OS X, where have my photos gone?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Justin C, Jan 30, 2007.

  1. Justin C

    Justin C Guest

    At last I've started going through my RAW files. When I connect my
    camera to my Mac the RAW images are imported into iPhoto automatically,
    I've set up a double click to lauch PhotoShop - though what starts, I
    guess, is Bridge - where I can adjust the RAW data and save the image as
    jpg, tiff, psd, etc. But where have the images gone? I can find them in
    finder, but why can I not get them back into iPhoto?

    If I select import from iPhoto, navigate to the folder, select the items
    I get a message telling me the images are unreadable... even though
    they're not, I can open them in Preview easily enough.

    I'd like to carry on using iPhoto to organise my images - I don't want
    to have to start again with my photo library. Any suggestions greatfully
    received.

    Justin.

    --
    Justin C, by the sea.
     
    Justin C, Jan 30, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Justin C

    jdear64 Guest

    On Jan 30, 1:46 pm, Justin C <> wrote:
    > At last I've started going through my RAW files. When I connect my
    > camera to my Mac the RAW images are imported into iPhoto automatically,
    > I've set up a double click to lauch PhotoShop - though what starts, I
    > guess, is Bridge - where I can adjust the RAW data and save the image as
    > jpg, tiff, psd, etc. But where have the images gone? I can find them in
    > finder, but why can I not get them back into iPhoto?
    >
    > If I select import from iPhoto, navigate to the folder, select the items
    > I get a message telling me the images are unreadable... even though
    > they're not, I can open them in Preview easily enough.
    >
    > I'd like to carry on using iPhoto to organise my images - I don't want
    > to have to start again with my photo library. Any suggestions greatfully
    > received.
    >
    > Justin.
    >
    > --
    > Justin C, by the sea.


    The way I use iPhoto in my workflow is like this:

    1) Import photos into iPhoto from the CF card reader.

    2) Look at the photos and decide which photo I care enough to work
    on and drag that
    photo into PhotoShop.

    3) After making the changes to the photo, I save it into the iPhoto
    directory
    location ( which will be up one level from where PhotoShop got
    the CR2 file )
    overwriting the iPhoto created jpeg.

    The only problem with this workflow is that iPhoto will show its own
    thumbnail version of the picture when viewing the standard size
    thumbnails and not the edited one. But when you change the size of
    the thumbnail previews, you will see the edited version.

    Does anyone know how to force iPhoto to update the thumbnail previews?


    John

    PS If you are editing jpeg photos, it would be best to double click
    the photo in iPhoto to edit it so that iPhoto will create a copy of
    the photo. iPhoto always does this with RAW photos.
     
    jdear64, Jan 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    Justin C <> wrote:

    > At last I've started going through my RAW files. When I connect my
    > camera to my Mac the RAW images are imported into iPhoto automatically,
    > I've set up a double click to lauch PhotoShop - though what starts, I
    > guess, is Bridge - where I can adjust the RAW data and save the image as
    > jpg, tiff, psd, etc. But where have the images gone? I can find them in
    > finder, but why can I not get them back into iPhoto?
    >
    > If I select import from iPhoto, navigate to the folder, select the items
    > I get a message telling me the images are unreadable... even though
    > they're not, I can open them in Preview easily enough.
    >
    > I'd like to carry on using iPhoto to organise my images - I don't want
    > to have to start again with my photo library. Any suggestions greatfully
    > received.
    >
    > Justin.


    Skip iPhoto. It's more trouble than it's worth. iPhoto's RAW
    conversion is pretty ugly too. Let Photoshop do it.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jan 31, 2007
    #3
  4. Justin C

    C J Campbell Guest

    On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:46:42 -0800, Justin C wrote
    (in article <>):

    >
    > At last I've started going through my RAW files. When I connect my
    > camera to my Mac the RAW images are imported into iPhoto automatically,
    > I've set up a double click to lauch PhotoShop - though what starts, I
    > guess, is Bridge - where I can adjust the RAW data and save the image as
    > jpg, tiff, psd, etc. But where have the images gone? I can find them in
    > finder, but why can I not get them back into iPhoto?
    >
    > If I select import from iPhoto, navigate to the folder, select the items
    > I get a message telling me the images are unreadable... even though
    > they're not, I can open them in Preview easily enough.
    >
    > I'd like to carry on using iPhoto to organise my images - I don't want
    > to have to start again with my photo library. Any suggestions greatfully
    > received.
    >
    > Justin.
    >
    >


