# Any good programs like Picasa for Mac?



## IceDigger (Dec 25, 2005)

Are there any good picture viewing programs like Picasa but for Mac?  I tried out iPhoto but did not like it.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Dec 26, 2005)

What are you going to be doing? Will you simply be storing/printing/viewing photos, or are you wanting to edit them too? And what sort of photos - family snaps, or more professional photos/designs?

I'm surprised you don't like iPhoto, plus it doesn't sound like you gave it much of a go. 

I've never used Picasa, but I've used plenty of other photo management apps and iPhoto beats them all. What sets iPhoto above the rest IMO is its powerful searching capabilities. If you apply comments and keywords to your photos you can use the various search methods to find photos fast. If using it for family photos, you can't beat iPhoto's slideshows for a quick and impressive gift for grandma!

Anyway, enough ranting. If you don't like it you don't like it. 

I've heard good things about iView Media Pro (21 day trial available)


----------



## nixgeek (Dec 26, 2005)

I've used Picasa, and it's almost exactly like iPhoto.  In fact, Picasa is the non-Apple, Windows answer to iPhoto.  I think you're trying to work with iPhoto asif it were Picasa, which is usually not a goodidea to do in general with any software package, even operating systems.  Learn to use iPhoto and you'll see that it's very useful.


----------



## barryrueger (Dec 26, 2005)

"I've never used Picasa, but ..."

I'm with IceDigger on this one. Picassa is <i>dramatically</i> better than iPhoto and I've also been searching for a Mac equivalent.  In a nutshell, Picassa manages to do everything that I need, makes it insanely easy to to find pictures, and does so in a manner that - oh I hate to say this - is totally seamless and intuitive.

If getting up and running took even one tenth of the time that I've wasted trying to use iPhoto I would have deleted Picassa immediately.

I'm not sure how long nixgeek spent looking at Picassa, but it most certainly is nothing like iPhoto.

I've spent a couple of hours with the latter and have had nothing but irritation.


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Dec 26, 2005)

bit harsh there barryruger. iPhoto isn't for everyone but I can;t believe it could provoke such hatred. Even if Picasa is better than iPhoto, iPhoto is still a great app in its own right. 

I find the people who talk badly about iPhoto are usually those who A) Don't give it a chance; or B) Have a slower system (Admittedly, iPhoto does need an awfully powerful system considering the type of app it is -  which is certainly a downside).


----------



## nixgeek (Dec 26, 2005)

Thank The Cheese said:
			
		

> bit harsh there barryruger. iPhoto isn't for everyone but I can;t believe it could provoke such hatred. Even if Picasa is better than iPhoto, iPhoto is still a great app in its own right.
> 
> I find the people who talk badly about iPhoto are usually those who A) Don't give it a chance; or B) Have a slower system (Admittedly, iPhoto does need an awfully powerful system considering the type of app it is -  which is certainly a downside).



I concur.


----------



## barryrueger (Dec 27, 2005)

I would have to think that a brand new G4 Powerbook would be fast enough to handle i iPhoto.  As for features, I stand by my assessment. Picassa is faster easier and more intuitive than iPhoto.  

I have in fact spent several hours with iPhoto and have yet to make it do anything useful.  The reason that Picassa is still on my PC is because it just did everything that I wanted - and more - without the slightest effort. It just works!

maybe it will do everything that Picassa will do but if so it sure isn't obvious.  That speaks to bad design. 

I don't hate iPhoto, I just tire of people who haven't even used Picassa telling me that it's just as good


----------



## empak (Jan 8, 2006)

I'm just switching from Windows to Mac. I got a Mac Mini and I thought that at least for photos it will be much better then PC. Now I have the problem. I have 10000 photos that I was managing using Picasa since about 3 years. I'm trying to move this to iPhoto but its probably not possible at all. 
People who use only iPhoto from the beggining probably don't understand this. They think that it is like it should be. If you look at the list of functions, mayby iPhoto has more (this is what I thought). But to do something with iPhoto I need 10 times more time. I can't accept that after holiday I will spend 10 days putting them inside iPhoto (with picasa it takes 10 minutes).

My only hope is that google will make iPhoto for mac.


----------



## hyphenjones (Jan 8, 2006)

As a Mac-er I prefer iPhoto, it's just always been there. I have seen Picassa in use and although I cant comment on speed the only major difference I picked up on was the use of funky sliders instead of folders. At the end of the day the functions are pretty much the same.


----------



## whitesaint (Jan 8, 2006)

did someone put that picasa ad on this page or is it just some incredible coincidence? 

Edit: The ad changed, i guess it was an incredible coincidence!  BTW, it was a google ad for a software program called "Picasa" a photo management program..


----------



## Viro (Jan 9, 2006)

iPhoto has always been quite slow for me, even on a 1.33 GHz G4, with 1.25 GB of RAM and a 7.2K hard drive. It's especially slow when loading up, don't ask me why, but it just is. Maybe one day, they'll sort it out.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 9, 2006)

whitesaint said:
			
		

> did someone put that picasa ad on this page or is it just some incredible coincidence?
> 
> Edit: The ad changed, i guess it was an incredible coincidence!  BTW, it was a google ad for a software program called "Picasa" a photo management program..




Google ads pick up on key text on the page and shows ads relating to it.  it saw picassa, searched for adverts, and displayed them.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 9, 2006)

Viro said:
			
		

> iPhoto has always been quite slow for me, even on a 1.33 GHz G4, with 1.25 GB of RAM and a 7.2K hard drive. It's especially slow when loading up, don't ask me why, but it just is. Maybe one day, they'll sort it out.



7.2kb hard drive!

Mac SE?


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 9, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> 7.2kb hard drive!
> 
> Mac SE?



LOL!!  Looking at it again, I think he might have meant the RPM, since 7.2K would be 7200 RPM.  Just a thought.


----------



## ex2bot (Jan 10, 2006)

Ok barryrueger et al. Can you give us some examples of what you couldn't figure out in iPhoto? I haven't used Picassa (yet -- but I'm downloading it to try on my Power Mac.), so I'm not criticizing your opinions. 

To be honest, I finally decided to really trust my photo collection to iPhoto after, what, three years? So, I'm in the process of learning more about how it works.

One last question. Did you try out the (until today) latest version of iPhoto, in iLife '05?

Doug


----------



## monkey.net (Jan 15, 2006)

I am also looking for a picasa replacement.  The main issue I have with iPhoto is that it want's to manage my picture folders.  I hope I have missed something.  The issue is I have 5+ years or so worth of digital pictures in folders that I have sorted by date.  I don't want iPhoto to re-arrange them for me.  I want the folder structure to remain the same and iPhoto to just scan them.  This way I am not stuck to iPhoto if I choose to change in a year.   Any thoughts?

Roger


----------



## beestripe (Jan 24, 2006)

monkey.net said:
			
		

> I am also looking for a picasa replacement.  The main issue I have with iPhoto is that it want's to manage my picture folders.  I hope I have missed something.  The issue is I have 5+ years or so worth of digital pictures in folders that I have sorted by date.  I don't want iPhoto to re-arrange them for me.  I want the folder structure to remain the same and iPhoto to just scan them.  This way I am not stuck to iPhoto if I choose to change in a year.   Any thoughts?
> 
> Roger



This is precisely the concern I have had too, ever since iPhoto was introduced. iPhoto's nonsensical filing system is just ridiculous. The problem could simply be solved if iPhoto gave you an option not to import pictures into it's  filing system, but rather keep them where they are. iTunes allows this type of option with MP3 Libraries so why not iPhoto?

I've recently converted my mother to a Mac from Windows - well, mostly. She now loves her PB, but refuses to transfer her archive of photo's until a Picasa for Mac (or equivalent) becomes available, I can't blame her. 

Picasa is simply excellent FREE software, and I'm sad to say Windows users do have a one-up against us with this program. The only issue I find bothersome with Picasa is that its thumbnail database is kept in order by invasively leaving tracking files in every folder on your Hard Drive/s that contains a picture image. Obviously though, this is how Picasa works so effectively and probably worth the potential inconvenience. 

iPhoto is great for showcasing a moderate selection of your favourite photos, but I would never recommend it for archiving purposes. You load in too many Pictures, even a full blown G5 can end up struggling to efficiently render access to it's own thumbnail library. It's just flawed software engineering and iPhoto should be overhauled entirely to rectify it. As for retrieving pictures out of it's filing system without using iPhoto, Forget about it.


----------



## monkey.net (Jan 24, 2006)

There is a little bit of good news.  iPhoto 06 does now let you not import your pictures.  The funny part is all they have done is create a alias in the same folder structure.  This is a little bit of good news.  However the performance issue is still very present.


----------



## ex2bot (Jan 26, 2006)

monkey.net, have you personally tried the new iPhoto? I heard performance had increased. Of course, at Macworld it was demo'd on Intel machines. 

I have "only" 1400 pictures in iPhoto (iLife '04) and the performance is good on my DP1.8 GHz G5 with 1.25 GB RAM. But I will be updating to '06. 

We'll see how it goes.

Doug


----------



## beestripe (Jan 27, 2006)

That is good news monkey.net 

I notice Apple claim to have overhauled iPhoto 06 and it now has - 
"Blazing Performance" - Words to *DaZzLe* you, I say. 

How does it really compare with Picasa now?


----------



## monkey.net (Jan 27, 2006)

I have it installed but I don't have tons of pics loaded in it yet.  I did not use 05.  Perhaps I will load all my pics in this weekend.  

roger


----------



## chuckewe (Jan 27, 2006)

If you just want a down-and-dirty viewer/sorting program, try free beta of Adobe Lightroom, download from Adobe.com or MacUpdate.


----------



## fryke (Jan 27, 2006)

or rather: don't do that. it's only the beta that's free. once the product goes final, it should compete with Apple's Aperture - and might cost like the professional software it's supposed to be! So: Rather try _not_ locking yourself in.

I'd say iPhoto '06 - with its option to not tamper with your file/folder structure - is worth another try.

