Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

trixiesirisheye

macrumors member
Dec 31, 2007
37
2
I just don't use iPhoto

I am very nervous about how iPhoto wraps up my photos in its proprietary interface/code. I just keep my photos in a folder (and subfolders) in my Documents folder and manage the images with Adobe Bridge. I have a friend whose iPhoto library has gotten corrupted, and she's freaking out. I hope she's gotten AppleCare. The computer is a year old.
 

ju7281

macrumors newbie
Mar 7, 2013
1
0
iPhoto is not the only photo program for sure.

First off "Why?' Are your just curious? If so,then they are inside the iPhoto library in the Pictures folder. You can right click on the library and then select "show package content. But iPhoto hides them this way for a good reason. It's to prevent you from messing with them.

You really should never have to know where the files are. If you need an image file to include in an email or web page the "correct" way go is to export the file to the dektop from iPhoto

Not everyone uses iPhoto for editing, processing, sharing, etc., because that's not what it's made for. iPhoto is mainly a program for storing and sorting photos in, but not for any real processing. The reason anyone would need to know where their photos are, which is a valid question, is because they might be a real photographer and only use iPhoto for transferring photos from an iDevice to their computer, but need to get to them from another program, such as Adobe Bridge or Photoshop.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
9,010
11,201
Not everyone uses iPhoto for editing, processing, sharing, etc., because that's not what it's made for. iPhoto is mainly a program for storing and sorting photos in, but not for any real processing.

iPhoto has many "real" editing features.

The reason anyone would need to know where their photos are, which is a valid question, is because they might be a real photographer and only use iPhoto for transferring photos from an iDevice to their computer, but need to get to them from another program, such as Adobe Bridge or Photoshop.

Not really. You can access your photos that are in iPhoto from any program using the media browser in the Open file window.
 

trixiesirisheye

macrumors member
Dec 31, 2007
37
2
I don't need no steenkeen iPhoto

I use Bridge and Photoshop. I use Apple's Image Capture to pull the photos of my camera/iPhone. Photos are stored in my documents folder in their own folder with their own subfolders. So much simpler, IMO.
 

snberk103

macrumors 603
Oct 22, 2007
5,503
91
An Island in the Salish Sea
Not everyone uses iPhoto for editing, processing, sharing, etc., because that's not what it's made for.
I disagree. That is exactly what it is made for. The processing may not be powerful enough for a serious enthusiasts - but it is powerful enough for most people's needs. If you need more then move up to Aperture or Lightroom or Capture One.
iPhoto is mainly a program for storing and sorting photos in, but not for any real processing.
No Digital Asset Manager (DAM) is really made for "real processing" - that what pixel level editors are for. And why iPhoto can use them as an 'external editor'.
The reason anyone would need to know where their photos are, which is a valid question, is because they might be a real photographer and only use iPhoto for transferring photos from an iDevice to their computer, but need to get to them from another program, such as Adobe Bridge or Photoshop.
I disagree here too. You can tell iPhoto to edit your RAW files using Photoshop (or any other editing program) and bypass Bridge altogether.

And as a "real photographer" I graduated from iPhoto a while ago. Though I still keep it around because it has some interesting features that other DAMs don't have. Specifically access to the Apple Book templates.

I use Bridge and Photoshop. I use Apple's Image Capture to pull the photos of my camera/iPhone. Photos are stored in my documents folder in their own folder with their own subfolders. So much simpler, IMO.

I don't think it's simpler - but then again only IMO. I have a friend - a very very good photographer - who insists on using Bridge. And I've given up trying to woo him to Lightroom, and he's quit trying to justify his use of Bridge. But I gotta tell you, whenever he listed the 'benefits' of Bridge I would invariably tell him how Lightroom does the same thing in half the steps, and with a few more options. He has yet to list something about Bridge that is at all attractive to me. And I'm the fellow who keeps iPhoto around because it does some cool things. But he's set in his ways, and that's fine.

My sense is that Adobe is maintaining Bridge as a Legacy Product at this point, and they would really like it if people moved to Lightroom. Which where Adobe has been putting their development resources.
 
