mac windows gmail pic

In article
, dorayme
wrote:


The need for the
bloated iTunes for some devices that can do more than is wanted does
not mean it is better than devices that can do less yet just what is
wanted. "Objective" for you is whatever sly thing you want in your
****ing competitions.

what someone wants is separate from an objective list of features.

What different people want and are comfortable with is an objective
matter.

nope. that's subjective.

There is a real world out there outside the documented
features of Apple products. You should try to get out into it sometime.

it's not apple-specific.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

what someone wants is separate from an objective list of features.

True, but a list of features is merely a list. Just as a test-score is
merely a number. In and of themselves, they are meaningless.

a list is not meaningless at all. it's *required* to be able to make an
informed decision.

a) For features lists: The relevance of each feature to the user's goals
and preferences governs the judgment. Missing features are bad, unwanted
features are also bad. Just how bad depends on the user's standards. One
may be able to live with a missing feature, and unable to live with an
unwanted one. (Eg, I could live with unheated external rear-view mirrors
on my car, but not with seat-heating that turns on automatically.)

b) For test score, the purpose of the test determines its meaning. Eg, a
materials test shows a breaking strain of 10,000kg/cm^2. This will be
enough, not enough, or overkill, depending on what you want to do with
the material.

that information must be known to be able to decide whether a given
product fits one's needs.

It looks like you make the common mistake of believing that attaching
numbers of some kind to a judgment makes it objective.

nope.

it looks like you are unwilling to look at all options available. your
mind is closed. you do yourself a disservice.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:


The need for the
bloated iTunes for some devices that can do more than is wanted does
not mean it is better than devices that can do less yet just what is
wanted. "Objective" for you is whatever sly thing you want in your
****ing competitions.

what someone wants is separate from an objective list of features.

What different people want and are comfortable with is an objective
matter.

nope. that's subjective.

Actually, what I want etc is just another list of features.

which is not the same as what people are comfortable with.

a list is just that, a list.

comfort is decided by each user individually.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

I create folders as I add the pictures to my store, using a standard
scheme: [camera/year/month/location/subject1, subject 2, ...] "Subject"
is not necessarily unique, eg /Picnic could show up in several folder
trees. A picture may be copied into more than Subject folder, too.
Occasionally, I search through the folder tree to create some new folder
camera or year (I sometimes get sidetracked into just looking at the
pictures when i do this...) Eg, /Year_Picnics.

I'm interested in a relational database type of "asset manager", which
will automatically tag a file with all the folder names in its folder
tree. Eg, all items in /Picnic will be tagged with that label, as well
as the folder names all the way up to the parent folder. Searches on
tags would produce lists of files from all folders. Lists would be
sortable, and should be savable as libraries.

Recommendations, anyone?
the first recommendation is nix the tree structure because it's
extremely inflexible. let the asset manager handle all of that.
[etc]

First, files copied from the camera are placed in a folder. For my
purposes, the OS-provided folder isn't good enough. That's why I create
my own folder trees. I want to keep the tree structure for archiving.
I'm paranoid about data loss. A library can be rebuilt, but data may be
lost forever.

the problem is that folder trees are extremely restrictive.

whatever hierarchy you choose, you're stuck with it. if you want to
search by other criteria, you can't, and reorganizing is a pain in the
ass, at best.

Secondly, since an asset manager must work only with pointers to
image-file locations, the structure of any folder tree is irrelevant
when judging the program's features. I've already indicated what I want:
I want the manager's tagging to mirror my organisation/sorting criteria,
in addition to any other ready-made criteria.

it can, but that won't take advantage of the flexibility and
organizational power that an asset manager brings.

Therefore, "nix the tree structure" is irrelevant.

BTW, can you turn off the built-in smart playlists in iTunes?

smart playlists are something *you* create, based on *your* criteria.

they are not turned off, but rather turned *on*, and used when and
where *you* want.

itunes does include a few smart playlists, such as 'top rated' or
'recently played', but they're just examples of what can be done. you
can ignore them, delete them, or modify them as you see fit.

you clearly don't understand how itunes works, or how asset managers in
general work.

Wolf K:
First, files copied from the camera are placed in a folder. For my
purposes, the OS-provided folder isn't good enough. That's why I create
my own folder trees. I want to keep the tree structure for archiving.
I'm paranoid about data loss. A library can be rebuilt, but data may be
lost forever.

Secondly, since an asset manager must work only with pointers to
image-file locations, the structure of any folder tree is irrelevant
when judging the program's features. I've already indicated what I want:
I want the manager's tagging to mirror my organisation/sorting criteria,
in addition to any other ready-made criteria.

Therefore, "nix the tree structure" is irrelevant.

You're waaay overthinking this, overdoing it. Get Lightroom and lose
any ideas you have about folder trees, whatever they are.

Here's your tree. Create a Lr folder. Name it anything you want. I call
mine "Lightroom Photos," of all things. Inside that folder create a
folder for the year: "2017." In that folder create a folder for each
day's photos. I named mine 2017-06-20 for today; you can have any name
you want. In fact, the folder names aren't important because you won't
be folders to locate photos; Lr will do that for you. Import your
photos from the card to the daily folder. Open Lr and import your
photos from the daily folder into Lr. Add keywords to your heart's
content. Bulk rename by subject. If they don't have GPS data add that
with Lr's excellent map facility. Rate the photos from 0 to 5 stars.

