«

On 30/10/2012 20:08, nospam wrote:
[]
> delete them when you get home. since they're your backup, why would you
> want to delete them in the field?

There may be all sorts of reasons to want to delete them in the field.
The iPad should be capable of that without making the user jump through
the hoop of touching each and every photo.

> sure it would be nice to have a select all, but it's also a piece of
> cake to delete them from a computer. in fact, it's even easier to
> delete them on a windows pc than on a mac.

It's still more complicated than it need be even when you have a
computer. Having folder names in hexadecimal is not friendly!

The fact of the matter is that the iPad lacks a function which many
people would expect it to have, and saying that someone doesn't need
that function or that they could do it if they have a computer is just
making excuses for this omission.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article <k6peeg$v0c$>, David Taylor
<david-> wrote:

> > sure it would be nice to have a select all, but it's also a piece of
> > cake to delete them from a computer. in fact, it's even easier to
> > delete them on a windows pc than on a mac.
>
> It's still more complicated than it need be even when you have a
> computer. Having folder names in hexadecimal is not friendly!

copy the lot and sort it out in lightroom.

the names of the photos or the folders are irrelevant. what matters is
the tags within the photos, namely the exif data.

> The fact of the matter is that the iPad lacks a function which many
> people would expect it to have, and saying that someone doesn't need
> that function or that they could do it if they have a computer is just
> making excuses for this omission.

i said it would be nice to have a select all, but the lack of it is not
as big of a deal as it's made out to be.

if you are going to be saving photos in the field, get a device
designed for that purpose. the ipad isn't that device.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:55:35 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <k6peeg$v0c$>, David Taylor
><david-> wrote:
>
>> > sure it would be nice to have a select all, but it's also a piece of
>> > cake to delete them from a computer. in fact, it's even easier to
>> > delete them on a windows pc than on a mac.
>>
>> It's still more complicated than it need be even when you have a
>> computer. Having folder names in hexadecimal is not friendly!
>
>copy the lot and sort it out in lightroom.
>
>the names of the photos or the folders are irrelevant. what matters is
>the tags within the photos, namely the exif data.
>
>> The fact of the matter is that the iPad lacks a function which many
>> people would expect it to have, and saying that someone doesn't need
>> that function or that they could do it if they have a computer is just
>> making excuses for this omission.
>
>i said it would be nice to have a select all, but the lack of it is not
>as big of a deal as it's made out to be.

That must be part of the Applefanatics credo: If you can't do it on
an Apple product, it's no big deal regardless of what the user thinks.

>if you are going to be saving photos in the field, get a device
>designed for that purpose. the ipad isn't that device.

Part II of the Applefanatics credo: Apple products do everything you
want them to do except what you need to buy something else to do.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:30:15 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-10-30 14:17:57 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:55:35 -0700, nospam <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <k6peeg$v0c$>, David Taylor
>>> <david-> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> sure it would be nice to have a select all, but it's also a piece of
>>>>> cake to delete them from a computer. in fact, it's even easier to
>>>>> delete them on a windows pc than on a mac.
>>>>
>>>> It's still more complicated than it need be even when you have a
>>>> computer. Having folder names in hexadecimal is not friendly!
>>>
>>> copy the lot and sort it out in lightroom.
>>>
>>> the names of the photos or the folders are irrelevant. what matters is
>>> the tags within the photos, namely the exif data.
>>>
>>>> The fact of the matter is that the iPad lacks a function which many
>>>> people would expect it to have, and saying that someone doesn't need
>>>> that function or that they could do it if they have a computer is just
>>>> making excuses for this omission.
>>>
>>> i said it would be nice to have a select all, but the lack of it is not
>>> as big of a deal as it's made out to be.
>>
>> That must be part of the Applefanatics credo: If you can't do it on
>> an Apple product, it's no big deal regardless of what the user thinks.
>>
>>> if you are going to be saving photos in the field, get a device
>>> designed for that purpose. the ipad isn't that device.
>>
>> Part II of the Applefanatics credo: Apple products do everything you
>> want them to do except what you need to buy something else to do.
>
>It is always a case of the right tool fro the right job, and the iPad
>or iPhone is not a particularly good choice for an "in the field"
>backup device. Both will serve in a pinch, but there are better ways to
>go.
>As good as both devices are it is tough to make them serve as a total
>solution for all things. The iPad, as much as some would want it to be,
>is not a true laptop replacement.
>
Why wouldn't it be a good viewing device that also is used as a second
source of the files in case the SD card is lost?

If the person takes 1,000 travel photos in a week, chances are very
good that he is going to view them and delete 900 and some of them.
It would make sense to view them on an iPad with the larger screen
rather than in-camera. It would not be used solely as back-up.

The features of an iPad-type device, regardless of brand, include that
images can be viewed better than they can in-camera, the device can be
passed around to the rest of the group and viewed, and it's smaller
and easier to pack around than a laptop.

The missing feature of convenient deletion of a large number of files
makes it less useful for those who want to sort through and delete the
non-keepers while still on the trip. Still useful, but not as useful
as it could be.






--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >It is always a case of the right tool fro the right job, and the iPad
> >or iPhone is not a particularly good choice for an "in the field"
> >backup device. Both will serve in a pinch, but there are better ways to
> >go.
> >As good as both devices are it is tough to make them serve as a total
> >solution for all things. The iPad, as much as some would want it to be,
> >is not a true laptop replacement.
>
> Why wouldn't it be a good viewing device that also is used as a second
> source of the files in case the SD card is lost?

because the maximum size of the ipad is 64 gig. once you subtract the
space for apps, music, videos and whatever else you might have on it,
there isn't much left for photos. it's the wrong product for the job.

a portable storage device can have a terabyte drive, and it fits in a
pants pocket too.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >> The fact of the matter is that the iPad lacks a function which many
> >> people would expect it to have, and saying that someone doesn't need
> >> that function or that they could do it if they have a computer is just
> >> making excuses for this omission.
> >
> >i said it would be nice to have a select all, but the lack of it is not
> >as big of a deal as it's made out to be.
>
> That must be part of the Applefanatics credo: If you can't do it on
> an Apple product, it's no big deal regardless of what the user thinks.

never said that.