Another thing: Since iPhoto _does_ have good management with meta-data, it should basically never be a big problem to switch to _another_ good program that handles meta-data. So *I*'d just let iPhoto handle the stuff the way it wants to. You don't really have to look at the folder structure, since _iPhoto_ should be the way to look at the photos.


----------



## ex2bot (Jan 29, 2006)

Macworld's review indicates they found iPhoto from iLife '06 _is_ significantly faster. 

I still haven't tried Picassa. I'm sure it's going to be VERY slow.


But only because I'm running it in VirtualPC. 

Doug


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 29, 2006)

Actually, I finally got to play around with Picasa when I installed it for a coworker at the school site I work at.  It's actually not that bad and it performs quite well.  I think it's a good option if you're looking for something like iPhoto in the PC world.  As for the Mac, I still would recommend iPhoto.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 29, 2006)

i installed Picassa for my families pc.  it's bloody amazing.  it's lightning fast, and has lots of really nice elegant effects (rotating an image, for example, the photo rotates animatedly, it's really nice, and not at all distracting), the filters to add to photo's are also really powerful, and real-time.  a good one to play with is soft-focus, it gives you a blur which gradually gets more blurry from the centre-point out, with the centre point being clear.  you put that on someones head to look really bloody good, and you can just drag it around the photo as it instantly blurs in varying levels...  scrubbing through 2000 photo's was a lot faster, and a lot smoother than my iphoto (i run dual 1.8ghz G5 with 2gb ram and a 128mb Radeon, they run a 1.6ghz P4 dell thing with 768mb ram).

Picassa is very impressive stuff.


----------



## JonKemerer (Jan 30, 2006)

I;'m not too familair with Picassa, you might like Kavasoft's Shoebox app.  It's not too bad, but it's kinda slow (about as fast as iPhoto), and for the features it does have $29 is a bit steep.  

I'm an ACDSee fan (Mac version no longer supported, I guess).  Shoebox is the only app I found that you can use "categories" with, which I sorely need.  I draw as a hobby, and keep thousands (85,000+) of photo references.  It's so much easier just keeping them in little "albums".  iPhoto is ok for photos if you got small collections, and photos for keepsake memories and that jazz; ultimately reasons seemingly the exact opposite of mine.  I collect drawings, paintings, animated GIF's, etc.  I keep 'em just for reference, not (usually) to enjoy, but I do downloads lotsa good photography stuff now and then.

I just use finder. I just wish Finder could display more info in thumbnail mode besides just the dimensions (?).  

Good luck, I wish I could help other than trying Shoebox.  I'll keep posted to this thread though, I've been looking for something now for almost a year.  Nothing.  I love my Mac Mini but geez, why do diffcult to find a good media browser app?


----------



## flipped cracker (Jan 31, 2006)

i too have been looking for a picasa equivalent on the mac and haven't come across it yet. i'm trying out iphoto 6, but iphoto 5 was just horrible compared to picasa, so i'm not getting my hopes up. i have about 4K photos on a 1.42Ghz mac mini with 1GB of ram, and it's a tad bit slow.


----------



## sfenton83 (Feb 13, 2006)

ditto on reasons for bringing picasa to the mac.

I just recently switched to a mac, and while I love everything about it, iphoto is lacking. Some can argue that it may in fact be "more powerful" and such, but picasa just has too many other advantages.

It's faster hands down. I've got less photos in iphoto then I had on my other laptop (the laptop crashed, so I lost many of them), and iphoto is just too slow. It's not the computer either - this the latest G4 powerbook (before the intel changes) and is at least 2x what my previous laptop was. (Yes, I've done all the actual research on processor comparisons too.)

Keyword and search system was far superior. I've used countless scripts in iphoto, and they still cannot compete with the simplicity of picasa in this area - picasa didn't need scripts to attempt competition with iphoto.

Storage system. I see very few advantages to iphotos storage system. While it is nice that I only need to worry about the keywords, or "album" labels in iphoto, it's one royal pain in the rear to easily access the files if I wanted to send a group of them to someone else (or do ANYTHING with them for that matter), WITHOUT any exporting. Also, I've never had more problems with duplicate photos EVER. I've used scripts to eliminate, iphotodiet, and several others. I shouldn't need to use them! iphoto should be intelligent enough!

PLEASE - GOOGLE HEAR OUR PLEA, OR SOMEONE WITH THE CODING ABILITY PORT THIS OVER FOR US!


----------



## wajacksonmd (Feb 13, 2006)

Before iPhoto I used iView MediaPro. It can handle a lot of file types.  Here is the version tracker link.

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/9659


----------



## dbrsystems (Feb 14, 2006)

I just bought the imac 20" with the intel duo core.  I am a long...long...long time windows user.  I had been working with picassa with around 7,000 photos.  It is extremely fast and the editing features are easy to use.  Also, i love the built-in blogger function.  iPhoto has been fine but is slow...it seems to really have a hard time with the large number of photos.  I had always heard macs were fast and designed to work with graphics and video...i'm just not seeing it yet.  I too hope that google will build a version of picassa for the mac.


----------



## sfenton83 (Feb 22, 2006)

So for those of us who really want picasa onto OSX how can we make it happen? There is a google group that wants it to happen too. I'm no coder - so how do we get one, or can we?


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 23, 2006)

dbrsystems said:
			
		

> I just bought the imac 20" with the intel duo core.  I am a long...long...long time windows user.  I had been working with picassa with around 7,000 photos.  It is extremely fast and the editing features are easy to use.  Also, i love the built-in blogger function.  iPhoto has been fine but is slow...it seems to really have a hard time with the large number of photos.  I had always heard macs were fast and designed to work with graphics and video...i'm just not seeing it yet.  I too hope that google will build a version of picassa for the mac.



iPhoto, according to a lot of the people here who use it often, tends to be quite slow in general no matter what the CPU.  I played with it a little bit but personally I didn't notice that much of a slowdown.  Of course, I didn't import a gazillion pictures into it so I don't really know how bad the slowdown is.

I have finally had the opportunity to use Picasa for more than a few minutes and it's actually very good.  I think choice is great and I do hope that Google would make it available for Mac users.  They've already made it available to Linux users, but I don't like how they did this (through WINE).  Hopefully they can produce a native version for Linux as well as the Mac soon.


----------



## sfenton83 (Feb 23, 2006)

I know little about coding - but, if they have put it out for linux, isn't there some way for us to port it to OS X? The kernel is the same isn't it? They both run off Unix?


----------



## nixgeek (Feb 23, 2006)

sfenton83 said:
			
		

> I know little about coding - but, if they have put it out for linux, isn't there some way for us to port it to OS X? The kernel is the same isn't it? They both run off Unix?



As I mentioned in my post, they have it for Linux but through WINE, so it's basically the Windows version running through WINE, which means it's not native.  The other thing is that they would have to port it over to run natively on OS X, and no one is goign to want to run a Mac application under X11 (check ouit OpenOffice for the Mac and you'll see what I mean).  They want it to look and function like all their other Mac apps: seemlessly and simply, as a Mac app should be.


----------



## tomdkat (Mar 9, 2006)

Does iPhoto come with Tiger?



			
				nixgeeek said:
			
		

> and no one is goign to want to run a Mac application under X11 (check ouit OpenOffice for the Mac and you'll see what I mean).


I certainly would!  But then again, I'm not really a Mac user.  



			
				wajacksonmd said:
			
		

> Before iPhoto I used iView MediaPro. It can handle a lot of file types.


iView looks neat.  Too bad it costs so much. 

Peace...


----------



## Stridder44 (Mar 9, 2006)

dktrickey said:
			
		

> ...I haven't used Picassa (yet -- but I'm downloading it to try on my Power Mac.)...




Thats the problem. It's not for Mac. And yes, although iPhoto is a nice app overall, it is _Ridiculously_ slow.


----------



## Stridder44 (Mar 9, 2006)

sfenton83 said:
			
		

> So for those of us who really want picasa onto OSX how can we make it happen? There is a google group that wants it to happen too. I'm no coder - so how do we get one, or can we?



Count me in too.


----------



## eric2006 (Mar 9, 2006)

Stridder44 said:
			
		

> Thats the problem. It's not for Mac. And yes, although iPhoto is a nice app overall, it is _Ridiculously_ slow.



It is pretty slow, but scrolling is improved greatly in iPhoto 6. Is there any way to have the organization system like it is in picasa? Everything is in one, giant library in iPhoto. I don't know what photos are organized and what are not.. it's annoying. If they had picasa for mac, I would get it. Defiantly one of the best photo library tools.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Mar 10, 2006)

tomdkat said:
			
		

> Does iPhoto come with Tiger?



It comes with iLife '06 which comes installed on new macs, as does Tiger.

if you buy the boxed version of Tiger to upgrade your mac, then that doesn't come with any iLife apps.


----------



## tomdkat (Mar 10, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> It comes with iLife '06 which comes installed on new macs, as does Tiger.


Great!  Thanks!

Peace...


----------



## CopperHorse (Mar 24, 2006)

I to would like to see Google come out with a Mac version of "Picasa". 

I have several thousand photos that I would love to have all in one easy to use browser/editor, but iPhoto takes so much memory/time, etc. that RapidWeaver (a great/cheap/easy website building tool available at realmac.com) eventually crashes if I have iPhoto open when I am editing a multiple page site.

Meanwhile...

The solution that I have found is a small app that allows you to create multiple libraries, and only open the one that you want. $10.bucks (free trial version also available at link below), seems to work pretty well. Get it here: http://regnault.luc.free.fr/softwares.html


----------



## eric2006 (Mar 24, 2006)

Call me crazy, but personally, I prefer the layout of picasa. In iPhoto, I organize my photos, but then when I look through my library, the photos are all in one massive library with no organization whatsoever. In picasa, you can see what album you put pictures in when you scroll through the library. Thats just me, though..

I don't know if I would use picasa if it came out for mac.. iPhoto is designed for mac by the people who made 'em, and it's integrated.. Picasa would feel cheesy to me, I think.


