[cphoffman42]

[quote name='tatilsever']
>

cphoffman42 said:

> But the real question is, has Apple fixed the terrible file management system behind iPhoto? Does it still create multiple copies of every picture you import ("original", jpeg preview, modified, separate copies for each iPod or Apple TV you are syncing to, etc.)?
A bit of a stretch to call it "terrible". Let's see... If you don't modify photos, it does not create any in the modified folder. Without them you could never get back to the original versions. I sync with AppleTV, it does not create any copies for that, as it seems to sync full size. The thumbnails are very small, so they cannot take up that much space, but I gather it speeds up scrolling through all these pictures. Along with all the other data files, iPhoto overhead is less than 10% for me if I leave aside the modified folder. That's fairly good...

Except it creates a "modified" image if I change the orientation from horizontal to vertical. Seriously, Lightroom can maintain a full history of changes I've made to an image without making multiple copies - it just keeps the original and stores information on all the changes so that the image appears correctly when I look at it. Why can't iPhoto do this?

[cphoffman42]

[quote name='veggiedude']
> [quote name='folklore']
> >

bugjuice said:

> > I personally don't like how iPhoto makes copies and copies of each photo, making the space it consumes, monstrous.OTOH, the multiple thumbnails make iPhoto very fast to preview images, even when the library is huge (especially when you use the preset sizes). Keeping an "original" copy allows users to revert to an unaltered photo. Keeping additional copies for iPods and AppleTVs keeps the sync process from taking forever. Resizing the photos on the fly for each sync would get old in a hurry.
>
> It's not like Apple's engineers just decided to make copies willy-nilly in order to waste space. They made a conscious decision to sacrifice hard drive space in order to gain performance.
>
> I'm okay with that. I can always buy more hard drive space.
It is called non-destructive editing.

Yeah, but Photoshop and Lightroom do non-destructive editing without creating multiple copies of the image and quadrupling the space needed. For those of us with large photo libraries made up mostly of raw files, iPhoto is a huge hog. That Lightroom (a program that does the same and much more) has solved this problem proves that Apple could do things to fix the issue if they wanted, but instead they add stuff like faces. I get that better hard drive usage is probably not going to inspire a lot of people to upgrade, whiles faces might, but it's still really frustrating. Maybe I wouldn't be as irritated if I could set iWork and iTunes to sync with images in Lightroom so that I could avoid using iPhoto entirely, but I can't. :(

Sorry to rant about this - I know this isn't something everyone cares about.

[folklore]

[quote name='cphoffman42']

> [quote name='veggiedude']
> >

folklore said:

> > It's not like Apple's engineers just decided to make copies willy-nilly in order to waste space. They made a conscious decision to sacrifice hard drive space in order to gain performance.
> >
> > I'm okay with that. I can always buy more hard drive space.
> It is called non-destructive editing.
>

Yeah, but Photoshop and Lightroom do non-destructive editing without creating multiple copies of the image and quadrupling the space needed. For those of us with large photo libraries made up mostly of raw files, iPhoto is a huge hog. That Lightroom (a program that does the same and much more) has solved this problem proves that Apple could do things to fix the issue if they wanted, but instead they add stuff like faces. I get that better hard drive usage is probably not going to inspire a lot of people to upgrade, whiles faces might, but it's still really frustrating. Maybe I wouldn't be as irritated if I could set iWork and iTunes to sync with images in Lightroom so that I could avoid using iPhoto entirely, but I can't. :(


Sorry to rant about this - I know this isn't something everyone cares about.

A quick point of fact: only the "Modified" folder has anything to do with non-destructive editing. The thumbnails don't. I mention it because that was part of the discussion earlier in the thread. Keeping a set of thumbnail images is all about speed.

As far as Lightroom v. iPhoto... that's probably not a great comparison. Lightroom's direct competitor isn't iPhoto, it's Aperture. If I recall properly, Aperture does non-destructive editing by applying the edits on-the-fly. That's one way to do non-destructive editing. iPhoto takes the other route, creating multiple versions (modified and original) of the file.