> >if you are going to be saving photos in the field, get a device
> >designed for that purpose. the ipad isn't that device.
>
> Part II of the Applefanatics credo: Apple products do everything you
> want them to do except what you need to buy something else to do.

part of the apple-haters playbook is to focus on one particular thing
that doesn't work the way they might want it to work and bash away,
even though they don't own the product and have no intention of ever
owning it and ignoring that it's no different than other similar
products. in other words, it doesn't affect them at *all*.

no product is suitable for all situations. for portable storage, the
ipad is very limited. its capacity is not much bigger than a typical
memory card, making it a very poor choice for storage. it's not what it
was designed to do. but of course, an apple hater ignores that and will
insist the ipad has to do absolutely everything perfectly, and when it
doesn't, it's bad, ignoring that the very same issues affect other
similar devices.

meanwhile, deleting all on an ipad is very easy to do for those without
an axe to grind and needs nothing more than a usb cable.

here are what android users are saying about 'select all' for other
android devices. it looks like you have to tap the photos one by one.
chapter two of the playbook explains that it's perfectly ok when
someone other than apple does the same thing.

<http://forums.androidcentral.com/htc...ete-multiple-p
hotos-selecting-thumbnails.html>
I'm at a complete loss on how to select multiple photos to delete.
Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Go to Gallery--->All photos (or particular folder)--->Delete--->then
check off the photos you want to Delete--->then hit the Delete (#) at
the bottom. That should do it...

<http://forums.androidcentral.com/t-g...leting-multipl
e-photos.html>
I know how to delete individuals photos from the S-3, one at a time.
But is there a way to select multiple photos and delete them all at
once?

Press and hold on one picture until it is highlighted. Then begin to
tap each additional picture icon you wish to highlight. The highlight
should stick to each icon and finally, when done selecting them,
press the trash icon on the upper right.

In article <2012103014222239063-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > i said it would be nice to have a select all, but the lack of it is not
> > as big of a deal as it's made out to be.
> >
> > if you are going to be saving photos in the field, get a device
> > designed for that purpose. the ipad isn't that device.
>
> Damn! you have to stop getting me to agree with you.

no kidding! i have a reputation of being argumentative to live up to!

> The iPad makes a terrible in the field backup device. You would be
> better off using an iPhone as a WiFi hotspot and transferring files to
> one of the cloud services such as DB or PogoPlug.

that also works, assuming you have connectivity. that doesn't always
happen.

> For in the field backup you cannot do much better than a Colorspace
> UDMA. It handles CF, SDHC, MS etc. It does full and incremental backups
> from the cards and connects to laptop/desktop via USB.
> < http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive-...-UDMA-s/64.htm >

those are nice. i have one from a different company.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:30:17 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> >It is always a case of the right tool fro the right job, and the iPad
>> >or iPhone is not a particularly good choice for an "in the field"
>> >backup device. Both will serve in a pinch, but there are better ways to
>> >go.
>> >As good as both devices are it is tough to make them serve as a total
>> >solution for all things. The iPad, as much as some would want it to be,
>> >is not a true laptop replacement.
>>
>> Why wouldn't it be a good viewing device that also is used as a second
>> source of the files in case the SD card is lost?
>
>because the maximum size of the ipad is 64 gig. once you subtract the
>space for apps, music, videos and whatever else you might have on it,
>there isn't much left for photos. it's the wrong product for the job.
>
>a portable storage device can have a terabyte drive, and it fits in a
>pants pocket too.


That assumes that the person who owns an iPad wants to store gigs and
gigs of music and video. I can't imagine that being true of all iPad
owners. Some may not store any videos and very little music and
prefer to use it as a viewer and for image storage. Apple's design
shorts the buyer of the device in their ability to use the device as
the owner would like to use it.

If Eric would not choose to store video and music on his device, he's
still unable to utilize the functions as he chooses to.

The "job" for any device should be what the buyer of the device wants
it to be. He should not have to spend additional money in buying
another device after buying an expensive device that does function as
a viewer and storage device.

It seems that Apple simply ****ed up and omitted including a simple
function that could have easily been included. Why try to make out
that this is Eric's fault?






--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >Can you hook it to a computer via USB and delete folders from the computer?
>
> I probably can but I don't want to risk scrambling the iPad's
> internals.

you must be kidding me!

do you really think plugging the ipad into a computer is going to
'scramble the ipad's internals' ?? seriously?? why do you think they
give you a usb cable in the box?

as i said before, plug it in and use explorer to delete the photos.
it's really very simple. it's *designed* to do that.

did you have this much trouble with other digital cameras?

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >> >> And this thread seems to say that the iPad is similar is useability
> >> >> problems.
> >> >
> >> > not at all. deleting photos is trivial.
> >>
> >> Agreed. There seems to be a handful of individuals unable to wrap their
> >> Windows centric thinking around the simple task of deleting images from
> >> iPad or iPhone.
> >
> >definitely. windows and especially linux conditions people into making
> >things harder than it needs to be.
>
> Then tell me how I select +1800 photographs for deletion. I don't
> consider selecting them one at a time an adequate solution.

i did, a couple of times.

apparently you just want to complain.