----------



## apilit (Mar 31, 2006)

I'm new and this is my first post but wanted to put my two cents in!  I have a G-4 Powermac using OSX Tiger with iPhoto and an IBM laptop with Windows XP with Picasa2. (I'm really a Mac person).  Picasa2 beats iPhoto hands down, IMHO!  Try ordering some photo prints to be picked up at Walmart or ??? with iPhoto and see how far you get.  Both are pretty good programs but I sure wish and hope Google soon comes out with Picasa2 for Mac.  I'll be one of the first to put it on my machine.


----------



## ex2bot (Apr 6, 2006)

Google is porting Picassa to Linux using WINE. Maybe they'll do the same for OS X.


----------



## nixgeek (Apr 6, 2006)

Well, maybe that won't even be necessary if you use Boot Camp once it's finalized.  Now you can run Picasa natively in its environment.  That is, assuming you have a copy of XP to install on that Intel Mac.


----------



## Ripcord (Apr 19, 2006)

My biggest complaint about iPhoto (even '06) is just the speed.  It's so sluggish to work through, even on my 2.0Ghz G5 (the 1.42Ghz G4 Mini is much worse), I get tired of watching it take 1-5 seconds to load new pictures.  Picasa just plain has iPhoto beat here, hands-down...It's ridiculously fast sifting through and making changes to the exact same library.


----------



## mosx86 (May 15, 2006)

Ripcord said:
			
		

> My biggest complaint about iPhoto (even '06) is just the speed.  It's so sluggish to work through, even on my 2.0Ghz G5 (the 1.42Ghz G4 Mini is much worse), I get tired of watching it take 1-5 seconds to load new pictures.  Picasa just plain has iPhoto beat here, hands-down...It's ridiculously fast sifting through and making changes to the exact same library.



I've found that with iPhoto, at least on my Mac Mini (1.42 GHz w/ 1GB RAM), the application speeds up quite considerably when the library exists on a drive other than the system drive.

I have just under 6000 photos and it takes roughly 1-2 seconds to load individual photos.

Could be that this is because my external LaCie drive is a faster drive.


----------



## lurk (May 15, 2006)

Yep.  I ran an old TiBook for a year off of an external firewire drive, it was like getting a new machine it was so fast. ;-)


----------



## empak (Jun 8, 2006)

There is a way to install picasa on Mac (intel). You have to use Parallels Desktop emulator. I use it to run Windows aps which I still need. Today I tried to instal Picasa
and it works very very well. It is much faster then iPhoto6 on the same computer.
I did not expected too much because emulator emulates graphics card (no hardware accelerator) and Picasa should be slow on it. But picasa works amazingly fast. When I browse through photos making modifications to them I can jump to the next photo instanly. In iPhoto6 on the same computer (1.83GHz CoreDuo with 2GB RAM) after avery modification I have to wait 2s to move to next photo. On Picasa it is ZERO seconds.

No I have to check if I can use Picasa to menage pictures that are stored on OSX part of hard disk.


----------



## TeleCarlos (Jun 8, 2006)

Ok... so I'm a new convert.... still have my Dell desktop, my macbook to arrive tomorrow.

I loved Picassa since the first time I opened it! It was so easy to use for a numbnut like me, especially the email pics thru your gmail thing, super great that it re-sizes them.

I tried using iPhoto a few months ago on my now ex's iBook and really, just stared at it trying to decipher what I was trying to do and stuff.  Ok, so iPhoto may be good, but how come that I was able to use Picassa so fast on a first try?!?!  

Anyway, recent convert here and love all the other Apple stuff...  I swear will get Parallels just to be able run Picassa.  Nice forum... will be seeing it a lot soon!


----------



## Ynought (Jun 8, 2006)

so it sounds like, 'no'. iPhoto is the 'best' option for Macs. I personally hate it. I mean, /hate/. It kills my system. I love my photos but rarely look at them because of iPhoto. It really kills, i mean kills, my machine. I don't think I should have to upgrade a Powerbook G4 just to /look/ at (nevermind edit) photos. but regardless, it sounds like the answer is 'no'....too bad.


----------



## omnix (Jun 11, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> Another thing: Since iPhoto _does_ have good management with meta-data, it should basically never be a big problem to switch to _another_ good program that handles meta-data. So *I*'d just let iPhoto handle the stuff the way it wants to.




Fryke, I disagree. Instead of storing metadata (like category assignments, star ratings, etc) _in_ the image file itself -- a strategy that would allow for portability should one ever want to switch to another photo-organizing app -- iPhoto stores all this metadata in its own proprietary database file.  Yes there are scripts and whatnot that attempt to export this metadata if desired, but it's imperfect and a real pain.

Google's Picasa, by comparison, stores metadata in the IPTC headers of the image file itself, which I like a lot.  I hope a future version of iPhoto will adopt this approach, but right now I'm not terribly optimistic.


----------



## erikD (Jun 18, 2006)

I can't guarantee anything, but I would be quite surprised if Picasa3 was not available for OS X.

The reason as to why I believe this is that, when Picasa for Linux was released, it was stated that the reason it had to run in Wine was that Picasa used Windows libraries. The dependencies on these libraries were to be removed in Picasa 3, so that it could be a true cross-platform application. It was also stated that the only reason that Picasa used those libraries was that it had been that way before it was purchased by Google. It was much the same way with Google Earth.


----------



## omnix (Jun 18, 2006)

from http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12569&topic=-1

*Is Picasa available for the Mac? 
*
Picasa isn't currently available for Mac OS. Right now we're putting all of our energy into making Picasa the best program we can. We realize that a lot of digital photographers would like us to offer a Mac version, and we may consider this option in the future.

-----------------

probably the main obstacle to Picasa development on OSX at present is iPhoto.


----------



## rw58 (Jun 24, 2006)

Here's one for you.  Jet Photo does a lot including moving photos to a web site you create.   Good luck... Try this link: 

http://www.jetphotosoft.com/web/


----------



## wknelsen (Jun 25, 2006)

I just purchased a new PowerMac G5 (2GHz dual 512 RAM) which is my first Mac and I am quite impressed with everything as far as preformance... except for iPhoto. 

I find iPhoto almost as fast as Picasa (By the way, I ran Picasa on an Acer Laptop with 1.3Ghz Celeron 512 RAM!). But Picasa is better in almost all areas: emailing (using gmail), creating webpages, image enhancing, searching, filing, on and on... but I guess this is considering I have used Picasa2 since it came out and have only used iPhoto for a week. 

My suggestion for those of us who are trying to make the adjustment to iPhoto from Picasa: suck it up and consider all the other benefits of Mac over PC! (And pray that Google comes to their senses by allowing Mac users to enjoy the best free photo software on the planet!!!)


----------



## wknelsen (Jun 25, 2006)

I have to say, I was just playing around with iPhoto and iWeb and they work quite well together (as promised by Apple). I retract my statement about Picasa being better for website publishing simply because Picasa does not have a partner such as iWeb.


----------



## Satcomer (Jun 26, 2006)

wknelsen said:
			
		

> I have to say, I was just playing around with iPhoto and iWeb and they work quite well together (as promised by Apple). I retract my statement about Picasa being better for website publishing simply because Picasa does not have a partner such as iWeb.



Sounds like you are a good contact to use the book Photo 6: The Missing Manual. The Missing Manuals series are usually very easy reads, funny & informative. It may help you.


----------



## iji oh (Jun 29, 2006)

I'm also a recent switcher who loves the Mac OS so far. But I'm not at all impressed with iPhoto. 

Someone here recommended JetPhoto. Can anyone vouch for it? Is it any good? Pluses and minuses???

Thanks.


----------



## Satcomer (Jul 1, 2006)

iji oh said:
			
		

> I'm also a recent switcher who loves the Mac OS so far. But I'm not at all impressed with iPhoto.
> 
> Someone here recommended JetPhoto. Can anyone vouch for it? Is it any good? Pluses and minuses???
> 
> Thanks.



I use the the Canon Pixma iP5200R and absolutly love it!

1) The ink is cheap where I live.
2) It is WIRELESS  (not counting the power cable) & fast.
3) It two different blacks. One for document then the other one for pictures. Making great looking grays and shadows.
4) Quiet
5) the Mac drivers are spot on and have never given me any troubles.


----------



## Teus (Jul 18, 2006)

empak said:


> I'm just switching from Windows to Mac. I got a Mac Mini and I thought that at least for photos it will be much better then PC. Now I have the problem. I have 10000 photos that I was managing using Picasa since about 3 years. I'm trying to move this to iPhoto but its probably not possible at all.
> People who use only iPhoto from the beggining probably don't understand this. They think that it is like it should be. If you look at the list of functions, mayby iPhoto has more (this is what I thought). But to do something with iPhoto I need 10 times more time. I can't accept that after holiday I will spend 10 days putting them inside iPhoto (with picasa it takes 10 minutes).
> 
> My only hope is that google will make iPhoto for mac.



I completely agree with the above. I have some 14000 foto's, wich Picasa handle's with ease on my pentium M 1g notebook. On my Mac Mini with 1.25g (OSX 10.4) you cannot manage that amount of pictures. Even with iPhoto 6 it takes ages. Not to mention that iPhoto creates its own directory structure, wich completly ruins my own carefully built up structure. Because that is how I organise my picture's. Picasa leaves that all in tact. And since Google has introduced Picasaweb one can publish its own photo's on the web for FREE. It works like very, very easy!. 
Don't get me wrong, i like the Mac but i don't like iPhoto. I think Apple (or Google) has to come up with something way faster and that leave's my directory structure intact. (because thats how I organise my picture's) 
Strange because iTunes works the same on Pc and Mac. Same speed and ease of use. And (if you wich) leaves your directory structure intact.

Mac Mini 1.25 OSX 10.4
JVC MP-XP731 notebook
Amd homebrew Pc


----------



## sjkulit (Jul 21, 2006)

does anybody know a software that can do collage for mac?


----------



## bluedepth (Jul 28, 2006)

I recently bought a Mac Mini with the Intel Core Duo. It sits next to my big Dell desktop at home - and I do almost everything on my Mac, except for City of Heroes (a game) and Picasa. 

