![]() Why wouldn't I want a true native application that "looks the business" and integrates properly with the other apps on OS X? And, finally, count me in with those who're becoming increasingly suspicious of Google. Also, it sounds like Picassa and cross-platform, and it certainly looks like it. I don't intend to test myself, because I use and like iPhoto and am quite happy with it. :-)īut does anybody do reviews in such depth as to really test out use-scenarios like that? Now that would be a real review. Maybe Ars could test such a scenario and see what happens. I don't know where Picassa stores "everything else". I do know that iPhoto also stores everything other than the image files in the iPhoto Library directory, so I'd suppose that granting a user access to that directory also grants him access to everything else. I can't see why not - though I may be missing something.īut "non-destructive editing" I don't know about. I was thinking in terms of could multiple users write to image files - add metadata to the EXIF information, such as geo-co-ordinates - add files to a common store, manipulate them (say, for red-eye), move them around on disk, etc.? I'd suppose that the answer to that is that they could so long as they had write access to the files. Specifically in iPhoto if I edit a file (and save the edit) then the original file is not altered but the modification is the photo that is visible via iPhoto for both users. Do you know if the non destructive editing plays nicely with this in a shared scenario? So Picasa works much like iPhoto and maintains the data inline within the file system. And you can add and remove people from the special group at will in the Accounts pane of System Preferences.Ĭheers Cro Magnon. Anyone in the group can read and write to those files. Now the POSIX permissions stay as they were, but they're over-ridden by the ACLs. OS X, being mighty smart, will escape any spaces in the name - e.g., /Shared/iPhoto\ Library. and leave a space and drag-and drop that main photo directory into the Terminal window. Sudo chmod -R ai "group- View image here: -hotos allow readattr,readextattr,readsecurity,list,search,read,execute,writeattr,writeextattr,delete,add_subdirectory,delete_child,write,append,file_inherit,directory_inherit" You're going to add ACLs to that directory that you put in "Shared". Call the new group something appropriate - e.g., "photos" and add the users you choose to it. PICASA FOR MAC OS 10 PLUSTo do that open "System Preferences" click "Accounts", click the plus button over on the left to add an account, and change the drop-down menu in the window that appears to read "Group". Now create a special group that will include all those you want to grant read/write access to. So put the top-level photo directory - iPhoto Library in the case of iPhoto and presumably anything you choose in the case of Picassa - in Users/Shared. And with Leopard you can create a new group in the GUI from the "Accounts" preference pane. No need for setting the GID and fiddling with POSIX permissions any more. Why not? All that's necessary is that both (or more) users are looking at the same top-level directory and both have read/write access over it and its contents.Īnd it need not be overly-complex to set up either. PICASA FOR MAC OS 10 MACIt's good that Picassa is there for them - and good for Google, too, of course.Ĭan it handle iphoto's lovely (if overly complex to achieve) mode where two users on the same mac can share the iphoto library (any changes made by one visible to the other) And may not want the synching with the handheld that I look for. Of course, other people may work in different ways. I see nothing ridiculous in the ability to do that. I might well create an album called "Place X" in which both those, and a few other "events", might go. Now in iPhoto I might have (some of) a set of photos taken in June on the Seafront at place X and I might have (some of) a set of photos taken up on the cliffs at place X in November. Now I name the directory of photos to what event name I want and import that into iPhoto, which will then use the directory name as an event name. I make the longest side 1800px, because that's better resolution than my MacBook screen can show anyway. At that time I'll probably use Lightroom to downsize (unless I know I want to print on paper). So what I do is periodically burn my raw archives to DVD - who wants those around permanently at that size? - and export to JPEG. But I still use iPhoto, partly because I want to sync. Personally, I use Adobe Lightroom for initial processing of images, viewing, tagging and whatnot. I suppose that depends on how you use it. I dislike iPhoto's ridiculous album/event schism ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |