mac windows gmail pic

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 05:18:14 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

On 2017-06-21 10:28:03 +0000, mechanic said:

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:48:07 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

In that case try "On1 Photo RAW 2017¡ they have a trial version,
and it will navigate your folder trees with ease.
https://www.on1.com (https://www.on1.com/)

Expensive!

...and yet you have a computer.
The answer is simple; if you can't justify spending on anything, don't buy it.

Ah, a Mac user!

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 05:26:32 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

On Jun 21, 2017, mechanic wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 17:51:33 -0400, Davoud wrote:

You completely misunderstand Lr. That leads you to do manual work
that Lr was designed to do. If the objective is to catalogue
photos in such a way that they can be found immediately after
months or years, Lr is the way to go.

I see a lot of cross posting to Mac groups - is this all part of the
general Mac delusion?

Perhaps you should check with the OP who appears to be a Windows user.

The push to Lightroom comes from others, maybe they're Mac users? I
suppose they would be used to the reality distortion field that such
ownership brings with it.

...and then we had some thread drift so severe that the topic of discussion
changed completely, but the original X-Post was maintained.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 06:38:20 -0400, nospam wrote:

In article , mechanic
wrote:


ask google photos for photos from george's 50th birthday and
you'll get the relevant photos, without having done any type of
manual keywording.

This sounds extremely unlikely - have you tried it?

yes, as have hundreds of millions of others. it's startling how
good it can be.

almost 94% accuracy, and that was last year:
https://research.googleblog.com/2016...ge-captioning-
open.html So does it really understand the objects and their
interactions in each image? Or does it always regurgitate
descriptions from the training data? Excitingly, our model does
indeed develop the ability to generate accurate new captions when
presented with completely new scenes, indicating a deeper
understanding of the objects and context in the images. Moreover,
it learns how to express that knowledge in natural-sounding
English phrases despite receiving no additional language training
other than reading the human captions.

That reference shows captions nothing like as detailed as 'george's
50th birthday'. Face recognition might well pick up George, but how
would it know it was his birthday, let alone the 50th? I see you are
a Mac user, the reality distortion field at work again?

More sensible comments, please!

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:35:45 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

On 2017-06-21 06:38, nospam wrote:
In article , mechanic
wrote:


ask google photos for photos from george's 50th birthday and
you'll get the relevant photos, without having done any type
of manual keywording.

This sounds extremely unlikely - have you tried it?

yes, as have hundreds of millions of others. it's startling how
good it can be.

almost 94% accuracy, and that was last year:
https://research.googleblog.com/2016...ge-captioning-
open.html So does it really understand the objects and their
interactions in each image? Or does it always regurgitate
descriptions from the training data? Excitingly, our model does
indeed develop the ability to generate accurate new captions
when presented with completely new scenes, indicating a deeper
understanding of the objects and context in the images.
Moreover, it learns how to express that knowledge in
natural-sounding English phrases despite receiving no additional
language training other than reading the human captions.

Neural nets, the Designer bless 'em. :-)

Only a few hours training needed!

On Jun 21, 2017, mechanic wrote
(in article ):

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 05:26:32 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

On Jun 21, 2017, mechanic wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 17:51:33 -0400, Davoud wrote:

You completely misunderstand Lr. That leads you to do manual work
that Lr was designed to do. If the objective is to catalogue
photos in such a way that they can be found immediately after
months or years, Lr is the way to go.

I see a lot of cross posting to Mac groups - is this all part of the
general Mac delusion?

Perhaps you should check with the OP who appears to be a Windows user.

The push to Lightroom comes from others, maybe they're Mac users?

Lightroom is cross platform and works well in both OS environments.

I suppose they would be used to the reality distortion field that such
ownership brings with it.

Sigh...

...and then we had some thread drift so severe that the topic of discussion
changed completely, but the original X-Post was maintained.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:33:57 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

On 2017-06-21 06:06, mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 21:36:29 -0400, nospam wrote:

ask google photos for photos from george's 50th birthday and
you'll get the relevant photos, without having done any type of
manual keywording.

This sounds extremely unlikely - have you tried it?

As long as George has been tagged in at least one picture, Google
(and Facebook too IIRC) will do a face-match search, check dates,
and serve up the photos. Only problem: the original shooting
dates must be linked to the photos Google finds, which may not be
the case if the photos are scans. The user/uploader must have
supplied the correct date for the photo. The date attached to it
otherwise is the scanning date. This doesn't mean Google Lens
can't figure out dates, the image's contents do supply clues. But
the odds of success would be worse.

What has dates got to do with it? You think Google knows who
'George' is and what is his birthday and year of birth? That would
be scary!

In article , mechanic
wrote:

As years from now the program that I spent hours to bring the pictures
into and labeled property, may have not have existed for years. Why
the folder hierarchy, at least the dates taken will be available.

Yes, the otherwise excellent MSFT Live Photo Gallery (Windows) is
not being updated and no doubt will eventually become obsolete.
Spending £100 or so on Lightroom is hardly an attractive
proposition, especially if only the tag/search features are being
used. And no guarantee that it will still be available in five years
time.

lightroom has been available since 2006 and will be around well beyond
five years from now.

No guarantee on that!

there's no guarantee on anything. you might not be here five years from
now.

however, it's an incredibly safe bet that lightroom will be around,
along with apps from other major companies.

however, in the event does go away one day (not likely), just export to
whatever replaces it.