Last edited:

trixiesirisheye

macrumors member
Dec 31, 2007
37
2
Lightroom

I've heard awesome things about Lightroom, I have the program via Adobe Creative Cloud, and as soon as I teach myself some unrelated PHP and WordPress child theme stuff I need to learn, then I will dig into learning LR.
 

snberk103

macrumors 603
Oct 22, 2007
5,503
91
An Island in the Salish Sea
I've heard awesome things about Lightroom, I have the program via Adobe Creative Cloud, and as soon as I teach myself some unrelated PHP and WordPress child theme stuff I need to learn, then I will dig into learning LR.

I think you'll like it... but there is a major "rethink" necessary to fully appreciate Lightroom's organizational power. And Aperture, too.

You have to 'let go' of your photos as tangible things. By default Lightroom wants to move your images into a date ordered folder system. Just let it do its thing. However, make sure you take the time to keyword the images as they are imported. Initially, you might just add the same names as the nested folders you are currently using. Also... take the time to create the "Collections" as you go. Think of a Collection as folder (in the nested folder sense) or an Album in iPhoto or Aperture. Collections can be grouped into Collection Sets...

You can then drag photos into the Collection that matches the way you would have set up a nested folder structure. At this point, admittedly, the benefit is hard to see. But wait - there's more!

A photo does physically reside in the Collection...it is merely a pointer. Which means you can have 'pointers' (images) in as many Collections as you want, without increasing the storage needed (since it is just a text pointer that is being duplicated in a database entry). So, for instance.... Your best friend Fred comes over to visit your family for your birthday. Fred brings a rare breed of monkey because he knows you like to take photos of monkeys. You get a photo of Fred, with the monkey and your family at your birthday party... and since you used the self timer, you're in the photo too.

With the old-fashioned nested folder structure, do you file this image under the date? In the 'My Birthday', 'My Family', 'Monkey', 'Friends', or 'Photos of Me' folder? In 3 years when you need to find that photo again because this is the monkey that was wandering around an Ikea store in Toronto and the local paper will pay you for your copy will you remember where filed it?

With Lightroom you can file it under all of those Collections (It is automatically filed by date, so you don't need to do that). Plus if you have added the keywords, you can just do a search on "monkey" and whatever else may narrow that search.

Plus...you have Smart Collections. These are like permanent searches. Going back to our hypothetical example, people know you have lots of photos of Monkeys and are always asking you for a copy. Since you are adding keywords (Monkey & species, perhaps?) as you import you can set up a Smart Collection that updates itself automatically to show you all the photos that have keyword "Monkey" attached. You never have to go looking for them.. you just open a Collection (which is exactly like opening up a folder) to see all the photos. Smart Collections can have very complex filters that narrow searches by more variables than you can shake a stick at.... for instance you can search (or exclude) lense focal lengths, apertures, camera make, etc etc.

And that is just the scratching the surface of the power of Lightroom's organizational power. To be balanced, Aperture has similar abilities as well.

The key is to "let go" of your images. Let Lightroom do what it wants to do. You need to know that Lightroom (and Aperture) never alter your photos - even when you edit them in those applications. All of these things are being recorded in a database. It's why you never "save" and why you don't move your images around outside of the applications. It's also why the space needed can stay pretty modest even if you have lots of variations and duplicates. You can always "reset" an image to go back to the image you initially imported.

Think of it as a public library, where you request a book and it is brought to you at the front desk. The card catalogue is the Lightroom interface. There are multiple records for the same book... one by author, one by publishing date, one by topic, one by publisher. And you never really need to know where the book is... you just say "I want that one, please" and it is fetched for you. Except that Lightroom also gives you the ability to "look" at the books on the shelf next to the one you want. Sometimes you need to "browse" visually... so you use the search features to find the image you know is near the one you have in mind, and then browse.

Once you have gotten used to the basic functioning of Lightroom, it is flexible enough that you can change some of the defaults. But initially, just stick to the default organizing scheme. The Help files assume this is the case, and you find that the default scheme is pretty well thought out.

Hope this helps.
 

trixiesirisheye

macrumors member
Dec 31, 2007
37
2
Lightroom's organizing

Funny enough, in my documents folder is a folder for my photos. In that folder are subfolders with one for each year, so 2013 photos. In those subfolders are subfolders, so 2013-03 for photos in that month. I do have some other folders for, say, my artwork.

