Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: How do I delete photographs from an iPad?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: How do I delete photographs from an iPad?

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
In article <2012110408152154536-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> I can right click, copy to:, and direct that copy to another folder.

> >
> > that's a *duplicate*.

>
> So what?


the what is that it's now two different files, with each of them in a
different folder.

it's *not* one file in two folders.

two different things.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> I can right click, copy to:, and direct that copy to another folder.

> >
> >that's a *duplicate*.
> >
> >that proves you can't have a file in more than one folder!! you have to
> >make a *copy* !!
> >
> >hilarious, absolutely hilarious.

>
> Of course it's a copy. I said it was.


which means what i said is correct.

> That functionally puts the
> same image in as many folders you want to have them in.


nice qualifier. it's functionally the same. that means it's not the
same.

twist twist twist.

> If the
> purpose is to locate an image by navigating to a folder, then this
> suits the job perfectly.


if.

too bad the purpose was something else.

> >> I'm sure there are other ways to do it.

> >
> >the only other way is to make aliases of the photos and put the aliases
> >in other folders. that is only slightly better than duplicate files.
> >
> >> It can be done in Irfanview,
> >> for example as a save-as. With the storage devices we now use, two
> >> copies of an image doesn't create a problem.

> >
> >sure it does. it doubles the size if you make two copies. it triples
> >the size if you make three copies. etc.

>
> So what? You'd be storing copies of .jpgs and the size would be
> inconsequential.


why would i be storing copies of jpegs? i shoot raw, but regardless of
format, it's double the space (or more).

> >> For those of us who shoot RAW and then edit in PS, we're going to use
> >> the save-as function for all images. We can just save-as twice
> >> directing the second one to a different folder.

> >
> >maybe you are, but those of us who know better use a photo management
> >app so none of this is necessary.

>
> You know I use Lightroom, but my reply is a contradiction your
> obviously false claim of "can't".


it's not false and your reply doesn't say what you think it does.

the fact you don't understand it proves how utterly ignorant you really
are.

you can babble all you want about faking it by duplicating files, but
that just proves you can't.

> You are the one who constantly whines about you saying "I never said
> you have to do that". So, it's not necessary but it can be done.
>
> >> Don't give me this "can't" bullshit.

> >
> >it's not bullshit. you *can't* have a photo in multiple folders, which
> >*you* proved above!

>
> I just proved you can.


nonsense. you did no such thing.

what you proved was that the only way to put one photo in multiple
folders is by duplicating the photo so you now have more than one. it's
*not* one photo anymore, it's two, three, fifteen or who knows how
many.

> >what you're saying is make multiple copies and manage it yourself. that
> >isn't the same thing, and as i said, it becomes a management nightmare
> >very quickly, particularly when you want to edit photos.

>
> Your premise wasn't about editing. It was about "can't". Your
> premise wasn't about editing. It was about locating an image with a
> particular subject.


nope. it was about one file in multiple folders.

> > you have to
> >mirror the changes to the duplicates, assuming you even remember where
> >they all were.

>
> Find it once, and the EXIF or the file name will tell you when it was
> shot or edited, and that will lead you to the folder with the
> original.


the exif will tell me where the file is? really? what tag is the file's
location stored in again?

oh yea, the exif has absolutely *no* information about the location of
the file.

> There are few instances where a person wants to re-edit old images.
> There are many instances where a person wants to locate an old image.
> The user of a folder/file hierarchy *can* use the system to make it
> possible to locate an old image by subject.


they can, but it's primitive.

there are much better and more efficient methods. if they want to avail
themselves of those methods, they can. if not that's ok too.

> >> >> Anyone with a lick of sense understands this. The computer doesn't
> >> >> figure things out for you. It follows the instructions you provide.
> >> >
> >> >anyone with a lick of sense understands that keywording is vastly more
> >> >flexible. file/folder hierarchy is very rigid, which is why apps like
> >> >lightroom are so popular.
> >>
> >> Yeah, LR's a good system. It still requires that you provide the
> >> instructions for it to follow. It doesn't magically make decisions
> >> for you. LR can make it easier for some people, but a folder/file
> >> hierarchy works just fine for others.

> >
> >only with small libraries. it quickly becomes unmanageable, like what
> >you describe above.

>
> The size of the library is not the problem.


that's exactly the problem.

file/folders quickly gets out of hand and very unwieldy to manage with
large libraries. even medium size libraries.

> It's the needs of the
> user that determine if a photo management system like Lightroom is
> needed. A person who takes only family and holiday snaps can be
> perfectly happy with a folder/file hierarchy. When that person
> searches for an image, the person looks to date and/or location, and
> folders work fine for this.


only because they don't do much.

> The number of photos in the system is
> immaterial.


wrong.

