[brokenbells]

I just migrated from Windows to the mac.

Though rare, but Windows had a fantastic Photo organiser by google called Picassa.
Though iphoto does come close, but picassa happens to be any day better, espeacially for its speed and available options.

Are there any photo managers for the mac, apart from iPhoto, that atleast comes close to Picassa?

[TETENAL]

iPhoto
Aperture
iView Media
Lightroom

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

iPhoto
Aperture
iView Media
Lightroom

For home use, I use iPhoto, and like it... it's a little on the slow side (with my 4+ year old 733 PowerMac), but it's nice (especially when you start tagging your images appropriately).

I use iView Media for work... but they were purchased by Microsoft... so who knows with them.

[sknapp351]

Just out of curiosity, what does Picasa do that you like better than iPhoto? Also are you using the latest version of iPhoto that came with iLife 06?
SAm

[pheonixash]

Yeah i thought iPhoto was loads better than Picasa! Picasa looks like a Windows rip-off off a Mac software. The only feature that is better in Picasa is that it maintains the folder structure within it, whereas iPhoto adds all the photos directly to the library.

[brokenbells]

Originally Posted by sknapp351

Just out of curiosity, what does Picasa do that you like better than iPhoto? Also are you using the latest version of iPhoto that came with iLife 06?
SAm

Picassa has a way of indexing photographs that is very different from iphoto. it makes little text files of the locations of photos, unlike iphoto, which loads all the thumbnails into the memory and hence makes it system hungry. picassa was very light on my 512MB RAM, 1.7Gz windows machine and it ran like butter on a hot pan! iPhoto struggles on my new iMac intel 1 GB RAM.

Plus in Picassa, all you had to do was tell it to watch a folder, and then any photo added to that folder, would be automatically updated in Picassa, which i guess is not possible in iPhoto.

For the curious i have about 30,000 photographs on my machine!!!

[- - e r i k - -]

30,000 photographs? I'd say that you'd want Aperture. But then again, it is resource hungry (yet should work fine on your Intel iMac). You might also consider upgrading your RAM. 1GB is rather low end these days.

[brokenbells]

That leads to a pet peave of mine. Why is software written for the performance of a system. The software should be written so that it iscompatible down to the min configuration available.

Picassa is a classic example. it does the same job as iphoto, but iPhoto is so system hungry that i have to upgrade my RAM? Mighty unfair, considering that all my other applications are running so smooth with 1 GB RAM, which leads me to the consideration that 1GB is pretty fine.

I have grown up from a sytem, over the years, which had 8 MB RAM. And right now there is nothing that will convince me that 1GB is too less for everyday computing. What I AM convinced about is thatiPhoto definately needs some pulling up !

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by brokenbells

That leads to a pet peave of mine. Why is software written for the performance of a system. The software should be written so that it iscompatible down to the min configuration available.

Software is written for their market. The biggest "market" for iPhoto is to be bundled with new machines.

[pheonixash]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Software is written for their market. The biggest "market" for iPhoto is to be bundled with new machines.

A majority of which they're still selling with 512 MB RAM. If even after upgrading to 1 GB it's not sufficient, I agree with brokenbells that iPhoto needs some pulling up. No machine they sell has anything more than 1 GB stock....yet (except maybe the PowerMacs). And with Steve Jobs saying that iPhoto now has the capability of handling 200,000 photos (was that the figure?), 30,000 shouldn't be a big deal for iPhoto.

So they really should do something to speed it up, coz if even with the latest Intel chips a Mac is gonna lag compared to a P4 1.7ghz with 512 RAM, for a function as simple as photo management, I don't see their market share going anywhere.

[philm]

Originally Posted by brokenbells

Plus in Picassa, all you had to do was tell it to watch a folder, and then any photo added to that folder, would be automatically updated in Picassa, which i guess is not possible in iPhoto.

For the curious i have about 30,000 photographs on my machine!!!

You need to get your brain around how iPhoto is supposed to work. You are not supposed to use the Finder to organise your photos, but use iPhoto instead. Forget about how it stores the images on your hard drive. You do not need to know or understand this to use iPhoto effectively. If you organise all your photos and folders within iPhoto it will work better for you. That way, there is no need for 'watched' folders - everything is done via the iPhoto interface. If you look through this forum you will see many queries on this point.

Also, iPhoto should handle 30,000 photos quite readily.

[monkeybrain]

I don't think he has a problem with how iPhoto organises things, just its performance. On my 1.5 G4 Mini with 1 gig of RAM the performance was poor (with about 3,000 pics). On my Macbook with 512 RAM the performance is much better.