You think there are alternatives poised ready to take over?

there are alternatives now, but if lightroom were to actually go away
entirely, then something will take its place.

nobody is going to ignore hundreds of millions of users who are ready
to buy a replacement app.

What
colour is the sky on your planet?

cyan.

In article , mechanic
wrote:


You completely misunderstand Lr. That leads you to do manual work
that Lr was designed to do. If the objective is to catalogue
photos in such a way that they can be found immediately after
months or years, Lr is the way to go.

I see a lot of cross posting to Mac groups - is this all part of the
general Mac delusion?

Perhaps you should check with the OP who appears to be a Windows user.

The push to Lightroom comes from others, maybe they're Mac users? I
suppose they would be used to the reality distortion field that such
ownership brings with it.

lightroom is not an apple product, so apple has *nothing* to do with
it, not that it matters.

lightroom runs on mac and windows systems.

In article , mechanic
wrote:


ask google photos for photos from george's 50th birthday and
you'll get the relevant photos, without having done any type of
manual keywording.

This sounds extremely unlikely - have you tried it?

yes, as have hundreds of millions of others. it's startling how
good it can be.

almost 94% accuracy, and that was last year:
https://research.googleblog.com/2016...ge-captioning-
open.html So does it really understand the objects and their
interactions in each image? Or does it always regurgitate
descriptions from the training data? Excitingly, our model does
indeed develop the ability to generate accurate new captions when
presented with completely new scenes, indicating a deeper
understanding of the objects and context in the images. Moreover,
it learns how to express that knowledge in natural-sounding
English phrases despite receiving no additional language training
other than reading the human captions.

That reference shows captions nothing like as detailed as 'george's
50th birthday'. Face recognition might well pick up George, but how
would it know it was his birthday, let alone the 50th?

it's not hard to figure out the photo is of a party and how old someone
is.

I see you are
a Mac user, the reality distortion field at work again?

i see you're an idiot.

scene recognition has nothing whatsoever to do with being a mac user.

in this case, *google* is doing the scene recognition on photos taken
with *any* camera.

More sensible comments, please!

what for? you're already well over your head and sinking fast.

On 2017-06-21, nospam wrote:
In article , mechanic
wrote:

ask google photos for photos from george's 50th birthday and
you'll get the relevant photos, without having done any type of
manual keywording.

This sounds extremely unlikely - have you tried it?

yes, as have hundreds of millions of others. it's startling how
good it can be.

almost 94% accuracy, and that was last year:
https://research.googleblog.com/2016...ge-captioning-
open.html So does it really understand the objects and their
interactions in each image? Or does it always regurgitate
descriptions from the training data? Excitingly, our model does
indeed develop the ability to generate accurate new captions when
presented with completely new scenes, indicating a deeper
understanding of the objects and context in the images. Moreover,
it learns how to express that knowledge in natural-sounding
English phrases despite receiving no additional language training
other than reading the human captions.

That reference shows captions nothing like as detailed as 'george's
50th birthday'. Face recognition might well pick up George, but how
would it know it was his birthday, let alone the 50th?

it's not hard to figure out the photo is of a party and how old someone
is.

No ****. And considering Google's literal business model is to gather as
much information about as many people as possible to turn around and
sell to the highest bidder, this is a given.

I see you are
a Mac user, the reality distortion field at work again?

i see you're an idiot.

scene recognition has nothing whatsoever to do with being a mac user.

No **** again. "mechanic" is apparently yet another useless lame-ass
Apple-hating troll with nothing better to do with their time. Pity.

--
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

Jolly Roger wrote:

Would Lightroom be better? Or something else?

Subjective question. Better in what way? Photos is great for my needs.
Your need may differ.

Better in handling photos that have no EXIF or other reliable automatic
data -- e.g. Date Created, which has nothing (in this case) to do with
the date the photo was taken -- associated with them.

Paul Magnussen

On 2017-06-21, Paul Magnussen wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:

Would Lightroom be better? Or something else?

Subjective question. Better in what way? Photos is great for my needs.
Your need may differ.

Better in handling photos that have no EXIF or other reliable automatic
data -- e.g. Date Created, which has nothing (in this case) to do with
the date the photo was taken -- associated with them.

While I don't have Lightroom experience, it would not surprise me if it
handled them in a similar manner to Photos, where they are simply
imported without that missing meta data, and you then need to supply
that missing meta data.

--
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 Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:20:55 -0400, nospam wrote:

scene recognition has nothing whatsoever to do with being a mac user.

It has a lot to do with those able to believe several impossible
things before breakfast. Somehow every birthday photo has to have a
cake with candles, or people wearing party hats. Anyway the Google
photo app seems likely to win out over time, every image saved on
the cloud. What could possibly go wrong?

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:03:17 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

Scanned a picture of myself as a boy. I am blowing candle and I
have party hat on my head. So yes, I can conclude it is my
birthday. Which? easy you say: count the candles !

Yeah, that'll work on your 50th!

In article , mechanic
wrote:


scene recognition has nothing whatsoever to do with being a mac user.

It has a lot to do with those able to believe several impossible
things before breakfast.

it's not impossible.

Somehow every birthday photo has to have a
cake with candles, or people wearing party hats.

nobody said it did.

Anyway the Google
photo app seems likely to win out over time, every image saved on
the cloud. What could possibly go wrong?

a lot less than if you kept them on a hard drive at home.