I also have a folder in my documents folder for my business, in that folder is a folder for my clients, and in that folder is subfolder for each client. Images need to stay in the clients' folders, because they are the clients' assets that they've temporarily given to me. So no, I can't stop thinking of images as tangible things. And when I'm no longer working for a client, or it's been a while since I have, I take their whole folder, including the subfolder with their image assets, and zip it up. So that would be a deal-breaker for me. One of the things I DON'T like about iPhoto is its propensity for moving my images into its own organizational construct.

If Adobe gets rid of Bridge, I'll have to find another solution. What you've described makes me want to avoid LR at all costs. I can assign keywords to photos in Bridge and accomplish the same thing you describe.

From what I've read, LR is for photographer's assets. I'm a graphic designer and web developer, so I'm looking at other assets besides photos, like ID files and Fireworks files and Illustrator files, all in one place. From what I just read from a Google search, there are no plans to jettison Bridge, since it serves a different purpose, which is perfect for me.
 
Last edited:

snberk103

macrumors 603
Oct 22, 2007
5,503
91
An Island in the Salish Sea
Funny enough.. .. which is perfect for me.

It's helpful to have your description. So... let me say that I am not trying to "convert" you... only you know what will work best for your needs. For the sake of argument I am going to pretend you want to move to Lightroom, but that there are some problems that need to be solved first. If, in the end, you don't move then it is not because there was an artificial barrier.

I am a professional photographer, and I work with clients as well. So our situations are similar in some regards. I don't provide my clients with non-photographic documents - so in that sense there is a difference. But I do create photographic art as well as doing commercial work - and my art pieces need to be linked to things like artist statements.

While the 'default' behaviour of Lightroom (Lr) is to 'move' images into its own folder system - it can be told to leave the images in place and simply note where they are. This can be changed from one import to the next. Though, it is important to get it correct each time as 'undoing' an import is a manual affair. It can be done, and it's not too difficult... but it's better to do it right the 1st time. :) Anyway... Lr can leave your client's images in place inside your client folders. You may want to create a sub-folder for images that are in Lr vs ones that aren't. If you move the images after they are imported (but outside of Lr) Lightroom will need to be told where they are. The sub-folder would simply remind you to not move the images.

When the job is done you can select your client's images in Lr and export the catalogue to the client folder. Then delete the images from the main Lr catalogue. Then zip your client's folder up, with the Lr catalogue you exported. This means that if you ever have to go back and look at the images again in Lr, you can import the catalogue as well. This will bring back all the metadata, edits, etc. It will be as if they never left.

If you are 'round-tripping' the images... (i.e. you have found the image in Lr and you need to Photoshop it. You send the image to Ps from within Lr and do the editing required. When you Save the image in Ps the image is saved next to (and not overwriting) the original image in Lr. This ensures you always have an untouched original image to go back to.

====

You can set up multiple Catalogues in Lr. One for Clients, one for personal, etc. It is easy to switch back and forth, and each catalogue can have different settings etc.

I tried doing that for awhile, but found it wasn't worth it. I just have a few top level Collection Sets (Collection Sets are like folders and can contain just about anything except images directly... images need to be in 'something' like a Collection, or a Saved Print job, or Slide show or Web Gallery. However, Collection Sets can contain other Collection Sets). Among others, I have Collection Set for Clients and one for My Art Projects. Inside each of these are more Collection Sets. Each Client gets a Collection Set. Inside each Client Collection Set are the various 'things' that relate to that client. If I do a lot of work for that client, then each project has its own Collection Set. But basically, I can group all the work I've done for that client into nice packages. Since their images are in the top level Collection Set called Clients, I don't see those images at all when I'm in My Art Projects. Adobe has made these nesting trees very easy to open and collapse. In seconds I can go from a very neat and tide half a dozen collapsed-view Collection Sets to seeing all 50 or so items in a particular Collection Set 3 levels down.

====

Presets. This is where something like Lr really shines. I need to be able to resize images into a multitude of different resolutions, some with watermarks some without. Some as JPGs and some as TIFFs. etc. Some of the presets I have set are named generically (full sized JPGs) and some are named for the client. Presets can rename images on export, can create contact sheets, etc etc. It means that I can give my clients photos that are consistent from job to job. It means you don't need to look up the requirements more than once...if that one time you Save the preset.