I would suggest you rebuild the library and thumbnails, see here: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=107947
Maybe that can improve performance.

Actually I agree iPhoto performance is generally bad. For instance there is a freeware photo viewer called Phoenix that blows iPhoto aware in terms of viewing pictures, even on a very modest system (but has no management or manipulation features). I have a feeling Apple don't care that much though, to be honest.

Also, why is there no need for 'watched folders'? With a watched folder you wouldn't have to add things to iPhoto, it would do that automatically. As it is now, you still have to add them at some point and then delete the originals.

[Hi I'm Ben]

I think a lot of people overlook this option in the new version of iPhoto.

Before importing your folders, go ahead and uncheck the option in the picture about copying to the iPhoto library and you can keep your photos intact. However I find that letting apple handle the pictures is fine. THey export into folders, they keep the same name, they're easier to manage this way.

http://www.imben.net/iw/iphoto.jpg
[please observe the inline image size restrictions we impose in our rules --tooki]

[brokenbells]

I think no. The photographs, atleast in my computer, are already organised in folders, the way i want them to be. iPhoto by organising it on its own, jumbles them up.

When you have a huge library of photos, it is difficult to have all your photos with clear names, and rather digital cameras save then in serial nos.

When iphoto organises photos, they are as per date. This , which you have no control over. So some of your photos are lost in a jumble of other non subjective photos.

Yes you can add tags and labels or create folders within the application, but i dare anyone to do that to even a thousand photos, leave alone thirty thousand !

Ok you can, in an intelligent way import your folders one by one to iphoto, so that you dont lose your self created directory structure (which is cumbersome....mind you). But when finally they all load on the main Library screen, it takes away all the joy of computing from my mac.

Picassa on the other hand, even if it is a ripoff, doesnt bog down your system + imports your photos in your original directory structure + watches for newly added photos in these folders and adds automatically + the usual basic editing of photos.

Incidently google is offering picassa for linux too (but alas not for the mac.....yet).
Does anyone know whetherlinux programs run in OSX? The picassa site does specify that a working X11 is needed, which exists in OSX. But when i downloaded the .bin file, stuffit refuses to accept it!

http://picasa.google.com/linux/

[Hi I'm Ben]

Originally Posted by brokenbells

I think no. The photographs, atleast in my computer, are already organised in folders, the way i want them to be. iPhoto by organising it on its own, jumbles them up.

As I just showed you, iPhoto has an option now in iPhoto 6 to maintain your folder structure. That was the point of that picture. I have roughly 4000 pictures. If you choose not to tag yours, as I haven't really the file naming and tagging on them is no worse than importing them into picasa or any other photo program.

Others have suggested iView Media Pro. It sounds like you have no desire to learn how to use iPhoto and should look into iView Media Pro. I don't like it as much but do what you need. If you go into iPhoto expecting Picasa you're not going to get that. Expanding your horizons and learning how to make other programs work for you might benefit you down the road.

[pheonixash]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ben

As I just showed you, iPhoto has an option now in iPhoto 6 to maintain your folder structure. That was the point of that picture. I have roughly 4000 pictures. If you choose not to tag yours, as I haven't really the file naming and tagging on them is no worse than importing them into picasa or any other photo program.

Others have suggested iView Media Pro. It sounds like you have no desire to learn how to use iPhoto and should look into iView Media Pro. I don't like it as much but do what you need. If you go into iPhoto expecting Picasa you're not going to get that. Expanding your horizons and learning how to make other programs work for you might benefit you down the road.

He's asking if iPhoto has any of the functionality of Picasa, nowhere does he potray that he's not willing to learn iPhoto. There ARE some features in Picasa which are not available in iPhoto and at present there are no features in iPhoto which replicate or can provide the same functionality.

[Hi I'm Ben]

Originally Posted by pheonixash

He's asking if iPhoto has any of the functionality of Picasa, nowhere does he potray that he's not willing to learn iPhoto. There ARE some features in Picasa which are not available in iPhoto and at present there are no features in iPhoto which replicate or can provide the same functionality.

Other than a slightly different look and feel Picasa and iPhoto are incredibly similiar. Having used both the i think the biggest difference is in the organization of the photos. Where iPhoto puts them all into the one window then lets you create your own folder list on the left, Picasa takes your folders and organizing them already on the left.

This is a nice feature but it's not as if you couldn't create this same thing in iPhoto with some time, or use the Film Rolls option.