    If you use a third party application, such as Bridge, with iPhoto, modify the
    file or move or rename it, iPhoto loses the location of the photo. If you
    then try to use the Revert to Original command to try to get your photo back,
    then iPhoto will over-write the original file with the "nothing" that if
    finds in the original's place -- a zero-K file. You lose the original and
    only have a chance of getting it back with some file recovery utilities.

    iPhoto 5.0.1 or later prevents the loss of non-RAW images this way, but RAW
    images are still destroyed. Furthermore, iPhoto will quit unexpectedly if you
    persist in trying to view these photos.

    So, first of all, whatever you do, DO NOT USE THE REVERT TO ORIGINAL COMMAND
    ON THESE IMAGES.

    Now, what has happened is that iPhoto has lost the information, so your best
    bet is to simply re-import the original file. You will get a new thumbnail
    and the file will be unmodified unless you modified it in Photoshop.

    The best way to do this is to export your library, which must be done
    separately for both RAW and non-RAW images, then re-importing it. A link to
    an Apple support document describing this procedure is here:

    http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300808

    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
     
    C J Campbell, Jan 31, 2007
    #4
  5. Justin C

    Ken Lucke Guest

    In article
    <-sjc.supernews.net>,
    Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Justin C <> wrote:
    >
    > > At last I've started going through my RAW files. When I connect my
    > > camera to my Mac the RAW images are imported into iPhoto automatically,
    > > I've set up a double click to lauch PhotoShop - though what starts, I
    > > guess, is Bridge - where I can adjust the RAW data and save the image as
    > > jpg, tiff, psd, etc. But where have the images gone? I can find them in
    > > finder, but why can I not get them back into iPhoto?
    > >
    > > If I select import from iPhoto, navigate to the folder, select the items
    > > I get a message telling me the images are unreadable... even though
    > > they're not, I can open them in Preview easily enough.
    > >
    > > I'd like to carry on using iPhoto to organise my images - I don't want
    > > to have to start again with my photo library. Any suggestions greatfully
    > > received.
    > >
    > > Justin.

    >
    > Skip iPhoto. It's more trouble than it's worth. iPhoto's RAW
    > conversion is pretty ugly too. Let Photoshop do it.


    Or get Aperture, which handles it all - conversion, image adjustment,
    handoff to PS (or other program) for pixel editing, and reception of
    the edited picture right back into its library from the editing
    program, stacked with the original, untouched image.

    Free trial, too.

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Jan 31, 2007
    #5
  6. Justin C

    Justin C Guest

    On 2007-01-31, C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >
    > The best way to do this is to export your library, which must be done
    > separately for both RAW and non-RAW images, then re-importing it. A link to
    > an Apple support document describing this procedure is here:
    >
    > http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300808


    That's interesting, thank you.

    Justin.

    --
    Justin C, by the sea.
     
    Justin C, Jan 31, 2007
    #6
  7. Justin C

    Justin C Guest

    On 2007-01-30, jdear64 <> wrote:
    >
    > The way I use iPhoto in my workflow is like this:
    >
    > 1) Import photos into iPhoto from the CF card reader.
    >
    > 2) Look at the photos and decide which photo I care enough to work
    > on and drag that
    > photo into PhotoShop.
    >
    > 3) After making the changes to the photo, I save it into the iPhoto
    > directory
    > location ( which will be up one level from where PhotoShop got
    > the CR2 file )
    > overwriting the iPhoto created jpeg.
    >
    > The only problem with this workflow is that iPhoto will show its own
    > thumbnail version of the picture when viewing the standard size
    > thumbnails and not the edited one. But when you change the size of
    > the thumbnail previews, you will see the edited version.


    Thanks, I've noted that for next time.


    Justin.

    --
    Justin C, by the sea.
     
