"Paul Saunders" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| stemc © wrote:
|
| >>> I wouldn't say family orientated as such,
| >>
| >> So why the photo of kids playing in the sand and all the cartoon like icons?
| >
| > Like I said in the previous post, "...they might be marketing it as an amateur/family
| > product..." Nothing wrong with a photo of kids,
|
| It puts me off.
So minor Paul, but whatever you think is best for you.
| > and the icons are similar to Windows XP icons.
|
| Not that similar, they are definitely cartoony, as if aimed at kids.
They are as cartoony as Windows XP icons are. But who cares either way. Also, I'd rather a program
be well presented and easy to use, rather than look bland and be a pain to get the hang of. I know
you're going to come back and say that you'd rather have a program that was bland and had more
functionality, but never mind.
| >> It does seem highly usable, but the distinction between consumer and professional is not
| >> snobbery.
| >
| > So why mention the photo of kids playing in the sand and all the cartoon like icons?
|
| Because you asked me why I said it was family oriented.
No I never, I just disagreed that it was family orientated. Even if it is though, I would think of
better reasons than a photo of kids and cartoon-like icons (a bit lame); such as not being able to
search by EXIF, or not being able to edit the IPTC fields etc.
| > Fair enough. But even if I was a professional, I can't see what it couldn't do that *I*
| > would want.
|
| But what if a publisher wanted you to include certain things in your EXIF and IPTC fields and you
| didn't have the facility to edit them?
There's plenty of utilities that would allow this to be done, if it needed to be.
| >> I regularly look at exif data to distinguish different photos.
|
| > Well I can look at this data using Photoshop Album 2. Right click an image, View Properties,
| > then click the metadata tab to see all the EXIF info.
|
| No such tab in my demo. No mention of EXIF data anywhere. Is it version 2.0 you're using? Because
| that's what my demo is. Maybe they've crippled the demo version, in which case, it's not a very
| good demo. If I decide not to use it because it doesn't have a feature that I need, even though
| the full version does have it, then they've lost a sale.
I don't work for Adobe and I'm not getting commission for this, it doesn't matter to me if people
use it or not.
I'm just trying to figure out why other products are deemed to be so much better,
and if their extra features would be of any use to me or not. I've only shelled out £35 for
Photoshop Album 2, so I wouldn't be that much out of pocked if I found something better. I've
downloaded trials of both Porfolio and IMatch (last night in fact), and without reading the
instructions, they just seem a bit hard to pick up. At the end of the day, I want a cataloguing
software to arrange and find my photos. If it does this easily and effectively, then great. And
Photoshop Album does this for me. I might get a D-SLR one day and learn how to take good photos, and
I still reckon that this program would be up to the task.
| > Even without cataloguing software, I can view EXIF info.
|
| So can I, but it's often a bit fiddly, doesn't always show all the info and often shows certain
| data in odd formats, like shutter speed -
| 10/1000. And another time I saw my 15 second exposure at ISO 50 misreported as an 8 second
| exposure. Maybe it's just older software.
Possibly. It might be a standards thing, where older software never conformed 100%. But Photoshop
Album 2 works fine.
| > I'm not arguing against this, as it's great. I'm just doubting why I would ever want to search
| > for photos by any if this EXIF info, which I'm assuming you're doing with iMatch.
|
| No, I never said I wanted to use the data to search,
I know, but I just assumed that would be why you wanted it.
| just that I like to be able to access the data easily, and without having to right click and open
| up additional windows to see it. In IMatch it's instantly displayed at the bottom of the screen
| as you click on different images, which is what I need. I want the data for comparing and
| selecting photos.
Like I said above, I downloaded IMatch last night, and I can see how you can click the EXIF ot IPTC
tabs to see this information. I can see the EXIF info in a similar way in PSA2 by just keep the
properties window open somewhere on the screen, then clicking on the different images. Not that I
personally want to do that though, but I *can* if I want to.
| >> For most people yes, for professionals no.
| >
| > No comment.
|
| >> I would. It's not suitable for professionals.
| >
| > No comment.
|
| Whether you want to comment or not, it's not designed for professionals, that's a simple.fact.
| Professionals use IPTC fields and Album doesn't support them, so professionals can't use it.
