iPhoto... ?

[compleks]

Hello!
I just bought myself a new macbook pro. Loving it.

Anyway, I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on iPhoto. I realise that the majority of people here tend to recommend LightRoom, or Aperture.
Just curious to know what these programs have that make you prefer them to iPhoto.
Or if you use iPhoto, what are your thoughts.

I don't want to get started using a program which I'll have to change.

Any opinions welcome

Thanks!

[CanonRebelz]

iPhoto is a great photo organizer if you don't want to buy Ligthroom or Aperture or ACDSee. I actually use Google's Picasa 3 more than iPhoto. But that's just because I have a new iMac and I used to use Picasa on my vista laptop. The thing about iPhoto is you have to import everything, then it's in the iPhoto library not in the actual albums on your computer. That's what I don't like. Picasa, however, when you save the photos, it puts them back into the albums you wanted.
As far as processing goes though, iPhoto is strictly simple. Picasa is a bit more advanced but still pretty basic. Ligthroom and Aperture are pretty advanced, they offer good editing tools and good organizing tools. They are image editors, not manipulators like PhotoShop/PaintShop/GIMP.

Just my two cents

[Jim Bryant]

I also use a macbook pro and use photomechanics for editing and Aperture or CS to finely tune my images.

[compleks]

Thanks for the replies.

I don't think I would like everything having to be imported. I'd much prefer to keep the images in my own folders. Although it does seem like an excellent program.

I was using PS Elements on my old computer for a little while. I didn't mind that.
I will most likely get a copy of photoshop and learn to use that for my editing.

I might get a copy of LightRoom for organising everything and doing minor touch ups.

Does that sound alright?

Thanks again.

[Jim Bryant]

Get the DAM book by Peter Krogh or Digital Photography Best Practices and Workflow.

[CaptainNH]

iPhoto isn't too bad as a library tool, but is very limited in terms of editing and fine tuning your shots.

I've been using Aperture for years and love it for it's quick and simple editing tools, plus I have amassed a fair collection of plug-ins for it now too. It's great for knocking up a photo book too - very quick to use.

A couple of other photogs I know are using Capture One which now includes a focus mask, great for quickly checking the focus of your shots.

Can't comment on Lightroom - I've never used it.

You can download trial versions of each of these - why not take a look at each of them?

[vandergus]

I don't think I would like everything having to be imported. I'd much prefer to keep the images in my own folders. Although it does seem like an excellent program.

This is just something you have to get over when you use iPhoto. It's "Windows think". If you get over the need for a traditional file system, iPhoto is a great organizational tool. Easy to add tags, identify faces, use geotags, do minor edits, etc. Then you can use the search features and smart albums to find anything you need. It's main weakness is the ability to handle RAW files. Technically, it can view and convert them, but it sucks at it. If you're going to be shooting RAW you'll need at least one external photo editor to do the conversions. I use PSE and the built in ACR plugin the import into iPhoto. Lightroom is probably a better overall solution for handling a large RAW workflow but it's more expensive and you would still need another pixel level editor (Photoshop, Gimp, etc.). If you're shooting jpgs, though, iPhoto should work well for your organizational needs.

[wulf]

When I got my Mac (about 2.5 years ago) I decided to give iPhoto a try. To be honest, once I got past the idea that I wasn't controlling how the pictures were filed, I found it pretty good. If I want to edit the photos, I normally use The Gimp, which I have set up as my preferred external editor.

All the shots I keep I export to a temporary directory, upload to Flickr (which gives me an "offsite backup" among other things) and then file on an external disk in a directory structure of my own choice. At some point, the Mac will probably die and I suspect I'll return to using Linux for my main home system, at which time I'll use that carefully organised directory structure to move my image library forward.

Wulf

[Jim Poor]

iPhoto is great as a toy program for the hobbiest or low, low volume shooter. Beyond that, it is pretty weak.

[sk66]

I dislike iphoto...too limited. I use Lightroom, but I wouldn't say I love it. It is great in some ways. In a lot of ways I think Adobe Bridge and Photoshop are more than adequate as a "system" and would work quite well for me. IMO, nothing is "automatic" enough to eliminate manual organization/sorting/backup/etc, and if that's the case might as well keep it "basic" and inexpensive. The one great benefit of Lightroom (and possible drawback) is that changes are not actually made to your images unless "exported". You always have the original file and "edited version". This is a drawback if you should switch from lightroom some later date, or the program/file system is changed in the future, or your xmp (change) files are lost/damaged. (so I usually do an "export" after significant editing, but this creates a larger collection of pictures) Images sent to another editor from lightroom (i.e. photoshop) come back as new images (large file Tiffs) so you still have your original file.

The basic program that came with your camera, and Gimp is a free workable solution.

This is probably one of the more difficult areas to get right for you, and one of the more crtiical to get right early on.