    Justin C, Jan 31, 2007
    #7
  8. Justin C

    Keith Guest

    Ken Lucke <> wrote:

    > In article
    > <-sjc.supernews.net>,
    > Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > Justin C <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > At last I've started going through my RAW files. When I connect my
    > > > camera to my Mac the RAW images are imported into iPhoto automatically,
    > > > I've set up a double click to lauch PhotoShop - though what starts, I
    > > > guess, is Bridge - where I can adjust the RAW data and save the image as
    > > > jpg, tiff, psd, etc. But where have the images gone? I can find them in
    > > > finder, but why can I not get them back into iPhoto?
    > > >
    > > > If I select import from iPhoto, navigate to the folder, select the items
    > > > I get a message telling me the images are unreadable... even though
    > > > they're not, I can open them in Preview easily enough.
    > > >
    > > > I'd like to carry on using iPhoto to organise my images - I don't want
    > > > to have to start again with my photo library. Any suggestions greatfully
    > > > received.
    > > >
    > > > Justin.

    > >
    > > Skip iPhoto. It's more trouble than it's worth. iPhoto's RAW
    > > conversion is pretty ugly too. Let Photoshop do it.

    >
    > Or get Aperture, which handles it all - conversion, image adjustment,
    > handoff to PS (or other program) for pixel editing, and reception of
    > the edited picture right back into its library from the editing
    > program, stacked with the original, untouched image.
    >
    > Free trial, too.


    I use Aperture for ediitng Raw and jpegs - I find I hardly ever have to
    go into Photoshop to tweak images these days - this avoids any image
    duplication as all edits, which are non-destructive, are stored as tiny
    text files within the programme which saves lots of disk space.
     
    Keith, Jan 31, 2007
    #8
  9. Justin C

    C J Campbell Guest

    On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:47:38 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote
    (in article <300120072247384632%>):

    > In article
    > <-sjc.supernews.net>,
    > Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> Justin C <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> At last I've started going through my RAW files. When I connect my
    >>> camera to my Mac the RAW images are imported into iPhoto automatically,
    >>> I've set up a double click to lauch PhotoShop - though what starts, I
    >>> guess, is Bridge - where I can adjust the RAW data and save the image as
    >>> jpg, tiff, psd, etc. But where have the images gone? I can find them in
    >>> finder, but why can I not get them back into iPhoto?
    >>>
    >>> If I select import from iPhoto, navigate to the folder, select the items
    >>> I get a message telling me the images are unreadable... even though
    >>> they're not, I can open them in Preview easily enough.
    >>>
    >>> I'd like to carry on using iPhoto to organise my images - I don't want
    >>> to have to start again with my photo library. Any suggestions greatfully
    >>> received.
    >>>
    >>> Justin.

    >>
    >> Skip iPhoto. It's more trouble than it's worth. iPhoto's RAW
    >> conversion is pretty ugly too. Let Photoshop do it.

    >
    > Or get Aperture, which handles it all - conversion, image adjustment,
    > handoff to PS (or other program) for pixel editing, and reception of
    > the edited picture right back into its library from the editing
    > program, stacked with the original, untouched image.
    >
    > Free trial, too.
    >
    >


    Not only that, but Aperture will share its images with iLife '06
    applications. iPhoto '06 allows you to open the Aperture library from within
    iPhoto. So you lose absolutely nothing, gain considerable security and
    flexibility, and a great deal more editing power by going with Aperture.

    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
     
    C J Campbell, Jan 31, 2007
    #9
  10. Justin C

    Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <>, C J
    Campbell <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:47:38 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote
    > (in article <300120072247384632%>):
    >
    > > In article
    > > <-sjc.supernews.net>,
    > > Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> In article <>,
    > >> Justin C <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> At last I've started going through my RAW files. When I connect my
    > >>> camera to my Mac the RAW images are imported into iPhoto automatically,
    > >>> I've set up a double click to lauch PhotoShop - though what starts, I
    > >>> guess, is Bridge - where I can adjust the RAW data and save the image as
    > >>> jpg, tiff, psd, etc. But where have the images gone? I can find them in
    > >>> finder, but why can I not get them back into iPhoto?
    > >>>
    > >>> If I select import from iPhoto, navigate to the folder, select the items
    > >>> I get a message telling me the images are unreadable... even though
    > >>> they're not, I can open them in Preview easily enough.
    > >>>
    > >>> I'd like to carry on using iPhoto to organise my images - I don't want
    > >>> to have to start again with my photo library. Any suggestions greatfully
    > >>> received.
    > >>>
    > >>> Justin.
    > >>
    > >> Skip iPhoto. It's more trouble than it's worth. iPhoto's RAW
    > >> conversion is pretty ugly too. Let Photoshop do it.

