "Photos" is inadequate.  I'm having so many other problems 
with Yosemite downgrades that I haven't looked at foto editors; I just 
do it on the old laptop.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web