Years from now quickly locate a photo among the 100,000 you have in Lr
by asking for photos of your late, beloved, Fido, taken on an unknown
date in the park on a cloudy day and rated n stars and coded blue.
Keywords, codes, file names, geography, ratings.

Do some editing in Lr. It's very good at that. Go to far, messed it up?
It's non-destructive. Want more? Use Lr's "Edit In" command to open in
Photoshop. After editing in PS you save the photo and it goes into your
Lr date folder as a TIF and it automatically appears in Lr alongside
the raw. Need a JPG? Use Lr's "Export" command. Set up as many export
scenarios as you wish for different size JPGs.

Done. Don't mess with the photos in the date folder. Lr will handle
them. Years from now you want to see where a photo is stored?
Right-click in Lr and it will show you where it is stored. But you
really don't need to know that. That's the kind of job computers were
invented to do.

This works for the overwhelming majority of professionals and a legion
of amateurs, and it will work for you.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 2017-06-20, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-06-20 01:50, nospam wrote:

what someone wants is separate from an objective list of features.

What different people want and are comfortable with is an objective
matter.

nope. that's subjective.

Actually, what I want etc is just another list of features.

You really need to revisit the definitions of "objective" and
"subjective".

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2017-06-20, nospam wrote:

it looks like you are unwilling to look at all options available. your
mind is closed. you do yourself a disservice.

That pretty much sums up this entire sub-thread.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

you could find all picnic photos in central park, regardless of year,
with julie only. with your folder hierarchy, that would take quite a
bit of effort to retrieve.
[...]

Yeah, but I don't want all of them, just the ones of Julie at George's
50th birthday celebration in Smith's Park.

not a problem. add whatever you want to the query.

a query can be as complex or as simple as you want. change it at any
time. save it if you want.

Which are in
/.../George_50th. Where I put them when I copied them from the camera,
at which time I added that folder to /camera/year/month/whatever/. Which
took me about minute to do. And where the asset manager that tagged
those photos with George_50th will find them, do its facial ID thing,
and provide the list.

it doesn't care where they are.

Easy peasy. If the program uses my folder names for "user-generated
tagging", which AFAIK is a feature of any asset manager worthy of the name.

queries doesn't use folder names or file names because that has too
many limitations.

As for geotagging etc, I may find a use for those. We'll see.

geotagging is incredibly useful.

So far, I've seen Lightroom recommended because it uses EXIF data for
sorting/searching, plus a couple of built in tags. I take all that as a
given. It's the ease and flexibility of generating my own tags that
matters to me. Mass-tagging a pile of pictures dragged into some "tag
them here" windowpane is a given, but I want more.

they all use exif data. it would be foolish to ignore that.

your keywords can be added, changed or deleted at any time and can be
whatever you want and as many as you want.

On 2017-06-20, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-06-20 12:10, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2017-06-20, Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-06-20 01:50, nospam wrote:

what someone wants is separate from an objective list of features.

What different people want and are comfortable with is an objective
matter.

nope. that's subjective.

Actually, what I want etc is just another list of features.

You really need to revisit the definitions of "objective" and
"subjective".

Wanna start a thread on epistemology?

And be further bored out of my mind by some hard-headed dummy? No
thanks. Way better things to do. I'm out of this thread. Have fun with
your self-imposed limitations and silly arguments.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:19:42 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Wolf K:
First, files copied from the camera are placed in a folder. For my
purposes, the OS-provided folder isn't good enough. That's why I create
my own folder trees. I want to keep the tree structure for archiving.
I'm paranoid about data loss. A library can be rebuilt, but data may be
lost forever.

Secondly, since an asset manager must work only with pointers to
image-file locations, the structure of any folder tree is irrelevant
when judging the program's features. I've already indicated what I want:
I want the manager's tagging to mirror my organisation/sorting criteria,
in addition to any other ready-made criteria.

Therefore, "nix the tree structure" is irrelevant.

You're waaay overthinking this, overdoing it. Get Lightroom and lose
any ideas you have about folder trees, whatever they are.

Here's your tree. Create a Lr folder. Name it anything you want. I call
mine "Lightroom Photos," of all things. Inside that folder create a
folder for the year: "2017." In that folder create a folder for each
day's photos. I named mine 2017-06-20 for today; you can have any name
you want. In fact, the folder names aren't important because you won't
be folders to locate photos; Lr will do that for you. Import your
photos from the card to the daily folder. Open Lr and import your
photos from the daily folder into Lr. Add keywords to your heart's
content. Bulk rename by subject. If they don't have GPS data add that
with Lr's excellent map facility. Rate the photos from 0 to 5 stars.

Years from now quickly locate a photo among the 100,000 you have in Lr
by asking for photos of your late, beloved, Fido, taken on an unknown
date in the park on a cloudy day and rated n stars and coded blue.
Keywords, codes, file names, geography, ratings.