    > >
    > > Or get Aperture, which handles it all - conversion, image adjustment,
    > > handoff to PS (or other program) for pixel editing, and reception of
    > > the edited picture right back into its library from the editing
    > > program, stacked with the original, untouched image.
    > >
    > > Free trial, too.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Not only that, but Aperture will share its images with iLife '06
    > applications. iPhoto '06 allows you to open the Aperture library from within
    > iPhoto. So you lose absolutely nothing, gain considerable security and
    > flexibility, and a great deal more editing power by going with Aperture.


    Indeed, I forgot that point - as I never use iPhoto. iPhoto, iDVD,
    iMovieHD, all of them and more, can access your Aperture libraries
    directly, without any intermediate steps, whether your pictures are in
    ..jpg, .tif, raw, or other formats. Aperture also shares its libraries
    with the whole system if desired, so you can even just go to the System
    Prefs for the OS X screensaver, for example, and enable your favorite
    albums (or even your whole library) as a slideshow screen saver without
    ever having to do another thing, and they become dynamic - changing as
    your albums/libraries change - again without any intercession on your
    part.

    v1.5 even allows plugins for exports - you can now automatically export
    to several stock photo companies, or to Flickr, automatically from
    Aperture.

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Feb 1, 2007
    #10
  11. Justin C

    Justin C Guest

    On 2007-02-01, Ken Lucke <> wrote:
    >

    [snip]

    > v1.5 even allows plugins for exports - you can now automatically export
    > to several stock photo companies, or to Flickr, automatically from
    > Aperture.


    Lots of praise for Aperture. It's not cheap though... but I *do* need
    something to keep my images organised... which is what iPhoto does...
    only not too well.

    I'm going to have to Google for Aperture cons, there have to be some
    downsides (I know there have been some negative voices in this
    newsgroup). I need to see both sides of the product before I make a
    purchase of that size... especially when I already have software that
    does the job I want (well, mostly).

    Those who've mentioned Aperture have, I think, got me more confused than
    I was! It seems to me that, really, I'm paying the price of Aperture
    just to keep my photos organised. OK, Aperture does a lot more than
    organise photos better than than iPhoto, however, PhotoShop as, AFAICT,
    the industry standard when it comes to photo editing software.

    For starters, I'm going to wait until I've a camera full of images, then
    I'm going to DL the trial version of Aperture and see how I get on.

    Thanks to all for the comments.

    Justin.

    --
    Justin C, by the sea.
     
    Justin C, Feb 1, 2007
    #11
  12. Justin C

    Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <>, Justin
    C <> wrote:

    > On 2007-02-01, Ken Lucke <> wrote:
    > >

    > [snip]
    >
    > > v1.5 even allows plugins for exports - you can now automatically export
    > > to several stock photo companies, or to Flickr, automatically from
    > > Aperture.

    >
    > Lots of praise for Aperture. It's not cheap though... but I *do* need
    > something to keep my images organised... which is what iPhoto does...
    > only not too well.


    That statement, in itself, should be a clue to your answer... :^)

    > I'm going to have to Google for Aperture cons, there have to be some
    > downsides (I know there have been some negative voices in this
    > newsgroup).


    I haven't seen anyone who actually has used it for any reasonable
    period of time who has serious negative things to say, but I may have
    missed them. You also probably don't see comments from even 10% of the
    people who ARE actually using it... I'd love to see everyone here who
    IS using it to sound off here about the _good_ things to show the
    overbalance of the few very minor detractions I've seen.

    Mostly, it's people who don't even have access to it due to OS
    differences (after all, it's only available, and only WILL ever be
    available [according to Apple], for Mac OS X) who are blowing steam out
    of their hats without any true experience, or people who "tried it" for
    two days and went back to whatever they were using before - either it
    was more than they needed, or they just weren't used to it (and didn't
    want to take the time to become used to it), from the comments I have
    seen.

    > I need to see both sides of the product before I make a
    > purchase of that size...