I manage a huge pile of multimegabyte digital pictures and iPhoto wanted to duplicate all of my files turning my "organized by folder" design into junk. Picasa doesn't do that and that's why I use Picasa on my Dell. I won't use iPhoto at all because it's super-aggressive and not really configurable to allow the behavior that I prefer, using folders to organize my photos. Even with iPhoto '06 and turning the option on for it to make aliases, once it got to my Paris pictures it just bogged down, making folders of thousands of aliases - why not just behave like Picasa? It just seems like way too much work to accomplish something rather simple.

Anyhow, iPhoto is too slow, too un-configurable with an absurd amount of data duplication for the photos themselves and I would pay for Picasa, say $30. So far with the "freeware" photo utilities I've seen for the Mac, many of them are cute to sort through stuff I save from the web - but not a single one is good enough to handle my collection of digital photos.


----------



## chevy (Jul 28, 2006)

Does Picasa keep your originals ?

What is "interesting" is that Picasa can do all it does using IE as the user interface (even when used through another browser). Do all iLife apps use the WebKit as the basis for the GUI ?


----------



## bluedepth (Jul 28, 2006)

chevy said:


> Does Picasa keep your originals ?



Picasa, through my experience keeps all the originals in-place, and when you make edits, the edits are applied not to the image, but to a kind of "stored workflow" so the next time you open Picasa and look at the file, Picasa applies all the edits you made to the photo again. You can only "Save" changes made to a photo by exporting the photo to somewhere else. At first I wasn't sure exactly what it was doing until I looked at the file and saw how it was operating. I appreciate that level of security regarding my originals.


----------



## lbj (Jul 28, 2006)

bluedepth said:


> Picasa, through my experience keeps all the originals in-place, and when you make edits, the edits are applied not to the image, but to a kind of "stored workflow" so the next time you open Picasa and look at the file, Picasa applies all the edits you made to the photo again. You can only "Save" changes made to a photo by exporting the photo to somewhere else. At first I wasn't sure exactly what it was doing until I looked at the file and saw how it was operating. I appreciate that level of security regarding my originals.



Hey, that's pretty slick!  And I'm guessing "workflows" are only a fraction of the size of making a duplicate and applying changes as iPhoto does.


----------



## chevy (Jul 28, 2006)

That's a good approach... as long as nobody modifies the original ;-) But there are probably no good way to be able to edit an image with several applications and still have an infinite number of undo levels.


----------



## wibblefoo (Aug 29, 2006)

Try QPict (www.qpict.net).

Cheaper than most of the alternatives (other than iPhoto). Works great on my  ~9000 collection of 8mpix images.


----------



## iji oh (Sep 4, 2006)

wibblefoo said:


> Try QPict (www.qpict.net).
> 
> Cheaper than most of the alternatives (other than iPhoto). Works great on my  ~9000 collection of 8mpix images.




Sounds interesting. But unless it asks whether you want to save the original after edits, I'm not interested. What's so hard about making a program whose default mode doesn't clog up your harddrive?


----------



## hecubus (Sep 6, 2006)

Just some thoughts on earlier posts about iPhoto re-organizing people's image organization into junk - I agree that iPhoto should be more like iTunes in allowing you to add files to the library without necessarily adding it to it's own internally-maintained structure, but the reason why a lot of people love iPhoto is that it takes that level of maintenance out of the equation.  I don't need to organize my photos myself, the software does it for you.  If I add my images to its library, why would I need to keep a duplicate set in a completely different structure?  iPhoto's goal is to take over the task of organizing your photos so you don't have to do it.  

Part of the simplicity of iPhoto is that it's not complicated, it's not infinitely-configurable.  Infinitely-configurable software increases complexity for the user and the software.  This can be said for most of Apple's software - it does the 80% of what everyone wants extremely well, whereas I find most Windows software does 95% of what everyone wants but does an acceptable job of it.  There's a trade-off there.  Obviously there are exceptions, Picasa being the obvious one.

For those looking for a free (for the time being) alternative to iPhoto, check out Adobe Lightroom.  It's currently in public beta (you have been warned that it's beta software) so don't expect it to be free after the beta period is over and the software expires.  You might actually have to *gasp* pay for good software that does what you want it to do.


----------



## Lacus Odii (Oct 2, 2006)

Ok, here's the set up. I have a 2.16Ghz core duo Macbook Pro. My roommate has a 1.2Ghz Windows XP laptop. I watched him download pictures from his camera into Picasa, do color correction and remove red eye, run a couple of filters on a few, then save them and upload them to facebook. He beat the iPhoto workflow on my machine by about a factor of three. It appears to be more featureful to boot.

This weekend I am going to try to get Picasa working under Crossover (Wine for Mac.) Even under Wine, provided it works, it should blow the doors off of iPhoto.  I'm currently running (Windows) ACDSee32 2.4 under Wine, and it cycles pictures faster than any native OS X app I've come across yet.

In short, I am not buying the argument that iPhoto is better for some things. Anyone who has more experience with both, go ahead and educate me. Just remember that I spent over 2700 dollars on a Macbook before anyone accuses me of hating Apple.


----------



## hecubus (Oct 2, 2006)

Here's the catch if you want Picasa...you have to use workarounds?  Is this acceptable or even viable to Joe Computer User who is buying their first Mac or much less their first computer?  Probably not.  Those are alternatives for people who know what WINE, Crossover, Parallels, etc. are.  

And I'm sticking with my assessement of iPhoto, that it's a decent enough application for the average computer user (not average IT person, not average power user, not average hacker, not average geek, etc.), but someone who just wants their computer and their applications to just work out of the box.

The only issues I've had with iPhoto was performance and those were resolved with version 6.


----------



## Lacus Odii (Oct 2, 2006)

Oh, I agree completely that Picasa under Crossover would not be acceptable to Joe User. I've only been using iPhoto for a little while (5 was too slow on my PPC Mac Mini) and all I was commenting on was that I was surprised that Picasa seemed a better iPhoto than iPhoto itself. I have no intense hatred of iPhoto, but no love for it either. I do feel that even version 6 just plain runs too slow for a machine with a dual core CPU.

Actually...I discovered a bit ago that Picasa does not handle editing or conversion of Canon RAW files, so there's really no point in me ditching iPhoto until Picasa supports that. Score one for iPhoto.


----------



## hecubus (Oct 2, 2006)

What were the specs on your Mac Mini?  When you say "runs slow", is every action slow?  How many photos are in your library?  I'm asking because I'm about to make the switch from my Powerbook to a MacBook Pro.  I've got 3,000+ photos in my iPhoto library (until I migrate everything over to Aperture), and am just wondering what I can expect (or not expect).

Personally, I like Picasa better than iPhoto, but for lack of anything better in the PPC world or using anything non-native (i.e. WINE, emulation, translation, etc.), I'm out of choices....though Adobe Lightroom seems to show some promise, though it's more geared towards RAW workflow.  Dunno if you've checke out Lightroom.


----------



## Lacus Odii (Oct 2, 2006)

I had the 1.2Ghz G4 model with 512 MB of RAM. I found iPhoto's interface generally sluggish. Opening photos took a couple of seconds, and often got me the beach ball. I never imported a majority of my photos into iPhoto simply because I figured out pretty quick that I didn't want to use it. 

Here's the deal though, I switched from Linux to OS X, and compared to Linux, OS X is just plain sluggish. Windows drag and resize slower, repaint slower, scrollpanes scroll WAY slower, and that stupid beach ball...I was getting interrupted with annoying frequency in Safari, many other apps such as iPhoto as well.  Even the console is slower. I ended up wiping OS X and installing Gentoo Linux, and eventually giving it to my parents. My goal for getting a Mac was 1) Windows is insecure 2) OS X is Unix and 3) Many popular apps like Quicken are on Mac (this made it better than Linux, for example.) What I found was that the couple of apps I thought I needed ran faster on my Windows laptop, so I might as well run Linux on an x86 machine where at least Flash worked in Firefox. Long story short, I am not a normal switcher.

Now, I don't know if you were a Mac user before OS X, but OS9 beats the pants off OS X in general UI responsiveness. It's just "snappy". In comparison to OS9, the OS X UI is like molasses. This plus the constant beachballs that basically locked the machine until whatever it decided to do finished, sealed it's fate.

When the new Macbook Pros came out, I bought one because as an Intel box that could run Linux and Windows, I had less risk. As it stands, the OS X UI on this machine is reasonably fast, and after a month or so I have not felt a burning desire to install Windows or Linux on it. I have my complaints, it's still a little stiff, but I'm really pretty happy.

If you are switching from a Powerbook to a Macbook Pro, I think you are going to be VERY pleased. I can't tell you specifically with iPhoto and volume, because I've got gigabytes of photos from years of work stored in an intricate directory structure that I'm not letting iPhoto close to with a ten-foot pole. I've worked primarily in RAW and uncompressed TIF files only so far on this machine, and I've found flipping between pictures is not as fast as I'd like. But then, they're pretty big files compared to JPGs.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Oct 2, 2006)

512mb ram has been mentioned on these forums to a great degree to just be too little to run tiger effectively.  it's just the minimum, and that's that. 

it's just enough to run the os, and possibly one or two other applications, if they're not too ram hungry.  This is due to Tiger having dashboard (a result of the new Core Image innards), and it's spotlight index, both things that linux doesn't burden itself with, and both ram hungry tasks.

iPhoto is large imagery, so is inherently ram-hungry.  1gb is the minimum i would say for a happy user experience of both Tiger and of iPhoto.  even with this in mind, i noticed that with 1gb, it's a case of photoshop+illustrator open, or iPhoto, not both.  with 2gb, both run happily. 

i Find OSX on my mac to very snappy, and it's nearly 2 years old. window resizing is great, with the corner _always_ being under the cursor.  and saying that it's slower than os 9 isn't really saying much.  it's hardly intensive to resize a grey oblong now is it?  and i know which one i prefer: smooth, dynamic, intuitive resizing window contents.  i'd like to see xp match os x drawing ability. minimise a window and watch all the icons drawing themselves back on the desktop!


----------



## pkej (Oct 4, 2006)

I've been using a Mac G5 at work for a couple of years, and love it. Now we have a good offer through work and I'm thinking of buying a Mac Pro Dual Xeon for my living room.

