Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

jindrich · Feb 15, 2005, 01:43 PM

hi, first must anticipate that these comments regard iphoto4, as my copy of ilife05 hasnt arrived yet.

Doing data backup discovered that iphoto automatically duplicates many photos (retaining the "original") even just to turn photos upside down, that is, for vertical photos to be displayed vertically.

Ok, but... the size of the original photo and it's "properly vertical" mate is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!
Every single photo automatically vertically rearranged by iphoto, ocuppied anything from 300-500KB LESS than the original. That only means that iphoto is doing a RECOMPRESSION of the jpeg file in order to present it vertically. THIS IS VERY WRONG. I cannot believe apple gave this behaviuor an ok.

does iphoto5 do that as well?

To date, i've used iphoto only for display purposes, not to manage my photo library (have a pro digital camera), as didn't like the way iphoto organized and duplicated the libaray without control. Now i see this.

Also i've heard that iphoto05 dont really support RAWS. What it does instead is a jpeg conversion. Plus any of the adjustments in edit mode are always destructive, meaning that every adjustment recompresses the file again and again, losing quality in every step. Also, the importing from RAW is 8bit instead of 10bit.

I had very high hopes for iphoto05, but i'm afraid it's still an app catered only for the very low profile consumer, not even for a mid level one.

Am i wrong?

Ganesha · Feb 15, 2005, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by jindrich:

Doing data backup discovered that iphoto automatically duplicates many photos (retaining the "original") even just to turn photos upside down, that is, for vertical photos to be displayed vertically.

Ok, but... the size of the original photo and it's "properly vertical" mate is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!
Every single photo automatically vertically rearranged by iphoto, ocuppied anything from 300-500KB LESS than the original. That only means that iphoto is doing a RECOMPRESSION of the jpeg file in order to present it vertically. THIS IS VERY WRONG. I cannot believe apple gave this behaviuor an ok.

does iphoto5 do that as well?

Am i wrong?

Yes, iPhoto 05 does it as well. That being said as long as iPhoto is retain the original what is the problem?

I was thought to never touch the original pixel layer when image editing. Cause you never know when you want those pixels back.

zigzag · Feb 15, 2005, 02:52 PM

I haven't been using iPhoto for this very reason - while it retains the original, I sometimes want to retain more than one full-resolution variation of the original, with layers. I suppose this can be done by opening iPhoto images in Photoshop and importing the variations into iPhoto, but this struck me as cumbersome so I just maintain my own filing system and use Photoshop's browser. Does iPhoto support layers yet?

It was my understanding that iPhoto3 or 4 implemented lossless image rotations, but I could be mistaken.

cpac · Feb 15, 2005, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by zigzag:
iPhoto3

There never was one. It went from 2 to 4.

As for the original poster's issue:

*Yawn*

If you're the kind of person that is paranoid when you've got (1) an original and (2) the edited version both preserved on your machine, why in the world are you using iPhoto at all?

Todd Madson · Feb 15, 2005, 04:21 PM

My iPhoto library was over 10,000 pictures of late.

I was updating to the brand new 5 version and my G4 decided
to KERNEL PANIC during the update process (I can't remember
the last time it did a KP, maybe two years ago?) and it
SCROZZLED my entire photo library.

I was able to get 7000 or so back but some photos still launch
just fine with preview but if I bring them into iPhoto it says
they are not JPEGS anymore.

It's not a perfect program but the new version once working is
certainly MUCH faster at certain operations than others especially
over the old version.

Todd Madson · Feb 15, 2005, 04:23 PM

My iPhoto library was over 10,000 pictures of late.

I was updating to the brand new 5 version and my G4 decided
to KERNEL PANIC during the update process (I can't remember
the last time it did a KP, maybe two years ago?) and it
SCROZZLED my entire photo library.

I was able to get 7000 or so back but some photos still launch
just fine with preview but if I bring them into iPhoto it says
they are not JPEGS anymore. Who knew? My machine is rapidly
approaching the end of life phase anyway, I'll just move it all
to my new machine and they'll likely work then.

It's not a perfect program but the new version once working is
certainly MUCH faster at certain operations than others especially
over the old version.