    Nothing wrong with that, it's a wise thing to do.

    > especially when I already have software that
    > does the job I want (well, mostly).


    You keep qualifying your comments on how iPhoto does the job ("well,
    mostly", "only not too well"). That should be a clue that you need
    something more powerful - if you have to make excuses for your
    software, you need to seriously consider moving on.

    Remember that time is value, too. Either monetarily, production wise
    [can't take shots while you are fighting the computer], or time away
    that could be spent with family, etc. How much otherwise productive
    time have you spent fighting (and apparently losing to) iPhoto's
    system, including the reason for the thread in the first place - your
    missing photos? All that time & frustration is worth something, so
    factor _that_ into how much Aperture costs long-term when you are
    making your decision.

    iPhoto is fine for the casual and amateur photographer. If you are
    trying to do anything more than that, Aperture is a major improvement.

    Why not ust get the free trial from Apple? 30 days, no charge, then
    you can decide from actual experience rather than hearsay from those
    who are fanatical on either side? (I admit I could be labeled fanatical
    on the Pro side - and it's not often I get worked up over a piece of
    /software/ :^) Use it every day for 30 days, even if you have to make
    up something to do with it just to be using it, before you make a
    decision.

    > Those who've mentioned Aperture have, I think, got me more confused than
    > I was! It seems to me that, really, I'm paying the price of Aperture
    > just to keep my photos organised.


    Oh, no. No, no, no, no, no... :^)

    Besides, even if it WERE, I'd still use it - its image management
    capabilities are far better than anything else out there, bar none.

    > OK, Aperture does a lot more than
    > organise photos better than than iPhoto, however, PhotoShop as, AFAICT,
    > the industry standard when it comes to photo editing software.


    PS _is_ the "industry standard" for image _editing_ - I would never
    deny that.

    However, Aperture allows image _adjustments_ just fine - better, in
    fact, than PS, because your adjustments are non-destructive, so can
    aways be removed or altered, whereas with PS, you'd have to save an
    interminable number of different files and/or layers to achieve the
    same non-destructive adjustments. That's a HUGE saving in disk space
    and file management /alone/.

    If you do need PS for something, one key-combination sends it there,
    and receives the changes right back from PS (in a new file, stacked
    right with the old one, so you /still/ haven't changed your original),
    without you ever having to do a thing in the way of keeping track of
    the files.

    If you are not needing to get down and push pixels around, almost all
    of what you need to do to a raw image can be done in Aperture,
    including a small amount of pixel pushing (cloning, cropping, rotating,
    etc - all of which are /still/ non-destructive). I've found I do about
    85-90% of my work right in Aperture.


    > For starters, I'm going to wait until I've a camera full of images, then
    > I'm going to DL the trial version of Aperture and see how I get on.


    Good plan, but don't wait until the camera is full :^)

    Get it and play, play, play. Don't expect it to be totally familiar
    instantly - it uses several different concepts than most people are
    used to, and will be completely different that you are used to with
    iPhoto - just take it that the differences are good in the long run.
    But on the other hand, it's not a very steep learning curve, either. I
    had it up and mastered in a couple of days after install.

    One additional suggestion - the free trial doesn't have exceptional
    documentation with it (or at least it didn't when I got the free trial
    of v1.0, way back when), so try to find yourself a copy of Lynda.com's
    training videos on it, or at least something similar.

    > Thanks to all for the comments.
    >
    > Justin.


    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Feb 2, 2007
    #12
  13. Justin C

    C J Campbell Guest

    On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:22:49 -0800, Justin C wrote
    (in article <>):

    > On 2007-02-01, Ken Lucke <> wrote:
    >>

    > [snip]
    >
    >> v1.5 even allows plugins for exports - you can now automatically export
    >> to several stock photo companies, or to Flickr, automatically from
    >> Aperture.

    >
    > Lots of praise for Aperture. It's not cheap though... but I *do* need
    > something to keep my images organised... which is what iPhoto does...
    > only not too well.
    >
    > I'm going to have to Google for Aperture cons, there have to be some
    > downsides (I know there have been some negative voices in this
    > newsgroup).


    I was one of the most negative voices about Aperture until version 1.5 was
    released. There are still some cons, though:

    It needs an Intel processor to run anywhere near adequately. The G4
    processors are just too slow.