Functionality wise there isn't really anything Picasa can do for editing or creating that iPhoto doesn't also do. I think the biggest disadvantage iPhoto has to Picasa is that on older machines iPhoto is a dog. I would never use it on my 1.25G4 iBook because it was annoying and choppy. On my intel mac it runs beautifully.

Also some of the other plugins like iPhoto To Gallery make iPhoto a joy to use.

[pheonixash]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ben

Other than a slightly different look and feel Picasa and iPhoto are incredibly similiar. Having used both the i think the biggest difference is in the organization of the photos. Where iPhoto puts them all into the one window then lets you create your own folder list on the left, Picasa takes your folders and organizing them already on the left.

Some features i sorely miss in iPhoto which were present in Picasa

1. Can't make a picture pile or collage
2. Can't set an image as the wallpaper with iPhoto (I agree the desktop background feature in Mac OSX is 1000x times better than Windows, it's nice to have this functionality)
3. Get iPhoto to watch a folder.
4. The timeline view in Picasa (somewhat made up by Front Row)
5. The speed!!!!

I'm sure iPhoto also has a set of features which are not present in Picasa (like full screen editing!), but I think these features really need to be addressed and added to any photo organising software.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by pheonixash

Some features i sorely miss in iPhoto which were present in Picasa

2. Can't set an image as the wallpaper with iPhoto (I agree the desktop background feature in Mac OSX is 1000x times better than Windows, it's nice to have this functionality)

Try iPhoto/Share/Desktop

[pheonixash]

Originally Posted by msuper69

Try iPhoto/Share/Desktop

Thanks, hadn't noticed that before. My list of Picasa vs iPhoto is getting smaller.

[PurpleGiant]

Originally Posted by pheonixash

4. The timeline view in Picasa (somewhat made up by Front Row)

Do you mean a slideshow? Play button down the bottom of the screen in iPhoto?

[pheonixash]

Originally Posted by PurpleGiant

Do you mean a slideshow? Play button down the bottom of the screen in iPhoto?

Nope not a slideshow. Picasa groups your albums by year. When you choose timeline, it arranges the albums by year and displays them in a slideshow-esque format. It's a little hard to explain.

If you visit www.U2.com, and check the interactive timeline at the bottom, that's kind of what Picasa does.

[Hi I'm Ben]

Originally Posted by pheonixash

Some features i sorely miss in iPhoto which were present in Picasa

1. Can't make a picture pile or collage

I'm sure iPhoto also has a set of features which are not present in Picasa (like full screen editing!), but I think these features really need to be addressed and added to any photo organising software.

1. While this is true, Picasa also can't make calendars so that seems like a trade off for creation features to me. PIcasa also doesn't have a way to create smart auto updating albums or albums in general.

I guess my only point is... are they really that different that if you wanted something like Picasa you couldn't use iPhoto? It doesn't seem that way to me, I think most people who hate iPhoto haven't put enough effort into using it.

That is of course unless your mac is to slow for it, then I wouldn't use it either.

[brokenbells]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ben

1. While this is true, Picasa also can't make calendars so that seems like a trade off for creation features to me. PIcasa also doesn't have a way to create smart auto updating albums or albums in general.

I guess my only point is... are they really that different that if you wanted something like Picasa you couldn't use iPhoto? It doesn't seem that way to me, I think most people who hate iPhoto haven't put enough effort into using it.

That is of course unless your mac is to slow for it, then I wouldn't use it either.

Maybe you should use picassa, in a lesser mortal's machine once !!!

There is no doubt that picassa is a tradeoff of iPhoto, and then there is no doubt that iPhoto does have some great features (and calender is definately not one of them.....come on how many of us make calenders with our photos....), but where iPhoto stops, picassa carries on....

Full screen editing does not matter any more when the newer models of the mac have such huge screens, and if you speak bout the older machines, then iPhoto is too slow for it !


The reality hits you on your face, like a cold winter night rain (Max Payne).....Picassa beats iPhoto !!!

And seriously, i cant wait for the mac version of Picassa....

[pheonixash]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ben

That is of course unless your mac is to slow for it, then I wouldn't use it either.

Well I have a 1.83 Ghz MacBook with 1 GB RAM which i presume should be enough to run a photo organizing software. And I can vouch for the fact that iPhoto runs slower than Picasa on a Pentium M 1.7Ghz notebook with 1 GB RAM. Anyway it's satisfactory for now. Only a bit more speed wouldn't hurt!