As far as your issue, I'm not sure. I've got a lot of disk
space and those issues weren't an issue.

jindrich · Feb 15, 2005, 06:21 PM

Apple is marketing iPhoto as an "almost Pro" app: RAWs, levels adjustment. histogram views..etc.
Apple is Not Microsoft, and takes a lot of care of small details. Preserving (image) quality while simply managing files used to be Apple's trademark, "dont care for the geek details, we do it for you"...

with todays digital cameras is not uncommon to shoot more than a 100 pics a day. That translates into 500MB of data per day, that will turn into 1GB in iphoto witrh merely importing, if all were vertical shots. If you shoot RAW this figure could go up into the tens of GBs for a single day of shooting.

i think iphoto started as a simple grandma app, and has grown too much after every version, that now it doesnt truly know where it belongs. Is getting out of the grandma category, but cannot cater to the semi-pro app status just because many small -but critical- details are not though of enough.

what it should provide:

-dont kill the files by uneeded processing. Lossless rotating, and processing less destructive.
-allow manual file organization, just like itunes.
-libraries grew too fast. You should be able to store them on DVDs from the same app, but still to manage the whole library (with thumbnails). Keep only the "best shots" on the HD.The rest on low quality, but you know where to find the big file (stored on DVD number "n".....)

we'll have to wait to iphoto 06

Old Toad · Feb 16, 2005, 11:30 PM

1 - you can just select the Duplicate menu option in iPhoto to make a duplicate of whatever image state you'd like.

2 - iPhoto does support layers as long as the file was imported as a psd file in the first place. You can have iPhoto to use PS as your primary editor but must save edits as jpgs with the same file name and location. If you create a layered file, it must be first saved to the desktop and then imported into iPhoto.

Rychiar · Feb 17, 2005, 06:42 AM

I fully agree with this poster. I've stayed away from iPhoto since day 1 due to it's shady self organization schemes. I've posted on this issue b4, why the hell can't it leave me images where they arein my folder structures the same way iTunes does. awful awful design

lavar78 · Feb 17, 2005, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Rychiar:
I fully agree with this poster. I've stayed away from iPhoto since day 1 due to it's shady self organization schemes. I've posted on this issue b4, why the hell can't it leave me images where they arein my folder structures the same way iTunes does. awful awful design

For one reason, songs and pictures are different types of files. Unlike photos, there's no inherent visual way to differentiate between songs. Also, look at how iTunes and iPhoto handle playlists/albums. Remember, the option to let iTunes organize your songs was added fairly recently (3 or 4, right?). It's always been like that for iPhoto (with good reason).

AFAIC, iPhoto isn't flawed. It can always be improved, but I love it already. It's a great app.

cpac · Feb 17, 2005, 02:56 PM

lets not turn this into another thread about the merits of iPhoto's creating a file structure.

The original poster was concered about lossy rotating of images/lossy editing in general, and about the quality of RAW import.

Responders pointed out that since the original image is retained, that the "lossy" edits are not ultimately a huge problem.

------------------------------------

PS - If you're a Pro, or the sort of home user that's taking "100 pictures a day" iPhoto isn't meant for you. It's meant for normal home users (like myself) who take a dozen pictures or so when they attend a wedding, or a couple dozen when on vacation or during a family holiday. I like to edit red eye, play with color, cropping, etc.. I like to make web pages and order prints in a few clicks. For me, iPhoto is pretty durn perfect.

If you're the sort that's doing all your editing in Photoshop and, say, has a dedicated memory card reader, etc., you're probably enough of a "pro" to avoid using iPhoto completely. Image Capture and the Finder can work pretty well together; throw in Automator/Spotlight in Tiger, along with the Photoshop you already use, and you'll probably have your ideal set up.

Until then - lay off the consumer apps, and stop trying to make them something they're not.

cambro · Feb 17, 2005, 03:37 PM

COMMAND-D
Also, if you are a stickler for detail, why would you ever rotate your pics in the first place? this is just an on-screen convenience, right?

Now, one could make a case for cropping and recompressing (if that is in fact what happens) because a crop is actually recomposing the image, but for 99.9+% of users out there, are they really going to recognize that a jpeg has undergone 2 low lossy compressions???? I bet you could print 100 8x10 images of 1 and 2 compression files with reasonable starting resolution and not be able to distinguish them consistently.

Regarding file structure...
I suppose one could make a case either way. However, given Share->Export->File Export you can maintain a backup directory using any file system you want.

Also, imagine the CHAOS that would ensue if users could easily move their photos around without "telling" iPhoto. So much of iPhoto's value is in keywords, comments, albums etc.

Not to mention the fact that thumbnails need to made, edits done on copies and so forth.

Imposed library structure may be annoying for the control freaks in the crowd, but it can easily be maintained in parallel with whatever directory structure you want and the benefits FAR outweigh the costs.

LlamaBoy · Feb 17, 2005, 08:46 PM

Not to get off topic on this, but what is a photo management application that is better than iPhoto?

lavar78 · Feb 17, 2005, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by LlamaBoy:
Not to get off topic on this, but what is a photo management application that is better than iPhoto?

Better is in the eye of the beholder, but lots of people like iView Media. There's an expensive Pro version, but it's probably not too expensive if you're a professional.