    You need at least 2G of memory or some processes can really bog down.

    There are a few gotchas when you migrate to a new computer. They are easily
    fixed, but you will want to ask a few questions before you do that.

    Aperture will quit abruptly if you move around too much in the browser before
    the thumbnails are updated. Almost all of the image browsers have this bug,
    including Lightroom and iView.

    All photo browsers have practical limits to the size of the library they will
    manage. Break those limits and they usually crash. Aperture's reaction is to
    bog down if you get more than 20,000 photos in the library. At least it
    doesn't crash like the rest of them.

    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
     
    C J Campbell, Feb 2, 2007
    #13
  14. Justin C

    Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <>, C J
    Campbell <> wrote:

    > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:22:49 -0800, Justin C wrote
    > (in article <>):
    >
    > > On 2007-02-01, Ken Lucke <> wrote:
    > >>

    > > [snip]
    > >
    > >> v1.5 even allows plugins for exports - you can now automatically export
    > >> to several stock photo companies, or to Flickr, automatically from
    > >> Aperture.

    > >
    > > Lots of praise for Aperture. It's not cheap though... but I *do* need
    > > something to keep my images organised... which is what iPhoto does...
    > > only not too well.
    > >
    > > I'm going to have to Google for Aperture cons, there have to be some
    > > downsides (I know there have been some negative voices in this
    > > newsgroup).

    >
    > I was one of the most negative voices about Aperture until version 1.5 was
    > released. There are still some cons, though:
    >
    > It needs an Intel processor to run anywhere near adequately. The G4
    > processors are just too slow.


    Runs just fine on my 2.1ghz G5.

    IIRC, it was never _designed_ for use on the G4, you had to have one of
    the patches floating around for that - or to run it with less than 1GB
    of memory (I had both patches installed when I was using it on a G4
    867mhz PPC). If you try to run a program designed for a later computer
    on an earlier one, of course it is going to run too slow. Cannt'
    really blame the product for that.

    > You need at least 2G of memory or some processes can really bog down.


    I muddle through with 1.5 GB currently, and don't notice a lot of
    degredation, but you are right, more memory is going to be better.

    > There are a few gotchas when you migrate to a new computer. They are easily
    > fixed, but you will want to ask a few questions before you do that.


    Not really - move your library, open Aperture, tell it where the moved
    library is, close Aperture, restart it (because it works with only one
    library at a time, you have to actually close the app and restart it,
    but I didn't switch libraries that often... and why they had to make it
    like that I have no idea. One library at a time, I can understand -
    but having to close the app and relaunch it to accept the new file is
    beyond me). What "gotchas" did you experience?

    > Aperture will quit abruptly if you move around too much in the browser before
    > the thumbnails are updated. Almost all of the image browsers have this bug,
    > including Lightroom and iView.


    Now that's something I've never had happen in over a year of almost
    daily use. With any other image browser, either - are you sure this
    isn't something on your system?

    > All photo browsers have practical limits to the size of the library they will
    > manage. Break those limits and they usually crash. Aperture's reaction is to
    > bog down if you get more than 20,000 photos in the library. At least it
    > doesn't crash like the rest of them.


    Well, if that's a limitation, you can easily overcomoe it by splitting
    your library (with the caveat as above as to having to tell it the
    change, quit and relaunch the app) - I've never had the problem, but
    the most I ever had in the library (before serious paring down occured)
    was aound 15K photos.

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Feb 2, 2007
    #14
  15. C J Campbell wrote:

    > All photo browsers have practical limits to the size of the library they will
    > manage. Break those limits and they usually crash. Aperture's reaction is to
    > bog down if you get more than 20,000 photos in the library. At least it
    > doesn't crash like the rest of them.


    Yikes; that's not useful!

    ThumbsPlus is coping perfectly happily with 50,000 images in my
    collection currently; no performance difference from when it had 100 in
    anything except a full-database query (which is still decently fast; but
    it is slower than when there were many fewer images).