> You really don't think about things in a global sense, do you?


i definitely do. *you* do not.

you can't look past your own methods. you can't see that there are
other ways to do stuff, ones don't have the limitations of what you're
doing.

> You
> look at everything by what you do or want to do and completely ignore
> what others do or might need.


absolutely wrong.

> Then, you come up with ignorant
> statements like "you can't...".


nothing ignorant about it, and you proved it can't be done. that makes
*you* the ignorant one.

> >> I know how you operate. You are going to say I'm twisting your words
> >> because I exposed your "can't" as wrong (but that's what you said) and
> >> then you are going to natter on those extra keystrokes or extra
> >> seconds...considerations that aren't a problem to most people.

> >
> >you didn't expose my can't as wrong. far from it. you exposed yourself
> >as ignorant about computers and file systems.

>
> Interesting that when I proved something could be done in a way you
> hadn't thought about that you claim *I* am the ignorant one.


what a joke. duplicating files is not the same thing.

> >you also described something totally different and far *more* work.

>
> Far more work? Not really a big deal at all.


yes, far more work. you're talking about duplicating images and moving
them to different folders and somehow remembering where all the
duplicates are. good luck. you'll need it.

it's ludicrous.

the really bizarre thing is why you think this is somehow better than
keywording.

> There's only a few
> images, compared to the entire inventory of images,


only a few? sure, it works for just a few, but more than that, it fails.

> where it would be
> beneficial to do it if the folder/file hierarchy is set up to suit the
> user's needs.


big if.

> The majority of people doing digital photography are using their
> cameras to take family and holiday snapshots.


you know this, how?

> They want a system that
> works like a photo album where they can go to the album (folder) that
> contains the photos they took at a particular time and either view
> them or print them. They aren't going to re-edit old photos and they
> aren't going to keyword-search for elements in a photograph.


sounds like iphoto, aperture, lightroom, etc.

> Folders work just fine for this.


actually, they don't work just fine. that's why the above apps do what
they do.

> >the computer is there to *reduce* work, not add to it.

>
> The computer isn't going to do *anything* that you don't tell it to do
> in some way.


the point is to *reduce* the work you need to do and have the computer
do more of it.

you seem to want to do all the work yourself so the computer doesn't
have to. very strange.

> The computer doesn't keyword or decide how files are
> managed.


no, but it can analyze content so you don't have to.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Ted Nolan <tednolan>
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Both NTFS and MacOS support "hard links", that is to say more than
> one name (possibly in different directories) for the same bag of
> bytes on disk.


true. i didn't think of hard links, but it's still not one file in two
folders, it's a file and a link. only one folder contains the actual
file, but it does work as if it was in more than one place.

it's also not something users are going to be doing, since at least on
a mac, you have to use the command line to create it.

> I don't know about the ipad, but it's certainly a
> common feature on Unix/Linux systems that dates back decades and MS
> put it in NTFS to claim some (minimal) Posix support.


the ipad runs os x so it can have hard links, but it hides the file
system so there's no way for the user to do it at all, nor is it
needed.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In the Cromemco system the name of the file did not change, only the
> path to the link.


if it's a link, then it's not the same file.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> For retrieval purposes, it doesn't
> >> make a difference if an image is a duplicate.

> >
> >yes it can, if they're not kept in sync.

>
> Nope. If all you want to do is retrieve and view - and even print -
> an image, all you have to do is be able to find it.


you don't say!

what if you want to do more?

> >and actually going back to old images is not as rare as you might
> >think, since software gets better and those older images look better,
> >often without doing much of anything.
> >
> >> It's just another area where nospam is so insistent that what he
> >> favors is the only viable choice that he ignores the ability of others
> >> to work with their own system quite successfully.

> >
> >actually it's just you being a stubborn ignorant ass, ignoring that
> >there are much better ways than what you've been doing. you're stuck in
> >your ways.

>
> You either don't read with comprehension or don't retain what you
> read.


talking about yourself again?

> I use Lightroom and the keywording system. If I want to
> re-edit an old image, I go to that image in Lightroom and click Edit A
> Copy in Photoshop. Sometimes I may make some adjustments in LR
> Develop, but I prefer to work in CS4.


great. what does that have to do with keeping images in sync?

oh yea, nothing.

if you are going to duplicate files, you need to keep them in sync or
they will no longer be duplicates. they'll be different versions.

> Unlike you, I favor certain ways of doing things, but understand that
> other people may want to do it differently.


that's exactly like me

> I don't preach that my
> way is "better".


it's not better because it's my way, far from it.

it's better because it does not suffer the limitations of previous
methods.

that's why lightroom works the way it does, as does iphoto, aperture
and other apps. it's also why they're so popular. they're so much more
capable than being limited to the file system.