As a long time Picasa user fearing the loss of a killer app (me and my wife use this extensively), I searched on google and found this thread.

I also searched for crossover, paralells and boot camp, and found this little thingy: http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/09/19/crossover-boot-camp-parallels-vmware/ "2xApplication Server" and wonder if anyone has used it at all, and what the impression is?

Since we use Picasa over the network today (and it is blazing fast) I think there is a chance that a remote application server system might be of help.

I will try it out, when the new Macs arrive (10 weeks from now, don't ask).

As for the discussion about Picasa. I've been using a lot of picture archivers in my day, FotoStation at work, ACDSee?, irfanview, and some things on Amiga I can't even remember the names of. All of them seem old skool compared to Picasa. And some have bloated until they're not very good (ACDSee anyone?).

I haven't tried out iPhoto on the Mac at work, simply because most of our archive is on a Windows server, so we use FotoStation for archiving, indexing and search.

As for storing data centrally (iPhoto style) or distributed (Picasa style) there are pros and cons. If you do a lot of ICPT searches, storing those data in a central DB makes it easier to search for data in the ICPTs. Not storing them in the header of the file in addition is not very nice. It binds you to one application for ever, and when transmitting the file (for example selling to another media outlet) valuable data might not follow the file. Not a good thing in a business situation.

ACDSee used to store all its thumbnails in a central database. When the file got larger than 2 GB, it just stopped working. Also, this file was stored in an out of the way place. If you ditched the OS (which you often have to do when working against Windows) to reinstall. Because Windows stores a lot of dirt in the documents and settings folder which frankly aren't fun to back up.

Picasa gets around these problems by sacrificing the speed of searches (though it seems very fast on our 40000+ raw archive at home).

Picasa is showing my Canon Raw files, for Windows I'd recommend RawShooter for working with raw files.

I hope Picasa will come out for Mac. There are a few applications I really can't leave behind, Picasa, Yahoo Messenger (voice and video to family on the other side of the earth is neccessary), 3D Studio Max (I'll just get boot camp for my Mac), Telio Phone (soft phone from my voip guys), games (boot camp).

But honestly, day to day work, the Mac has most of the bases covered (even a Yahoo Messenger client, doesn't do voice I read, but for the quick chats it will be okay).

I'm looking forward to the Mac. But I need Picasa to really sell it to my wife


----------



## Lacus Odii (Oct 4, 2006)

Pkej, it looks like you still need a Windows Terminal Services server, which of course costs a fortune. After reading their site, I don't quite understand what this product provides over regular Terminal Services, other than it looks like it only exports the app and not the whole desktop. For about two years now I have been using Microsoft's Terminal Services client to connect to a Windows 2000 server from OS X, and the performance is great, usually as good as being there. However, pushing a lot of graphics across it will probably degrade performance.

If remotely hosting Picasa is a viable solution for you, have you considered installing Linux Picasa on a Linux box somewhere and just exporting the X display to your OS X machine? Remote X isn't as fast as Windows Terminal Services, but on a fast network it's usually pretty usable. I haven't tried this myself, but as long as it's not using OpenGL or anything weird, it should be exportable to a remote X server, like on your desktop or whatever. Or maybe this is what you meant by Picasa over the network, my assumption was that you meant files over a network share.

Agreed on ACDSee. I refuse to upgrade past version 2.4x, it's the best basic picture viewer I've ever used, and later versions are slow and bloated.


----------



## pkej (Oct 4, 2006)

There are some exports for Windows desktops as well; VNC, and others which works pretty well; when I come to think of it. I also remember a Linux picture archiver, which seemed to be fast, gkview or something. It was pretty fast when I last used it in 2002 or something, when I changed jobs and ended up using Windows at my new employment.

I do have a central server at home for all the media we have. Because I tired of keeping track of filesystems, I finally caved in and converted everything into NTFS last year. Juggling too many computers and hard disks.

Thanks for the input.


----------



## lucadegregori (Oct 8, 2006)

IceDigger said:


> Are there any good picture viewing programs like Picasa but for Mac?  I tried out iPhoto but did not like it.



Picasa can manage Fuji Raw Format. IPhoto.......... is this a serious program????????????? it's the only one that don't manage Fuji format!!!!


----------



## sfenton83 (Oct 8, 2006)

I've not kept up with this thread in awhile - but just read through the thing again to catch up. I'm hoping whoever suggested picasa 3 will have an osx version is right... I'm so fed up with iphoto right now it's not even funny. I second whoever said they don't even get to enjoy their photos because of iphoto. I agree - I don't bother. I tried to transfer some photos over from a trip this weekend, only like 55 or so (granted they were all 5mp) and iphoto threw a ridiculous fit reminescent of windows! I couldn't believe it. I'm really starting to feel like iphoto is apples common solution for the basic mac user who happens to have less than 1000 pictures, and doesn't do a whole lot with them other than email, blog, or print. It's sad. I shouldn't have to spend big bucks to get a solution on the mac that works as well as picasa does. I've got over 9000 photos, so I know that is a load but my powerbook shouldn't run like an old windows computer with ONLY iphoto importing a few more photos. If none of you have, I suggest everyone who has posted here email google and persistently request that picasa make it to osx, native. I'm considering qpict as suggested, I downloaded release 7 and will semi review it on here if others are interested in a comparison - it would be nice if current users of qpict would do the same


----------



## sfenton83 (Oct 8, 2006)

WOW - I just ran qpict and it took less than 1 minute to import 8640 photos (over 5.4 GB), impressive.


----------



## sfenton83 (Oct 8, 2006)

Just imported all backups from ext. HD as well - 10.8 GB in less than 1 minute still! Qpict is gaining cred with me...


----------



## Sagittarius (Oct 25, 2006)

In my mind iPhoto wins hands down but one must investigate all of it's capabilities - as with any high-end app.

I use it all the time, but for all around enhancing of digital photos my choice is Adobe Photoshop Elements. Amazing program for Macs. $99 I believe.


----------



## sfenton83 (Oct 25, 2006)

which version are you talking about? if it's 5, all I can say is we have very different opinions. I wouldn't consider iPhoto a "high end app". If it's 6, I can't say - haven't used it, and don't plan on buying it.


----------



## Sagittarius (Oct 25, 2006)

First of all it's *iPhoto 7* and it's *Free*! Comes with the iLife Suite. I just got a new  iMac Intel 2G machine and iPhoto, iTunes, iChat etc., all were pre-installed, latest versions. How can you beat that? I think iPhoto 7 is very high end compared to much earlier versions. 

Elements is v. 3 I believe. I like that a lot too. I run a small photograhy biz with iPhoto and Elements and honestly don't need any more.

You should get a manual for iPhoto and check out the new features. Like I said, it's a free app with any new Mac and Tiger.


----------



## Sagittarius (Oct 25, 2006)

Should mention that, of course, there are better programs than iPhoto out there ... but for Apple to install it free of charge on all new Macs and/or OSX ... not bad. I for one can't afford a high priced 'better' program and I've found that iPhoto can do a lot if one takes the time to learn it.


----------



## sfenton83 (Oct 25, 2006)

Sagittarius said:


> First of all it's *iPhoto 7* and it's *Free*! Comes with the iLife Suite. I just got a new  iMac Intel 2G machine and iPhoto, iTunes, iChat etc., all were pre-installed, latest versions. How can you beat that? I think iPhoto 7 is very high end compared to much earlier versions.
> 
> Elements is v. 3 I believe. I like that a lot too. I run a small photograhy biz with iPhoto and Elements and honestly don't need any more.
> 
> You should get a manual for iPhoto and check out the new features. Like I said, it's a free app with any new Mac and Tiger.



well in that case I'll go buy a new iMac Intel 2G if the software is free on it! Then it would only cost me what, like 2 grand instead of 80 bucks 

I'm on an older powerbook - this thread originated during gripes over iphoto 4/5 era (which was free for us too). I've heard the new software has improved, but for the money it still isn't worth it for must of us still using iphoto 4/5 because some of us don't use much more of the suite besides iphoto, so it would essentially cost us 80 bucks....not "free". Congrats on your new mac though, I'd love to get one of the new iMacs, but need a laptop for school, and my powerbook hasn't failed me yet...


----------



## Sagittarius (Oct 25, 2006)

.. and it probably won't. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 

BTW, I paid $1144 for my new 17" 2G Intel iMac and it is awesome. Very fast and the screen is amazingly bright and sharp. Not a bad price.


----------



## eric2006 (Oct 25, 2006)

sfenton83 said:


> well in that case I'll go buy a new iMac Intel 2G if the software is free on it! Then it would only cost me what, like 2 grand instead of 80 bucks



Or, you could get a mini. Then it'd cost you $599. Much more reasonable..

Seriously, though, $79 is not bad at all for iPhoto AND iMovie AND iDVD. That's like, 25 bucks an app. About what you'd pay for similar apps (if not less).


----------



## captain.joco (Oct 27, 2006)

Hey everybody,

This topic is almost a year now, and we're still no closer with finding any good enough replacement for iPhoto. Does anybody know when ( and if ) is Picasa 3 going to be released, and if there's going to be a version for Mac?


----------



## sfenton83 (Oct 28, 2006)

Sag: very nice deal - I got a steal on my powerbook, it was the last gen of the G4s fully loaded for $1220, long story but it was a good ebay transaction for once - looks like you got an even better deal though!

Eric: You still have the cost of a display in there, plus basics which put you closer to a grand. And while the iLife suite is competitively priced for what it includes, for those (such as myself) that really only use iPhoto it isn't such a great deal.

Captain: Thats a good question we are ALL waiting to have answered...but, it looks imminent - if you've seen there mac app for uploading to google photo, it would only make since to soon have picasa available too. You would think the reverse would make more since (main app before some minor support app) but there was a reason I guess. It was sort of a quick side project for one of the guys there, so they went ahead an released it.


----------



## AlanR (Nov 1, 2006)

Anybody tried iPhoto Buddy? It works pretty well for me.

www.iphotobuddy.com


----------



## sfenton83 (Nov 1, 2006)

What do you mean by "works pretty well for me"? And what version of iPhoto are you using?

BTW - I've started using spotlight comments to just tag folders with keywords, then I use Phoenix Slides to view them. For speed, reliability, and simplicity it's great.


----------



## AlanR (Nov 2, 2006)

I'm using iPhoto 2 on my iBook vintage 2003 running 10.2.8.

iPhoto Buddy makes it possible to have as many iPhoto libraries as you  want, name them anything you want and store them anywhere you want, even on an external drive.

It means you don't have to have one humungous library of all your photos.

Give it a try and see what you think - it's free.

Cheers
Alan

BTW I'm not familiar with Picasa.


----------



## Gambuchi (Nov 2, 2006)

follow the link...
http://picasa.google.com/web/mac_tools.html


----------



## sfenton83 (Nov 2, 2006)

Alan R that link (as you've probably seen) is only the web album uploader and doesn't do much good. As for not being familiar with Picasa on a PC; in my opinion ignorance would be bliss. If you've read through this thread you will find varying opinions, but from what I've read here and at other sites it seems that iPhoto 6 competes fairly well. So if you've got 6, enjoy.


----------



## AlanR (Nov 3, 2006)

SF 
I don't know where the link took you but you should be able to download the 7.2MB zipped dmg from that site - there's 3 locations to choose from.

Good luck. I'll enjoy iPhoto 7 (or 6 or something) when I upgrade to 10.4.8 in a month or two (Christmas present from the family maybe?)

Cheers
Alan


----------



## sfenton83 (Nov 3, 2006)

What I meant by it not doing you any good is that this application is not any form of a substitute for iPhoto - it's merely an application that allows you to upload to the google web albums, nothing more. I've used the app already - and that is why I say this.


----------



## sfenton83 (Nov 3, 2006)

AlanR said:


> Anybody tried iPhoto Buddy? It works pretty well for me.
> 
> www.iphotobuddy.com



I'm trying it - but have some questions first to avoid wasting the time of importing and sorting etc. since I just finished getting all my photos OUT of iphoto. For optimum performance you keep your libraries around say 1000 photos, right? So I assume that searching, keywords, albums, etc are specific to EACH library, is this correct? For example: I couldn't have keyword results turn up photos with the same keyword if they are in a separate library (I assume this, but want to make sure). And you wouldn't see any albums from other libraries either, right? Thanks


----------



## AlanR (Nov 6, 2006)

sfenton83 said:


> What I meant by it not doing you any good is that this application is not any form of a substitute for iPhoto - it's merely an application that allows you to upload to the google web albums, nothing more. I've used the app already - and that is why I say this.



SF
Sorry, I've been busy all weekend and only just caught up with this.

You're right it is not a substitute for iPhoto. It is nothing but a management tool for any number of iPhoto Libraries.

iPhoto buddy simply makes it possible to have many independent iPhoto Libraries which you can name anything you like (Famiy - 2004, Car Racing, Kids in the Park...whatever).

As for uploading to google web albums I'm not sure Buddy can be used for that. I think it's only intended for managing a bunch of iPhoto Libraries. Because I'm running 10.2.8 (see my earlier post) I can't use Buddy 1.2.6 so maybe there is something there for uploading as you mentioned.




sfenton83 said:


> I'm trying it - but have some questions first to avoid wasting the time of importing and sorting etc. since I just finished getting all my photos OUT of iphoto. For optimum performance you keep your libraries around say 1000 photos, right? So I assume that searching, keywords, albums, etc are specific to EACH library, is this correct? For example: I couldn't have keyword results turn up photos with the same keyword if they are in a separate library (I assume this, but want to make sure). And you wouldn't see any albums from other libraries either, right? Thanks



As no doubt you know, the bigger your iPhoto Library the slower it is to load, so keeping Libraries to about 1000 is about right. That's what I aim for, although it's not always possible.

From the list of Libraries in Buddy you choose whichever Library you want to open and then do your searches or anything else in iPhoto itself just as you would if you hadn't used Buddy to open the Library.

Buddy shows you the Albums you have set up in each Library and if you double click on an Album in a Library Buddy opens that Library and takes you to the Album. That's all. 

So everything you said about keywords etc is right.

Hope that is some help and hope you find iBuddy is useful. Bummer if you have to reload them all!!

Cheers
AlanR


----------



## cyberprop (Dec 4, 2006)

i'm a long time unix user (background is solaris, running on sparc) and have just bought a 17" mac book pro after my laptop was stolen. used pc for my photos as theres not much for sun gear so settled on picasa, my workflow is load raw pics from my 20d divide into respective folder, then i go through and edit on the fly tweaking shadows colour temp etc and selecting the ones i want by using the star tool. i then used the export option and resize to 800 x 600 for my web site and then upload using gallery remote. now if theres is away to do this in iphoto i haven't figured it out yet, namely selecting the photos i want but retaining all of them, then exporting the selected and resizing at the same time to a folder of my choice. can anyone suggest a way of doing this or shall i just continue with boot camp install and have to boot into windows just to do my photos? or hopefully google will get picasa done for mac as there seems to be demand for it.

forgot to add my image library is currently standing at about 150,000 images, so i'm concerned about what i have read about iphoto and large quantities of images.

thanks in advance

Giles


----------



## Mario8672 (Dec 4, 2006)

*cough* iPhoto *cough*


DUHHH!!!!


----------



## cyberprop (Dec 4, 2006)

[sarcasm]thnx for that mario really helpfull reply[/sarcasm]

so can anyone actually suggest a method of selecting specific photos as i go through them without having to either delete the ones i don't want or then going back through and selecting with mouse and and apple option to select specific ones can get annoying with 1000+ photos especially if you miss click. 

Giles


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 4, 2006)

drop them into an album, as in iTunes with playlists.  then you can keep track of the ones you want.

also, to export in different fliesizes to different places, go File > Export.


----------



## ex2bot (Dec 4, 2006)

Cyberprop,

Awhile ago, MacAddict magazine dumped 250,000 pictures into iPhoto 6 (the latest). It didn't work so well. Glitchy!!

So, I would think twice before dropping all 150,000 pix into iPhoto. 10,000? 20,000? Probably fine. Not 150,000.

What about running Picassa in Parallels? You'd have to buy Parallels and have a copy of Windows. Just a thought. I've never run Picassa so I don't know how it would handle 150,000 pix.

Doug


----------



## eric2006 (Dec 4, 2006)

dktrickey said:


> Awhile ago, MacAddict magazine dumped 250,000 pictures into iPhoto 6 (the latest). It didn't work so well. Glitchy!!



If you really have that many pictures, you'd be better off with something like Aperture.


----------



## darkhighway (Dec 22, 2006)

I don't know....I've given iphoto (5/6) plenty of chances to make me forget about Picasa and it's not really happening. I've had too many problems with the database in iphoto getting corrupted. iphoto doesn't have the cool inset picture when you zoom in on an image. iphoto doesn't have native IPTC embedding like Picasa does (with the captions). Picasa is really the only thing I miss about using PCs. Aperture is really nice, but it's still needs a bit of work in terms of performance and features.........mainly the web export feature and the fact that it doesn't seem to have very good image compression for saving web photos. What is really promising is Adobe Lightroom (currently in beta). It's development is almost completely driven by user feedback. I've found that a great program for batch editing is Graphic Converter X. It's an excellent value and even though a copy came with my computer, I decided to support the developer by purchasing it separately. It would probably rival Photoshop as a retouching tool if they'd only allow users to custom configure the keyboard shortcuts.....plus the GUI needs to be revamped. If you're looking to just manage/view alot of photos (without much editing), a great program to try is PhotoGrid. Drag and drop a folder to the photogrid icon on the dock and you can get a quick view of all photos (including the ones in subdirectories) and then move/copy or edit them in Photoshop. I've found Adobe Bridge to be too bulky in its feature set and it loading time seems to take awhile (although I'm only using a late model Powerbook with 1.5gigs of RAM).


----------



## geewillikerz (Dec 27, 2006)

Add me to the list of Mac lovers who don't love iPhoto.  Picasa is the one thing I really miss about windows and I would love to see it ported to OSX.  I switched to Mac a couple of years ago and I am still struggling with iPhoto... I still can't easily accomplish fairly mundane tasks without pulling my hair out.  

My wife works in the same room as me on her windows machine and it embarasses me how much easier it is to do ANYTHING on picasa than it is in iPhoto.  Way faster on her old windows box than iPhoto is on my much newer Mac, too.

Otherwise, I love my Mac.


----------



## Satcomer (Dec 27, 2006)

Well boys there is now the Picasa Web Albums Uploaders and the Google Picasa Web Album site. I know this is not what you wanted, but it might due for now.


----------



## cyberprop (Dec 29, 2006)

eric2006 said:


> If you really have that many pictures, you'd be better off with something like Aperture.




i have apature and have started loading my photos in but its slow, even on my new mac book pro, albeit i only have 2gb of ram but still shouldn't be as slow as it is. i'm running osx stripped down while i run it nothing but bare minimum running inc dock switched off. but it allows me to do what i want and rate certain pics and edit on the fly just wished it ran a bit quicker, i will investigate pararells. picasa ran fine on my old pc with that many photos just struggled a bit with the raw images flying through them in full size.

thnx for all that have helped

gi


----------



## grey021 (Jan 2, 2007)

I;'m reading over a few of the posts here, but I'm sorry I used iPhoto and I thought it was great. i luved the little feature like the "make book prints" and the quick edits. i didn't like how it "managed" my photos. I use PS and Bridge more now than anything else; but then i was introduced to Picasa. very good for doing a few of the things i already do IN PS but with 1 or 2 clicks. Sepia, BW, fades, Light filling, and all done quickly and seamlessly. I can post to either Picasa Web or my website with little effort. I used to recommend iPhoto to anyone who never really needed to learn PS, but still wanted to have cool outputs. Picasa is just better at doing what iPhoto started with simplifying. i just wish Google didn't coupe out and figure that the mac community didn't want to use something else other than iPhoto.  
I think Picasa would give iPhoto some great competition. unlike what Gimp tried to do with PS. 
 Hey give it time there will be something better than picasa.


