Can 2 Macs sync photos in iPhoto Library?

Question

Hi everyone,
I have 2 Macs (iMac and MacBook both got 10.5.6 and iPhoto 09)
and I'm just wondering if I can sync photos in iPhotos on both Macs.
What I want to do is I just transfer photos from my camera to only one Mac
and then somehow 2 Macs have same photos.
Normally 2 Macs are connected wirelessly night time,
so somehow they can sync iPhoto Library automatically.
Like syncing contacts between iPhone and Mac...
Is there any way? or I'm just lazy...
Thank you,
Hiro

Answer 1

Since I recently purchased an iMac to go along with my MacBook Pro, I am now having this same dilemma. So far, the options seem to be cloud based syncs, local syncs, and local sharing.
Right away, local sharing is out for me since I want both computer to effectively be duplicates of one-another. In other words, I want my transition from working on one computer to the next to be nearly transparent.
For local sync, I am trying out ChronoSync as I have constantly heard it recommended, but there seems to be a major issue. When you open and close an iPhoto library, regardless of whether you change any content, it changes the modification date. Thus, if I were to load new pics on my MacBook, then open my iMac iPhoto and realize they weren't there, then sync (assuming a bi-directional sync setup), I would actually overwrite the MacBook because the package file on the iMac shows as newer. Bam, data lost. These package files Apple loves to use sure look elegant, but are causing problems all over the syncing world. Luckily, if you have Time Machine running, you can at least experiment with all of this with a relative degree of safety. The other nit-picky downside to local sync is that you have to establish a connection between the two computers to sync, meaning they both need to be on, and at least one needs file sharing active, which is a security concern.
The next option seems to be cloud-based sync. Dropbox is popular, but 2GB doesn't come close to my needs and when you start to get into the pay-for service, the capabilities look less impressive. Currently I am trying SugarSync. SugarSync looks like the end-all, be-all of sync/back-up, until you read the known issues. Again, the package files used for things like iPhoto (and other great apps like LicenseKeeper, 1Password, etc) are not supported. I am guessing it is for similar reasons--i.e. no ability to resolve which package is really the newest, regardless of the modification date. As a side-note, I find it a bit irritating that these companies advertise as if all these capabilities work, and worse, charge for a service that is incomplete. What Mac user doesn't want to at least sync iTunes and iPhoto? That's why we buy these softwares, after all. Anyway, I digress.
There is always iDisk too, if you are willing to pay for MobileMe. Thus far I am not really impressed with the performance of iDisk and everything I read suggests that iDisk's performance really takes a dive when working with--you guessed it--package files. Apple's left hand is clearly not talking to their right.
Notably, when setting up my new iMac, I was able to just copy over the whole iTunes and iPhoto library and they work just fine on the new mac. Thus, I think local sync at least has more promise right now (since most cloud-based syncs are based on incremental change for bandwidth purposes).
This all begs the question--with Time Machine's phenomenal success, why not expand that service into a backup/sync capable program. It makes total sense--time machine backs up every few minutes and is accessible via things like AirPort Extreme, or a host of the newer NASs that support TimeMachine. Moreover, TimeMachine supports all of Apples file conventions and is a language any Mac with Leopard forward understands. In other words, it would be great to have a single TimeMachine that worked for both my computers, keeping each one backed up and in sync, without the need to have two instantiations of TimeMachine. I realize this is not perfect, as many people keep different software setups or amounts of data on different computers, but nonetheless, I think that would be a killer upgrade that would move even more people into the Mac arena, or move more people with one Mac to invest in two. But, that's just my 2¢.