====

For some of my art I end up exporting a bunch of images out of Lr into a project folder on its own. I will work with these images with no reference to Lr. At the very end I will import the final piece back into Lr. This allows me to find it and create any versions I need for promos using the presets. I also record where I've shown it, if I'm that lucky.

====

There are lots more of course.... and it may not be the right tool for you. But I didn't want to leave the thread with a mis-understanding of what Lr can do. Others reading this thread may find it useful.

Cheers.
 

trixiesirisheye

macrumors member
Dec 31, 2007
37
2
Seems like a lot of work!

Your description seems like an awful lot of extra work.

LR Presets = Photoshop Actions

I have an action for watermarking my photos. Even a whole folder of photos of different dimensions. At the same time. Piece of cake.

And one for resizing. Among other actions.
 

snberk103

macrumors 603
Oct 22, 2007
5,503
91
An Island in the Salish Sea
Your description seems like an awful lot of extra work.

LR Presets = Photoshop Actions

I have an action for watermarking my photos. Even a whole folder of photos of different dimensions. At the same time. Piece of cake.

And one for resizing. Among other actions.

Yes. Similar... but not the same. You can get similar results, but in different ways. One records a macro - and therefore has more flexibility. The other is just filling in the blanks and is much easier to create. I'm not so familiar with Actions... so I don't know if it can rename files using tokens or all of the other things it can do. One of the key differences is that Photoshop edits destructively (i.e. the basic assumption is that the original is replaced with a better version - though of course that can be altered) and Lightroom edits non-destructively... the original is never touched. So the way that Ps and Lr create new versions of an image is also different.

In Lr you don't "create" different versions or sizes of a photo (unless you send it back to Photoshop and back)... you save the 'recipe' for the different sizes and versions. Which saves a lot on the storage needs as you are only needing to store the one original image. If I've resized a whole bunch of images for my website, once they've been uploaded I delete 'em. I just create the resized images as I need to.

Obviously your system works for you... And like I said, I'm not trying to change your mind. However, others who may not have yet settled on a workflow may end up reading this thread. I think between your contribution and my replies we have covered just about all the bases, eh?
 

macnotliking

macrumors newbie
Jul 17, 2014
2
0
iPhoto is by far the dumbest photo program in existence

What is not clear is what purpose it serves for anyone - what a counterintuitive piece of complete garbage. It imports files - to where? For what incredibly limited, idiotic purpose? Who would even write such an utterly useless craplet in the first place? APPLE, GET YOUR HEADS ON A BREATHING BODY!!!!
 

Cheese&Apple

macrumors 68010
Jun 5, 2012
2,004
6,606
Toronto
What is not clear is what purpose it serves for anyone - what a counterintuitive piece of complete garbage. It imports files - to where? For what incredibly limited, idiotic purpose? Who would even write such an utterly useless craplet in the first place? APPLE, GET YOUR HEADS ON A BREATHING BODY!!!!

Somebody is having a bad day.
 

macnotliking

macrumors newbie
Jul 17, 2014
2
0
not so much a bad day

As bad software. I wanted to import the videos onto my macbook so I could upload them using hardwired faster connection. so iPhoto puts them in a library that is absolutely useless for any purpose other than -- i don't know what.

I could think of no concrete reason for a program to exist with such restrictions other than as an absolutely pathetic way to try and edge Facebook out of the way as a means of sharing videos.

What other purpose could there possibly be to placing files in an utterly ridiculous and limited library where even the MacBook's own File Manager can't crack the code?

I'm sure people who use it all the time figured it out - but for someone who doesn't feel totally invested in such a USELESS PIECE OF SOFTWARE -- i.e., an average consumer -- why is it that the default means of importing files from an iPhone via iPhoto makes them INACCESSIBLE AS FILES?

Can someone provide even an elementary explanation as to why a piece of software would EVER be released to consumers with such a PATHETIC set of defaults? It's almost like an advertisement for Windows - even though Microsoft's photo software is probably worse overall for advanced users, at least it can be used to move files!
 

kingalexthe1st

macrumors 6502
Apr 13, 2013
477
166
I wanted to import the videos onto my macbook so I could upload them using hardwired faster connection. so iPhoto puts them in a library that is absolutely useless for any purpose other than -- i don't know what.