> What I've said is that a folder/file system can work for other people.


only if they like the additional work.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 21:20:12 -0600, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>> Find it once, and the EXIF or the file name will tell you when it was
>> shot or edited, and that will lead you to the folder with the
>> original.

>
>the exif will tell me where the file is? really? what tag is the file's
>location stored in again?


I knew you'd bite. The EXIF tells you the date the photo was shot.
That directs you to the folder in which the original images for that
date are stored. Anyone who uses folder/file sets up a system of
folders that groups them.

>oh yea, the exif has absolutely *no* information about the location of
>the file.


Only if you aren't very clever. You might not figure it out.

>> The size of the library is not the problem.

>
>that's exactly the problem.
>
>file/folders quickly gets out of hand and very unwieldy to manage with
>large libraries. even medium size libraries.


Only if you are not very clever. One folder per year, subfolders by
month or event. Not difficult for someone.

>> It's the needs of the
>> user that determine if a photo management system like Lightroom is
>> needed. A person who takes only family and holiday snaps can be
>> perfectly happy with a folder/file hierarchy. When that person
>> searches for an image, the person looks to date and/or location, and
>> folders work fine for this.

>
>only because they don't do much.


Doesn't make any difference what the "because" is. If it works, it
works.

>> The number of photos in the system is
>> immaterial.

>
>wrong.


Totally immaterial. The limitation is only the size of the storage
devices, and that's not a problem these days.

>> Interesting that when I proved something could be done in a way you
>> hadn't thought about that you claim *I* am the ignorant one.

>
>what a joke. duplicating files is not the same thing.
>
>> >you also described something totally different and far *more* work.


Functionally, it provides the same result. "Different" is not wrong.
Digital is different from film. Lightroom is different from negative
storage. Everything we do now is different from what was done in the
past. We are all just in progressive stages of "different".

>> Far more work? Not really a big deal at all.

>
>yes, far more work. you're talking about duplicating images and moving
>them to different folders and somehow remembering where all the
>duplicates are. good luck. you'll need it.


You don't need to copy and move. You copy to another folder. One
action. You only need to do it when you have an image that deserves
special treatment. You may want one folder of a particular type of
image.

>it's ludicrous.
>
>the really bizarre thing is why you think this is somehow better than
>keywording.


Where do you get that idea? If I thought it was better, I'd do it
that way. I don't. I use Lightroom and keywording. What I do think
is that it can work for someone who doesn't choose to buy Lightroom or
a similar program.

I use LR because it's better for me, but I'm not the kind of officious
busy-body that you are that thinks it's better for everyone and call
any other system that works for them "primitive".

>> The majority of people doing digital photography are using their
>> cameras to take family and holiday snapshots.


The majority of people using digital cameras are taking nothing but
family and holiday snapshots. Many are not using any type of system,
but allowing the images to be dumped into the default location of "My
Pictures".

>you know this, how?


I did a scientific market research project and asked people in coach.

>> The computer isn't going to do *anything* that you don't tell it to do
>> in some way.

>
>the point is to *reduce* the work you need to do and have the computer
>do more of it.


No, the point is that you once again misspoke when you said the
computer does things for you. The computer follows your instructions.
First you have to decide what you want it to do. Just because you are
clever enough to work out a system without LR doesn't mean everyone is
equally sludge-minded.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
In article <041120122120222466%(E-Mail Removed)>,
nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Ted Nolan <tednolan>
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Both NTFS and MacOS support "hard links", that is to say more than
>> one name (possibly in different directories) for the same bag of
>> bytes on disk.

>
>true. i didn't think of hard links, but it's still not one file in two
>folders, it's a file and a link. only one folder contains the actual
>file, but it does work as if it was in more than one place.
>


No, that's "symbolic" links. Hard links are different names for the same
file, none is more the "real" name than any other. In unix terms, both
names refer to the same inode...

I don't think I've used this extensively in ordering my photos on my
FreeBSD boxes, but I use it all the time for mp3s.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 21:20:41 -0600, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> >> For retrieval purposes, it doesn't
>> >> make a difference if an image is a duplicate.
>> >
>> >yes it can, if they're not kept in sync.

>>
>> Nope. If all you want to do is retrieve and view - and even print -
>> an image, all you have to do is be able to find it.

>
>you don't say!
>
>what if you want to do more?


You adjust to the needs. That's what most digital photographers do:
retrieve to view and sometimes print. Most images are not even
printed.

The number of people who retrieve an old image for re-edit is a tiny
fraction of the number of people who do digital photography. Those in
that tiny fraction set up whatever system they think will work best
for them. Some might be content with a folder/file system, and some
might want a system like Lightroom provides.

Prove it to yourself. Next time you fly somewhere, do one of your
famous scientific market surveys in coach and ask people how many of
them retrieve and re-edit images taken a few months ago or more.
You'll find that most of them don't even edit in the first place.
They just snap and store.