It's not that Apple ignores disk use issues. Like I said in an earlier post, it's all trade-offs. Applying edits on-the-fly makes sense when you have oodles of RAW images. RAW images are large. And people that have oodles of RAW images have heretofore been professionals - and that's the market space for Aperture and Lightroom. Pros are the core market for those tools.

I'll agree that iPhoto's handling of RAW images leaves quite a bit to be desired compared to other tools like Photoshop. But consumers haven't used RAW until very recently. Consumers have mostly used one form of lossy compression or another (usually JPEG). JPEG images have been small enough that creating a few copies here and there wasn't a problem. And it's been preferable to create those copies, using more disk space, rather than render edits (and thumbnails) on-the-fly which would greatly decrease speed. That is especially true with G3 and G4 processors.

The equation is slowly changing as consumers move more into RAW, and as cameras increase the megapixel count even JPEGs have gotten larger. Intel's processors also perform better. It might eventually make sense to render images on-the-fly in iPhoto. I'm sure Apple's engineers are looking into it.

One other wrinkle: At this point, it would basically require a rewrite of iPhoto's core code to change how it manages images. And after the uproar over the iMovie rewrite, I'm not sure that's a good idea. :)

[chuchomtz]

"Solid Facebook integration"???
Facebook is not syncing back taggs to my iphoto library... An I'm not the only one....
And what about the Faces merging with each other bug!!
I spent 3 days tagging my library and yesterday 10 faces appeared merged including mine!!!
I heard this isn't an isolated issue
When will Apple respond to our prayers?

[shaeleigh]

Since when can you get Picasa for Mac?

[InvalidScreen]

shaeleigh said:

Since when can you get Picasa for Mac?

Since MacWorld. Try here -> http://picasa.google.com/mac/

[rab777hp]

The geotag mapping feature looks like it will work well, I can kind of map out my life with pictures from my G1 (automatically geotagged)

[grandad]

I want to add text to photos for tutorials, why won't iphoto do this?

[Krikke]

In case you have an iPhone 3G, there are apps available that turn you iPhone into a GPS logger. The one I'm using is GeoLogTag. It exports GPX file(s) that you can use in combination with a geotagging app like HoudahGeo to geotag your photos before you import them into iPhoto '09.
In case you're interested in geotagging Flickr photos, GeoLogTag can geotag these without using GPX files. It can be done from within the app (and that's really cool!).

[OlsonBW]

I wish they'd offer the programs 'a la carte'... I don't use iPhoto any more (I use Aperture 2.0), I'm not a musician, so I don't use Garageband (how many people REALLY use that program anyways??? I only know ONE person who plays a musical instrument, and even HE doesn't use it), and the ONLY update I wanted from this entire bundle was the iWeb update that allows for FTP file transfers.. definitely not worth paying $79 for. I would have been fine keeping my existing iDVD and iMovie.. if I could have upgraded iWeb alone, I would have been willing to pay $15 or $20 to do so.

It could also be said that people ONLY use GarageBand or user another program.

To be fair, if you use just this feature 12 times a year (I'm assuming you definitely use it more), the reduction in the hassle of sending your website to a folder and then using a separate FTP program is worth the $79 plus tax.

[focker]

chuchomtz said:

"Solid Facebook integration"???

Facebook is not syncing back taggs to my iphoto library... An I'm not the only one....

And what about the Faces merging with each other bug!!
I spent 3 days tagging my library and yesterday 10 faces appeared merged including mine!!!
I heard this isn't an isolated issue

When will Apple respond to our prayers?

Amen to that, the merging problem is terrible. I have a few thousand photos that merged from 10 names into two names.

[1firewiredartist]

I wish that it would run under 10.4.11 or that Apple would continue to print books for past versions of iPhoto...

[slpark]

Schools use Garageband a lot.

[Noreenkilby]

I completely agree and unfortunately, I've spent many, many hours fixing my files. I've tried storing them on an external drive but that had it's own issues. Then I put in a 320GB drive. That worked really well except that the transfer from the external to the new drive was not successful and I had at least 3000 pics with "missing" originals. I finally got that fixed last week (another adventure of more than 5 hours of work).

I guess I should move to Aperture. I just really like the ease and integration of iPhoto.