Okay, fair enough. But I wouldn't say that all professionals would need these features. But who
cares anyway, why am I debating this with you!
| That would be like trying to enter a formula one race driving a Nissan Micra, it's the wrong tool
| for the job.
A very exaggerated example, but I know what you're getting at.
| Which is not a criticism of the software. It's very good, I like it, I'd probably recommend it to
| certain people. If it had a few more features I'd be tempted to use it myself, but it doesn't.
| IMatch is the opposite, it has many advanced features which I probably won't use, but that's okay.
| It's better to have too much than too little, and I may find those features useful in the future.
What are the great features of IMatch though? You've mentioned the folder tree, the EXIF info, and
the IPTC info. What else do you like about it?
| >>> Now you tell us!!!
| >>
| >> I did mention this in my original post, but perhaps I didn't stress it strongly enough.
|
| > No you never.
|
| Yes I did. Na na nana naa!
| > You never made any mention that the query related to a completely separate set of images. It
| > sounded like it was the images within your normal collection that you were having trouble
| > sorting.
|
| Yes, in retrospect it could have been read that way,
It could *only* have been read that way, but that's okay Paul.
| I didn't explain myself clearly enough.
I said it's okay! ;-)
| >> "Obviously in a database I can use keywords and categories to put the same photo in multiple
| >> locations, but I'm trying to decide where to physically store the files.
| >
| > Okay, the quote above is from the 8th paragraph. And still no mention that it's a different
| > collection.
|
| No, you're quite correct, I didn't make it clear that "a database" would be a different
| collection.
Okay, you're embarressing yourself now, get a grip man! ;-)
| >> Not only that, but I'm redesigning my website with an area-based structure, so I also have to
| >> decide in which area to put each photo on my site."
| >
| > And this quote, from paragraph 9, looks like another question, following the main one.
|
| Yes, you're quite right, I didn't explain myself properly.
You're almost making me cry here! ;-)
| > How's the website coming along?
|
| So so.
Mine is getting nowhere. I keep changing my mind about the design of it. I just need to sit down
with a pen and paper, do a design, stick to it, and publish it.
| > Are you doing any design changes, or just a redesign of layout of content?
|
| Yes, design changes, I want to change the whole look of the site. I want to get the whole thing
| restructured with all the links worked out before I actually start creating the pages. I'm
| designing some page layouts, once I'm happy with them I'll save them as templates, then I'll be
| able to put the whole thing together quite quickly.
Good luck with it, and be sure to let us know when you've got something up. Even if it's just a post
to ask which template people prefer!
| I'm using MindMan Personal for sorting out the overall site structure with links between sections
| and sorting my processed photo collection (as per this thread) into folders that will more or less
| match the page heirarchy on the site, so I can conveniently see which photos are currently
| available for each page, and also highlight the gaps in my collection to pinpoint subject matter
| that I need to scan or go out to photograph.
Not heard of it before, but hope it helps you arrange it all okay.
| >> Well I've looked hard for it but I can't find a collection tab or any mention of it anywhere.
| >
| > Can't find it in PSA2, or in iMatch?
|
| Album. You seem to have some extra features that aren't in my demo.
If I never had any extra features in the full version, I'd take it back and get a refund!
| >> But since you mentioned Alamy, don't you think it's important to include proper captioning,
| >> copyright and keyword information with your photos, in the official IPTC and EXIF data formats?
| >
| > But why? I thought this was done online using the Alamy website. Alamy says: "If your images
| > have IPTC information embedded in them, Alamy will only import the 'Caption' and 'Keywords' IPTC
| > fields - no other IPTC fields will be imported." As far as I'm aware, these two fields can be
| > added manually. And they make no mention of copywright information, so I'd assume they don't
| > import that anyway?
|
| I don't know enough about this myself yet, but I'd prefer to include the information with the
| photos rather than have to add it manually later on their website.
I'd rather add things manually, but then again, I'm not the professional photographer here who
intends to submit hundreds of photos. I bet they wouldn't even accept a CD if I sent one in! :-S
| There must be a way of handling copyright. I think I rmay emember reading that you shouldn't put
| copyright info with the photo because they handle the copyright on your behalf, or something
| like that.
I guess you need to be happy with their terms if you're going to submit to them.
| Paul
Ste