Do some editing in Lr. It's very good at that. Go to far, messed it up?
It's non-destructive. Want more? Use Lr's "Edit In" command to open in
Photoshop. After editing in PS you save the photo and it goes into your
Lr date folder as a TIF and it automatically appears in Lr alongside
the raw. Need a JPG? Use Lr's "Export" command. Set up as many export
scenarios as you wish for different size JPGs.

Done. Don't mess with the photos in the date folder. Lr will handle
them. Years from now you want to see where a photo is stored?
Right-click in Lr and it will show you where it is stored. But you
really don't need to know that. That's the kind of job computers were
invented to do.

This works for the overwhelming majority of professionals and a legion
of amateurs, and it will work for you.

Thanks for the mini tutorial on using Lightroom to manage my digital
photos. You've completely talked me out of using it, but that's ok.
Overkill doesn't come close to describing how I feel about it.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

it doesn't care where they are.

I care. For reasons that have nothing to do with the asset manager.

you can do whatever you want with the folders. nobody but you cares.
the asset manager is going to ignore it.

In article , Char Jackson
wrote:


You're waaay overthinking this, overdoing it. Get Lightroom and lose
any ideas you have about folder trees, whatever they are.

Here's your tree. Create a Lr folder. Name it anything you want. I call
mine "Lightroom Photos," of all things. Inside that folder create a
folder for the year: "2017." In that folder create a folder for each
day's photos. I named mine 2017-06-20 for today; you can have any name
you want. In fact, the folder names aren't important because you won't
be folders to locate photos; Lr will do that for you. Import your
photos from the card to the daily folder. Open Lr and import your
photos from the daily folder into Lr. Add keywords to your heart's
content. Bulk rename by subject. If they don't have GPS data add that
with Lr's excellent map facility. Rate the photos from 0 to 5 stars.

Years from now quickly locate a photo among the 100,000 you have in Lr
by asking for photos of your late, beloved, Fido, taken on an unknown
date in the park on a cloudy day and rated n stars and coded blue.
Keywords, codes, file names, geography, ratings.

Do some editing in Lr. It's very good at that. Go to far, messed it up?
It's non-destructive. Want more? Use Lr's "Edit In" command to open in
Photoshop. After editing in PS you save the photo and it goes into your
Lr date folder as a TIF and it automatically appears in Lr alongside
the raw. Need a JPG? Use Lr's "Export" command. Set up as many export
scenarios as you wish for different size JPGs.

Done. Don't mess with the photos in the date folder. Lr will handle
them. Years from now you want to see where a photo is stored?
Right-click in Lr and it will show you where it is stored. But you
really don't need to know that. That's the kind of job computers were
invented to do.

This works for the overwhelming majority of professionals and a legion
of amateurs, and it will work for you.

Thanks for the mini tutorial on using Lightroom to manage my digital
photos. You've completely talked me out of using it, but that's ok.
Overkill doesn't come close to describing how I feel about it.

how is that overkill?

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Lightroom, iPhoto, photos and others are based on a database of photos
with pointers to image files. And the management/sorting is done at the
database level, not directory level. It may organise the files in some
directories, but that may not match your way to organizing them (but the
database view would).

Yes, that's exactly how I understand Lightroom etc to work. All such
sorting uses EXIF and tags. Any tags not already known to LR have to be
added separately. Since my folder labels are in effect a type of
tagging, I'd like it to import those labels as tags along with the files
so's I don't have to repeat the tagging in LR.

you can view your folder hierarchy within lightroom.

but the real power is creating your own collections based on criteria
that *isn't* a hierarchy.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

it doesn't care where they are.

I care. For reasons that have nothing to do with the asset manager.

you can do whatever you want with the folders. nobody but you cares.
the asset manager is going to ignore it.

Yeah, that's the problem. I want the asset manager to use my folder
labels, because they are in effect a type of tagging. EG, all the
pictures in /George_50th should be tagged accordingly. Why should I have
to repeat that tagging within the asset manager? It's supposed to "do
the work for me", after all.

you can browse your folder structure from within lightroom, but that
limits you to whatever structure you set up.

lightroom offers the potential to do *so* much more.

All the other tagging derived from EXIF, image-recognition algorithms,
etc, I take for granted.

you shouldn't, because it's very powerful.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

Lightroom, iPhoto, photos and others are based on a database of photos
with pointers to image files. And the management/sorting is done at the
database level, not directory level. It may organise the files in some
directories, but that may not match your way to organizing them (but the
database view would).

Yes, that's exactly how I understand Lightroom etc to work. All such
sorting uses EXIF and tags. Any tags not already known to LR have to be
added separately. Since my folder labels are in effect a type of
tagging, I'd like it to import those labels as tags along with the files
so's I don't have to repeat the tagging in LR.

you can view your folder hierarchy within lightroom.

That's not what I'm talking about.

it's *exactly* what you're talking about.

if you want to look at the photos in george's 50th folder, you can
easily do that from within lightroom.

you also aren't grasping is the wealth of other options available from
within lightroom.