Your files are put in places that are somewhere in the system, sure. But I access, and upload, my videos and photos all the time. The idea of iPhoto is to remove the need to trawl through system folders to find what you want. Next time you want to upload something, when you click 'upload' a finder window will appear with 'Photos' underneath a 'media' header (I think) on the left. Click that, and you'll be presented with your iPhoto library sorted into whatever events you've got your media in.

Does that help?

Alex
 

Cheese&Apple

macrumors 68010
Jun 5, 2012
2,004
6,606
Toronto
I'm not really clear on the problem but you have to keep in mind that with iPhoto you don't move files around like you in Windows.

Everything is stored in a library. Don't use finder to go into the library and muck around. Use iPhoto to import into the library and iPhoto to export from the library to wherever you want your stuff to go.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,919
2,172
Redondo Beach, California
What is not clear is what purpose it serves for anyone - what a counterintuitive piece of complete garbage. It imports files - to where? For what incredibly limited, idiotic purpose? Who would even write such an utterly useless craplet in the first place? APPLE, GET YOUR HEADS ON A BREATHING BODY!!!!

OK so you don't like it. Maybe you could state just ONE thing you would change about it.

So far the only thing you say you don't like about it is that YOU can't figure out where the library is. It is inside the folder called "Pictures" that is inside your home folder. No very well hidden.

If you don't like that location you can move it using the preferences panel.
 

Laird Knox

macrumors 68000
Jun 18, 2010
1,958
1,346
OK so you don't like it. Maybe you could state just ONE thing you would change about it.

So far the only thing you say you don't like about it is that YOU can't figure out where the library is. It is inside the folder called "Pictures" that is inside your home folder. No very well hidden.

If you don't like that location you can move it using the preferences panel.

That's crazy talk! ;)
 

MCAsan

macrumors 601
Jul 9, 2012
4,587
442
Atlanta
Does this all boil down to someone not knowing that in iPhotos and Aperture (and 3rd party photo apps like Capture 1) offer the choice of storing the original images inside the app's internal database package or in referenced folders and subfolders you can see in Finder?

http://support.apple.com/kb/PH7625
https://www.video2brain.com/en/lessons/managed-vs-referenced-file-storage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziSVtiUUiHU


Some apps such as Lightroom only do the referenced library approach. They not do the managed library with masters inside a database package.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,919
2,172
Redondo Beach, California
Does this all boil down to someone not knowing that in iPhotos and Aperture (and 3rd party photo apps like Capture 1) offer the choice of storing the original images inside the app's internal database package or in referenced folders and subfolders you can see in Finder?...


Yes. It's common to hear people say "This sucks because I don't understand it."

Many people don't understand the concept of the database. The easy way to explain it i to think of a public library that has a card catalog. The nonfiction books are placed on shelves with some impossible to remember numeric system but no one say "I think I will go looks around in the 564.7 section." They go through the catalog system first. Today most of use don't even use that, we used computers to search the catalog.

All of us need to be careful to not say what is equivalent to "This sucks because I don't understand it." It is an easy first reaction to anything new.
 

sisyphus00

macrumors newbie
Mar 5, 2016
1
0
First off "Why?' Are your just curious? If so,then they are inside the iPhoto library in the Pictures folder. You can right click on the library and then select "show package content. But iPhoto hides them this way for a good reason. It's to prevent you from messing with them.

You really should never have to know where the files are. If you need an image file to include in an email or web page the "correct" way go is to export the file to the dektop from iPhoto
[doublepost=1457231981][/doublepost]That is the stupidest ****ing thing I ever heard.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,919
2,172
Redondo Beach, California
[doublepost=1457231981][/doublepost]That is the stupidest ****ing thing I ever heard.

You do know that this thread is 10 years old. But thanks for waking it from the dead. It is fun to reflect on how things have changed since 2006. Both iPhoto and Aperture are gone, replaced with Photos. Now we all take our photos with smart phones and those smart phones don't even expose the file system to the user. It's even hard to know if the image file is actually on your iPhone or on some Apple server or maybe likely BOTH. We don't see people asking this equation "where are the image files?" any more.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.