----------



## chevy (Jan 2, 2007)

GraphicConverter is a good complement of iPhoto.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 2, 2007)

if you want to install x11 and run it that way, you can have Picassa for mac(-ish)

http://picasa.google.com/linux/


----------



## greentaters (Jan 4, 2007)

HELP!!!!  I am a mac idiot being it I was raised on PC.  I am a new convert.  I renamed all the folders in my iphoto library and now I cannot view any pictures in iPhoto.  What do I do?  Is there anyway to undo what I did or do I have to download a whole new program to be able to view my photos?  I love iphoto by the way.


----------



## chevy (Jan 4, 2007)

Renaming all folders was not a good idea as you found out.

You can re-import your files by drag-dropping these into iPhoto. You may also be able to recover the whole system by selecting a new folder as you iPhoto folder (and set your renamed folder as the new folder).


----------



## chevy (Jan 4, 2007)

dktrickey said:


> Cyberprop,
> 
> Awhile ago, MacAddict magazine dumped 250,000 pictures into iPhoto 6 (the latest). It didn't work so well. Glitchy!!
> 
> ...



Just due to the corresponding amount of HD capacity, this does not fit with iPhoto approach of having all files in one location.


----------



## Sunnz (Jan 4, 2007)

Lt Major Burns said:


> if you want to install x11 and run it that way, you can have Picassa for mac(-ish)
> 
> http://picasa.google.com/linux/


Maybe a bit late now... but isn't there a Mac version of Picasa?

http://www.google.com/mac.html


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 4, 2007)

no, that's just a web uploader.  Picasa for linux is the full photo managemant software.


----------



## chevy (Jan 4, 2007)

Does Picasa do anything that is not in GraphicConverter ?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 4, 2007)

yes, it's like a much better thought out version of iPhoto, a complete consumer photo library system from camera through to organisation and to print, and doesn't rely on it's fragile folder system being intact.  also, i like the feature that it asks you to name the folder when you plug in a camera.  very smart.


----------



## bsirons (Jan 6, 2007)

Hello,

This is my first post on this forum. 

I have recently purchased a MacBook Pro 15" Core 2 duo and so far so good. I had a skinny Mac in the early 80's but due to the corporate world went to Windows. I am glad to be back and thought that anything to do with graphics would be wonderful on the Mac and that's not quite what I am reading here.

I am surprised that few people have mentioned PS Elements. I have version 4 for Windows and am very happy with it. As well as being a very good editor, one thing it does that others don't seem to do well is to show video clips as part of a slide show. I can select a series of images including AVI files, hit F11 and it goes into a slide show mode and shows still and videos without opening any other programs.

I intend installing both Boot Camp and Parallels on my Mac and will try running PS Elements 4 on the Windows side. Would it be possible to store my pictures in a "Shared" folder and access them from both the Mac and Windows side?

Thanks


----------



## ex2bot (Jan 7, 2007)

bsirons, welcome to MacOSX.com!

You'd probably be happier running the Mac version of Photoshop Elements 4. That's not to say that you could use the Windows version. Parallels has definitely made that possible. Maybe there's a "crossgrade" or whatever that would allow you to get the Mac version for less $. You're right, Photoshop Elements is excellent. I'm still at version 2.

As far as sharing your photos, I believe Parallels allows you to access your data from both "sides", Mac and Windows. I don't have an Intel Mac, so I'm a bit fuzzy on the details.

I'd suggest giving iPhoto a fair try before you dismiss it. It works fine for me. Of course, I "only" have ~1500 photos in iPhoto. Check out the photo books. They're fantastic. And I believe it is possible to set iPhoto 06 to allow you to manually manage your photos, storing them wherever you want.

From what I've read, people are really enthusiastic about Parallels' capabilities. But I think you'll ultimately be better off when you are more comfortable with OS X and run mostly or exclusively Mac apps. Just my humble opinion.

Good luck and have fun!

Doug


----------



## bsirons (Jan 8, 2007)

Hi dktrickey

Thank you for the welcome and the response.

I agree that I probably would be happier running the Mac version and quite frankly, running everything Mac. However that is not MY reality. There is a Mac Version of Photoshop Elements available but after having read User Reviews it is a poor port over to MacIntosh. Apparently the Windows version is much better. Not unlike what I read about Quicken, another program I use a lot and likewise will probably stay with the Windows version.

I have just installed Boot Camp and Windows XP Pro and it installed without a hitch. I have subsequently installed several Windows programs and all went well. I tried passing one file between the two systems and it was successful. Whether I will be able to store an entire photo collection and share it, I am not sure.

I did purchase Parallels with my computer but haven't installed it yet. To have Parallels and Boot Camp both installed meant installing Windows twice until just recently when Parallels announced that their most recent Beta software would recognize the Boot Camp version of Windows. Once it becomes stable, I will definately install it.

I will certainly give IPhoto, and all other Mac apps a fair try though. After all I have spent a few dollars on my new Mac and definately want to be a Mac user. It is really a great thing having an Intel based Mac that you can have the best of both worlds.

Bob


----------



## ex2bot (Jan 8, 2007)

I'm sure using a combination of XP and OS X apps is probably ideal, but as far as PS Elements goes, Macworld gave it 4.5 mice out of 5. They said it was excellent. In a quick review I skimmed, the reviewer indicated the he really liked it, though he said it was still a little too "Windowsy" for him.

There's this prevalent myth that there's a paucity of software for the Mac and that they tend to be inferior. That's not generally true. There are, however, a few high-profile turkeys like Quicken and anything Symantec / Norton.

Some excellent apps, some of whose quality is unrivaled in their price ranges(*):

iDVD (*)
iMovie (*)
VLC
Keynote (*)
Garageband (*)
iDefrag
Diskwarrior
iTunes (*)
iChat
Toast 7
Mail (for basic email use)
Omnigraffle (flowcharts/business gfx/education gfx - AMAZING interface) (*)
(. . . weird name too)
etc.

Have fun!

Doug


----------



## bsirons (Jan 9, 2007)

Thanks again dktrickey.

I think perhaps users are less kind to Elements 4 than the professional reviewers. I got some of my input from Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photosh..._bbs_1/002-7165142-7794437?ie=UTF8&s=software

It's also on sale their for under $60.

Your feedback is appreciated.

Bob


----------



## ex2bot (Jan 9, 2007)

Unfortunately, I'm still at version 2 so I can't share any first-hand experience. I'm looking to upgrade to 5 when it arrives for the Mac.

I've been very happy with version 2. I use it frequently, though not usually for anything complex. Just photo tweaks, picture packages, panoramas sometimes, hi-res to web conversion, etc.

I would just say about the non-prof. reviews that for every helpful comment there tend to be dozens or even hundreds of garbage comments in general. I usually trust Macworld reviews. I trust MacAddict (now Mac|Life) reviews even more. I believe they recommend version 4. So, that's my 2 cents worth.

Doug


----------



## valsace (Feb 4, 2007)

I've recently switched to mac (MacBook 2.0ghz) after being raised purely on PC my whole life.  I was prepared to love mac and in most instances I do.  

However, I have to agree with the posters who have said that iPhoto does not compare to Picasa.  I have the new iLife and the new iPhoto installed.  
I was using Picasa for about 3 years on Windows and I just loved that it worked so well.  I've played with iPhoto and I think it's a bit clunkier to work with and I haven't even uploaded all of my pictures on the mac yet.  Picasa has one-touch solutions which makes it very very easy to edit pictures.  iPhoto has its features but I'm a Picasa hardcore fan, I guess.

I wish google would hurry up and make Picasa for mac.

For those who haven't tried Picasa, please go ahead and try it before you say iPhoto is the same.  You'll see the difference.


----------



## k0rson (Feb 15, 2007)

hi there I am using Graphic Converter and am very happy with it.  
highly recommended.  k0


----------



## tuffymccabe (Feb 15, 2007)

I bought a Macbook in December after 10 years of Windows machines.  One reason was because I was jealous of Mac folks who seemed to be able to do all things vision + sound.  I guess I should have done more research because iPhoto is a pain.

Here's all I want to do:  Take 100 pictures of my new baby girl.  Upload them to the computer.  Pick out 8 of them and send them through Gmail, slightly reduced in size.  Picasa2 does this very well.

I tried the equivalent in iPhoto with MacMail (or whatever it's called).  The attached photos came in an email with piles of digital crap for Windows users.  Like two screens of random characters.  

I'll give you that I haven't RTFM but I basically have to drag or export to an outside folder and attach directly to gmail.  I'm essentially not using any of iPhoto's "features."

Wish I could load boot camp but I don't have a non-upgrade XP installation disk and, frankly, have never met anyone who has.


----------



## apilit (Feb 23, 2007)

Thanks to all who responded to my first inquiry!  I still use Picasa on my Windows laptop and iPhoto on my G4 Powermac.  I like Picasa better but iPhoto is not too bad so I will stick with it until Google gives us Mac users a Picasa to work with.  Again, thanks to all!


----------



## sylense (Mar 3, 2007)

After using both Picasa and iPhoto extensively, I have to agree that Picasa is superior in almost every way.


----------



## JJiMAC (Mar 13, 2007)

This is my first post.  I have an iMac that is 3 years old.  The first time I heard Google had a Photo software program I believe it was only available for PC'S.  But recently a friend out east told me his wife was working with Picasa on her new laptop and I knew she had recently retired and bought a new Macbook.  That led me to Google "Picasa for MAC" and eventually find this site. I love to do more than just warehouse photos in albums and I have been storing many of them on the Shutterfly website.  I find myself wanting to do more creative things with some of these photos.  Does Picasa offer more options in this area than iPhoto.  Would I be better off investing in Photoshop?  Also this website (MacosX.com) looks like it could be helpful for me now that my warranty has expired and Mac tech advice is no longer free.  
JJ


----------



## entropos (Mar 24, 2007)

I came here because I've just wasted the past 2 hours doing in iPhoto what would have taken me about 15 minutes in Picasa. I was looking for an alternative to iPhoto that was as clever as Picasa - instead I found piles of folks just like me.