If the photo's "fresh", they don't need LR or any other system to find
them.








--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
In article <2012110420364650073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > the ipad runs os x so it can have hard links, but it hides the file
> > system so there's no way for the user to do it at all, nor is it
> > needed.

>
> The iPad runs OSX???


sure does.

> Strange, mine runs iOS, a somewhat different animal to OSX.


they're both os x.

one is mac os x, the other is ios. the main difference is the user
interface.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 21:20:12 -0600, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >> Find it once, and the EXIF or the file name will tell you when it was
> >> shot or edited, and that will lead you to the folder with the
> >> original.

> >
> >the exif will tell me where the file is? really? what tag is the file's
> >location stored in again?

>
> I knew you'd bite. The EXIF tells you the date the photo was shot.
> That directs you to the folder in which the original images for that
> date are stored.


no it doesn't.

only if you use a hierarchy of year/month/date does it do that but
again, the computer can do that *for* you without needing to look at
the exif for the date.

if you search for files on a given date, you will get files from that
date, wherever they are. no need to look at the exif or put them in a
particular place.

once again, let the computer do the work *for* you.

> Anyone who uses folder/file sets up a system of
> folders that groups them.


and then they can never remember where anything is.

> >oh yea, the exif has absolutely *no* information about the location of
> >the file.

>
> Only if you aren't very clever. You might not figure it out.


which tag has the location? what if the user moves the file?

oh right, the exif doesn't have any information about the location. it
just has the date, which might match the folder, or it might not.
chances are, it won't.

> >> The size of the library is not the problem.

> >
> >that's exactly the problem.
> >
> >file/folders quickly gets out of hand and very unwieldy to manage with
> >large libraries. even medium size libraries.

>
> Only if you are not very clever. One folder per year, subfolders by
> month or event. Not difficult for someone.


not difficult, but it's very rigid.

why would you want to be restricted to that?

> >> >you also described something totally different and far *more* work.

>
> Functionally, it provides the same result.


but it's *not* the same.

> "Different" is not wrong.
> Digital is different from film. Lightroom is different from negative
> storage. Everything we do now is different from what was done in the
> past. We are all just in progressive stages of "different".
>
> >> Far more work? Not really a big deal at all.

> >
> >yes, far more work. you're talking about duplicating images and moving
> >them to different folders and somehow remembering where all the
> >duplicates are. good luck. you'll need it.

>
> You don't need to copy and move. You copy to another folder. One
> action.


yes, one action. so what? it's still more work.

> You only need to do it when you have an image that deserves
> special treatment. You may want one folder of a particular type of
> image.


and then keep track of which duplicates are where. crazy.

> >it's ludicrous.
> >
> >the really bizarre thing is why you think this is somehow better than
> >keywording.

>
> Where do you get that idea? If I thought it was better, I'd do it
> that way. I don't.


so you're suggesting something that isn't better? wow.

> I use Lightroom and keywording. What I do think
> is that it can work for someone who doesn't choose to buy Lightroom or
> a similar program.


what if it's free?

> I use LR because it's better for me, but I'm not the kind of officious
> busy-body that you are that thinks it's better for everyone and call
> any other system that works for them "primitive".


i don't see you bashing adobe. they think it's better. that's why they
wrote lightroom the way they did. they did that because using the file
system is primitive, ill suited and too limited for managing photos. go
bash them.

> >> The majority of people doing digital photography are using their
> >> cameras to take family and holiday snapshots.

>
> The majority of people using digital cameras are taking nothing but
> family and holiday snapshots.


proof?

> Many are not using any type of system,
> but allowing the images to be dumped into the default location of "My
> Pictures".
>
> >you know this, how?

>
> I did a scientific market research project and asked people in coach.


too bad you don't get upgraded. it's much better up front, although not
as good as it used to be.

> >> The computer isn't going to do *anything* that you don't tell it to do
> >> in some way.

> >
> >the point is to *reduce* the work you need to do and have the computer
> >do more of it.

>
> No, the point is that you once again misspoke when you said the
> computer does things for you. The computer follows your instructions.
> First you have to decide what you want it to do. Just because you are
> clever enough to work out a system without LR doesn't mean everyone is
> equally sludge-minded.


the point is you are either twisting things or you don't understand
what i said. maybe both.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
Re: How do I delete photographs from an iPad? RichA Digital Photography 1 11-01-2012 09:47 PM
Re: How do I delete photographs from an iPad? nospam Digital Photography 2 10-31-2012 12:42 AM
Re: How do I delete photographs from an iPad? nospam Digital Photography 0 10-30-2012 04:53 PM
Converting Film photographs to electronic photographs Rifleman Computer Support 18 06-09-2004 02:38 PM



Advertisments