    I see people reporting having scanned 30,000 slides in a year; what use
    is a program that starts to choke at a TOTAL collection around 20,000?
    Sheesh.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 2, 2007
    #15
  16. Justin C

    nospam Guest

    In article <45c39fdf$0$15003$>, David
    Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    > C J Campbell wrote:
    >
    > > All photo browsers have practical limits to the size of the library they
    > > will
    > > manage. Break those limits and they usually crash. Aperture's reaction is
    > > to
    > > bog down if you get more than 20,000 photos in the library. At least it
    > > doesn't crash like the rest of them.

    >
    > Yikes; that's not useful!
    >
    > ThumbsPlus is coping perfectly happily with 50,000 images in my
    > collection currently; no performance difference from when it had 100 in
    > anything except a full-database query (which is still decently fast; but
    > it is slower than when there were many fewer images).
    >
    > I see people reporting having scanned 30,000 slides in a year; what use
    > is a program that starts to choke at a TOTAL collection around 20,000?
    > Sheesh.


    aperture does NOT choke with 20k total images, nor is there any need to
    have multiple libraries to handle large amounts of images.

    within aperture, one can make multiple projects in a library, and those
    have an upper limit (not sure how many but it is quite large). the
    main library itself is limited by available disk space and images can
    be on any attached drive. as long as no individual project is huge,
    there isn't any major problem.

    there can be any number of projects per library, and a project can be
    whatever the user wants - a specific photo shoot, a particular subject,
    etc. one can also create albums which can contain images from any
    project. it is quite flexible in organizing images.
     
    nospam, Feb 2, 2007
    #16
  17. Justin C

    Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <45c39fdf$0$15003$>, David
    Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    > C J Campbell wrote:
    >
    > > All photo browsers have practical limits to the size of the library they
    > > will
    > > manage. Break those limits and they usually crash. Aperture's reaction is
    > > to
    > > bog down if you get more than 20,000 photos in the library. At least it
    > > doesn't crash like the rest of them.

    >
    > Yikes; that's not useful!


    Don't jump to conclusions - I've never heard of this limitation before,
    and I've read every scrap of Aperture documentation I could get my
    hands on. Until I saw proof, I'd tend to not place a lot of stock in
    it.

    You'll notice the "at least it doesn't crash like the rest of them" -
    how many others have you heard of that crashed with large numbers of
    images? That alone indicates to me that this is not a common occurance
    with others, but rather that something on/in the poster's system/app is
    hosed.

    >
    > ThumbsPlus is coping perfectly happily with 50,000 images in my
    > collection currently; no performance difference from when it had 100 in
    > anything except a full-database query (which is still decently fast; but
    > it is slower than when there were many fewer images).


    Anything like that is normal - you can't search, sort, or display twice
    the information without increasing CPU cycles. Enough of an increase,
    and it will be noticable, no matter what program or system.

    > I see people reporting having scanned 30,000 slides in a year; what use
    > is a program that starts to choke at a TOTAL collection around 20,000?
    > Sheesh.


    Like I said, don't sweat it - I have a hard time accepting it as a
    fact, and will, until I see some sort of a tech note defining it as a
    problem.

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Feb 2, 2007
    #17
  18. Justin C

    Robert Haar Guest

    On 2/2/07 1:03 PM, "C J Campbell" <>
    wrote:

    > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:22:49 -0800, Justin C wrote


    >>
    >> Lots of praise for Aperture. It's not cheap though... but I *do* need
    >> something to keep my images organised... which is what iPhoto does...
    >> only not too well.


    >
    > It needs an Intel processor to run anywhere near adequately. The G4
    > processors are just too slow.


    It runs pretty well on my dual processor G5.

    >
    > You need at least 2G of memory or some processes can really bog down.


    The Ram is often more critical than raw CPU speed. If you get into heavy
    paging in virtual memory, everything slows down significantly.
     
    Robert Haar, Feb 3, 2007
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JeffK

    where have my messages gone?

    JeffK, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    788
    JeffK
    Aug 12, 2003
  2. bolero
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    497
    °Mike°
    Oct 16, 2003
  3. Harrison

    MS may have just gone open source?

    Harrison, Feb 13, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    382
    Blinky the Shark
    Feb 13, 2004
  4. Richard
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    980
    Mark Spatny
    Jun 2, 2004
  5. shoplifes

    You have come? Definitely you have not gone

    shoplifes, Nov 25, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    624
    shoplifes
    Nov 25, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page