I'm a born and bred macuser who was stuck with a wintel laptop when my imac died. I couldn't afford a mac and needed a pc. Over time I've come to appreciate a great deal of the things being in windows allows, but hate the fragility of the system.

I was happy to be going back to mac...
...but not so much anymore.

It's like moving to tidy, regimented Singapore after having caroused around  dirty, sprawling but free Houston. The confines drive me nuts. You MUST resize your window from THIS CORNER ONLY. etc. etc. etc.

iPhoto is clunky and requires too many nonintuitive steps to complete what comes easily and immediately to one using Picasa.


Bleh. I'm downloading aperture now, but I don't have much hope.


----------



## bsirons (Mar 24, 2007)

Hi Entropos,

I too have just gotten back to Mac after many years in Windows. I thought Mac graphics were just "a given".

I also found that iPhoto didn't do what I wanted it to do as I had been used to Photoshop Elements 4 and really liked the organizational tools as well as the ability to adjust the pictures. The outstanding part of Elements is that it handles and displays video clips from within the program without having to launch a separate viewer.

I have just recently purchased Elements 5 and it has a few more features than elements 4. I know there is an equivalent version for Mac but I am running mine in Windows XP through Parallels Desktop (what a great program).

When Adobe finally come out with a version that runs natively in Mac, then I will buy it but in the meantime I will stick with the Windows version.

I really don't know much about Picasa except that it gets a lot of good press. It was a dealbreaker for me that it wouldn't run my video clips.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## JJiMAC (Mar 24, 2007)

Entropos & bsirons,  OK first I will get rid of my initial reaction when I read the log name bsirons. As a former golfer I was prepared to have a little fun with you and use some creative liberty of expression interpreting that user name...but then thought better of it.   Since I last posted I talked to a friend and he highly recommended the Photoshop Elements program for Mac,  The latest Mac version is 4.  He has a PC and works with Elements 5.  bsirons, you mentioned Parallels Desktop.  I don't recognize that term... Please tell me more.  Thanks.
JJ


----------



## sylense (Mar 25, 2007)

bsirons, I agree that opening another application to view video files was a dealbreaker for me to.

Picasa will play video files within the program, so that's another point in its favor.


----------



## Caledai (Mar 26, 2007)

I have used both Picassa and iPhoto, as well as other PC Apps and Graphic Converter for Both Classic and Mac OS X.

Personally my preference is still Picasa for the following reasons.
* It doesn't move my photos around - it works with the structure
* The workflow is great - which I don't see in iPhoto.
* Many More

The disadvantages
* Lack of Panoramic support.
* No Bonjour Sharing which iPhoto supports.

I looked at iPhoto for a while on a G4 mac - and its ok - but not great.
With nothing else to compare it to - it excels, but once you get into free competition - Picassa wins out.

I hope they do port it over, and also enable Bonjour Sharing between both Picassa and iPhoto.

Graphic Converter last I looked - still had its roots in the classic environment despite being a Universal download, many dialog boxes were exactly the same as when I used it extensively about 8 years ago under the classic environment.

I do like the integration iPhoto and iWeb have but I found that Site@Home was a better web design product for novices then iWeb but its no longer under production.

I have got people who use Picassa to understand how to do simple tasks, such as bulk resizing, a lot easier then those under iPhoto.

Picassa 3 for Mac - when it comes out - will be installed.
If it integrates as well as iPhoto does - so much the better.


----------



## JJiMAC (Mar 26, 2007)

Have you ever used Photoshop elements?


----------



## Caledai (Mar 26, 2007)

JJiMAC said:


> Have you ever used Photoshop elements?



Photoshop Elements is not free like iPhoto, Picasa and some alternatives.
While it is fairly powerful, its a Mid Class Application, between Album Applications such as iPhoto, Picassa etc, and the more powerful suites - such as Photoshop.

From memory Adobe released Adobe Photoshop Album Starter as a competitor to products such as picasa giving them low, mid and upper range tools in Digital Imaging, but this like Picasa is a windows only product.


----------



## JJiMAC (Mar 27, 2007)

Caledai,
Thanks...I have an iMac and am currently testing Picasa.  I have uploaded some albums from iPhoto to Picasa and have used Picasa to send these albums to friends experimentally right now.  As yet I have not used Picasa to alter any of these photos ... it isn't readily apparent yet to me where they seem to be hiding those apparatuses for lack of a better word.  i have Photoshop Elements 4 for Mac on it's way to me and am anxious to receive the program so I can get the creative juices flowing on some of this photography I enjoy sending out.  I like Picasa for sending out albums to friends and relatives.  Have used Shutterfly for 7 years and have over 80 albums stored with them but am glad i backed up those photos on disc.  Shutterfly is OK but once they get your photos, people that want to reproduce them really can't do that by downloading them.  If I send out an album using Picasa at least my daughter in Tucson can download from picasa and get good reproduction.  Just ranting a bit.
JJ


----------



## Quirky Bear (Apr 4, 2007)

Thank you to AlanR for your recommendation of iPhoto Buddy. I'm quite frustrated with iPhoto and it seems that this program will address some of my issues with it. 

I just heard of this forum today, and am delighted that it is here.


----------



## JJiMAC (Apr 4, 2007)

Quirky Bear,  
In What way did you find iPhoto Buddy to address your issues with iPhoto?


----------



## munchy (Apr 14, 2007)

Just tried the latest version of Kodak Easyshare software. Having tried previous versions I wasn't impressed at all, but this one (version 6) seems to be much improved.
It's easily customised and integrates with external programs pretty well. It seems much more responsive than iPhoto as each folder is displayed seperately and doesn't create various library files etc. It has a nice clean brushed metal interface so fits in with OS X nicely. Automatically displays all your videos in a 'smart album' for those that have videos scattered amongst their photos. There's the usual editing features, maybe not as extensive as Picasa or iPhoto, but it can be easily configured to edit pics in an external program. Lots of other nice features too.
I really like iPhoto but having a large amount of photos does seem to slow it down too much. I'd love to see Picasa on the Mac but seems Google don't feel like competing with iPhoto.
Here's a link to Easyshare on download.com (universal binary)
Kodak-EasyShare-Software-for-Mac


----------



## Quirky Bear (Feb 17, 2008)

JJiMAC said:


> Quirky Bear,
> In What way did you find iPhoto Buddy to address your issues with iPhoto?



Goodness, for some reason I didn't see your reply until just now (10 months later!)

As it happens, I stopped using iPhoto Buddy quite quickly, because it turned out to be not as useful as I'd initially thought. I now just keep my photos organized in folders in the Finder (titled by date + descriptive name) and use Preview to view batches of them, and ImageWell to crop and resize them for posting online or emailing them. 

As far as keeping the photos organized and searchable by keywords, I'm considering going back to the system I used when I was doing film photography, which involved having a simple spreadsheet where I could organize my entire list of photos by any particular keyword (using one per column). This would just point me to the location of the photos. This is probably not appealing to most people, but it was a system that suited me quite well. Unless I find a better solution with a photo viewing program, I'll probably revert to this.


----------



## Amnesiac (Jun 17, 2008)

What a thread.  Any updates to the Picasa/Mac rumors since the one's that circulated around January of this year?

Any other new programs out there to check out?  iPhoto (6.0.6) just isn't right for me.


----------



## pepper123 (Jun 17, 2008)

I'm new to both this forum as well as Mac. . . I bought a MacBook about two weeks ago and I love it. I found this thread searching for an answer to an iPhoto alternate. . . I like how it works and edits, etc. but I cannot stand how it does not integrate with my pictures folder! On Picasa, changes made to pictures in their folders were reflected in Picasa and vice versa. For example, I just rearranged 3000+ pictures in iPhoto only to find the changes were not reflected in my pictures folder. This is extremely inconvenient when trying to upload pictures onto websites. Also, the new events I created in iPhoto are no where to be found in my pictures folder! In Picasa, a new "event" created also creates a new folder in Pictures.

I love my Mac, but I want Picasa back! I appreciate iPhoto for what it does, but the integration with my Pictures folder is crucial to me.


----------



## kevindorson (Mar 6, 2009)

chek out  . Its launched.
http://picasa.google.com/mac/ 

Well, I certainly beleive google took complete idea of making picasa from iPhoto since what iPhoto can do it in the most elegant way, may be picasa does not do.. Still if u wanted picasa on mac, its there and u can use the way...
Best things in iPhoto in mac is the user is not bothered about where the fotos are getting stored.. entire file manageemnt is done internally in the best spaces by iphoto and mac OS X which will reduce the file redundancy in the hard disk and giving us better ways to store the maximum content and speedy operations


----------



## darkhighway (Mar 7, 2009)

No, Picasa wasn't originally developed by Google. It was another great company called Idealab that created Picasa. Google acquired it in mid 2004. Picasa was started in 2001 as a online photo sharing application and has evolved quite a bit since then. iPhoto was first released in 2002 so I don't think Idealab was trying to copy iPhoto. They may have been inspired by some of its features, but it's difficult to say.


----------



## mooreee (May 12, 2009)

ACDSEE is only one program for me to watch photo.


----------



## nixgeek (May 13, 2009)

mooreee said:


> ACDSEE is only one program for me to watch photo.



And this program is beneficial for *Mac OS X users* how again?...

http://store.acdsee.com/store/acd/en_US/DisplayProductDetailsPage/productID.106893200


----------



## nanozuzu (Jun 23, 2009)

Hi. I always used iPhoto and had no trouble until I switched to gmail for email. Now I don't know how to easily make the photos smaller files to send to friends. Any clues? (I'm not super computer savvy - duh)  nano.


----------



## ex2bot (Jun 23, 2009)

There are lots of ways of doing what you want. 

Here are some ideas:

1 Don't reduce the size of your photos when emailing them. Gmail will let you attach very large attachments. 
2. Select the photos you want in iPhoto. You can hold down the command key (used to have apple on it) and click on all the photos you want to email. Then drag them to Preview (drag Preview to your dock). Preview can reduce the size of files. Save them to your Desktop so you can find them. 

Now, I don't have the latest iPhoto. It may have an option to do this more easily. 

Good luck and let us know if you're still having trouble.

Ex2bot


----------

