Faster alternatives to iPhoto?

Hey all,
My iPhoto is really, really slow.
Can anyone recommend some alternative photo management software?
Thanks!
Alec

Alec:
A couple of questions. Are you operating iPhoto with all of the rolls open and how much free space do you have on your HD?
As for other alternatives I use iView MediaPro, a professional media management application, which can handle not only image files but audio, movie, pdf, html and fonts. This page describes its features.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.

Similar Messages

Working alternating with iPhoto and FCE tgrying to import pictures from iPhoto into FCE suddenly all my 22300 pictures disappeared leaving empty frames. Does somebody know where the pictures could have gone and how can I get them back into iPhoto? Lothar

Working alternating with iPhoto and FCE tgrying to import pictures from iPhoto into FCE suddenly all my 22300 pictures disappeared leaving empty frames. Does somebody know where the pictures could have gone and how can I get them back into iPhoto? Lothar

The ! turns up when iPhoto loses the connection between the thumbnail in the iPhoto Window and the file it represents.
Option 1
Back Up and try rebuild the library: hold down the command and option (or alt) keys while launching iPhoto. Use the resulting dialogue to rebuild. Choose to Rebuild iPhoto Library Database from automatic backup.
If that fails:
Option 2
Download iPhoto Library Manager and use its rebuild function. This will create a new library based on data in the albumdata.xml file. Not everything will be brought over - no slideshows, books or calendars, for instance - but it should get all your albums and keywords back.
Because this process creates an entirely new library and leaves your old one untouched, it is non-destructive, and if you're not happy with the results you can simply return to your old one. .
Regards
TD

What is an alternative to iPhoto?

Hi,
I am looking for an free alternative to Iphoto. Can anyone recommend one?
Also, before my HD failed a few months back I had Iphoto and now the app store is saying I have to pay 14.99 for it. I dont remember paying for it originally when I purchased my MB Pro. Do you think I should call Apple and tell them this?
Thanks

Thanks. I do not see it in the Mac App store

Alternatives to iPhoto - organises and stores photos in normal folders?

Hi Guys,
I am looking for an alternative to iPhoto.
The specific things I am looking for are:
> The ability to store photos directly in a "normal" folder in the Finder, rather than in the special iPhoto "closed" folder. (Reasons for this are primarily to do with backup and sharing - I want my photos folder to sit on Dropbox so I can share with other computers, and want the security of knowing everything is backed up off site).
> The ability to view photos in the "albums" (folders in Finder) I have stored them in.
> Similar basic photo editing features to those found in iPhoto.
If anyone has any suggestions I'd be very grateful!
Cheers,
Mike

Hey Terrence,
Thanks for this info - appreciate the quick response!!
Do you have any suggestions for a really good photo editor?
I wonder also if there's a tool that allows viewing of photos easily, as Finder isn't actually that great for flicking through photos when they are in standard folders (I see that this could go round in a circle and end up pointing to iPhoto again, but I really am keen to move away from iPhoto for the reasons I mentioned in my original post)!
Thanks in advance!
Mike

Free alternatives to iPhoto and iMovie

I have an iBook (2003) model running Tiger. I do not have iLife and do not want to buy it. Can you suggest some free alternatives to iPhoto and iMovie?
I would like to do,
simple photo editing: Resize into 4'X6', change contrast and brightness, crop, etc.
simple video editing: crop small videos
Thanks for your suggestions.

Terence Devlin wrote:
Since when is updating your software a bad thing?
When the Software Maker mucks up and pushes out a bad update. It happens. Some folks on here had their Faces processes bunged up by an update, others have graphics issues induced by upgrading to 10.6. These things happen to every software manufacturer at some time or other. And that's just two current examples. It is impossible to test every bit of software on every concievable hardware and software scenario.
I agree there should be an on/off switch, but I do think that ppl are stubborn when it comes to updating their software. I think that this is meant to benefit the vast majority of users who don't bother to update their software, than the minority who do.
And that's where forums like this are invaluable. Before you apply an update you can come here and see if other folks have an issue and then decide for yourself if you want to apply the update.
Unless, that is, you use Picasa (or Chrome, or their Search Utility). In these cases you specifically give Google the right to update the software on your machine with whatever they think fit whenever they think fit. And you cannot install Picasa without agreeing to this.
Correct. Moving along...
Why on earth would a software maker want this unlimited access to your Machine?
They're not getting "unlimited access" to my/your/anyone's machine. They're updating a piece of software installed on your machine. You agreed to let them update the software when you installed it--this is hardly a bad thing letting the developer update their software.
Don't believe me? Read the EULA or see here:
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Picasa/thread?tid=27117d0828181bf3&hl=en#a ll
This is a forum link, not a direct link to the EULA. The EULA is in the software upon installing it, and on this link:
http://picasa.google.com/intl/en_US/web/tos.html
Other oddities when in that Licence agreement:
You give Google unlimited rights to use your images as they think fit:
By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
Correct. I've read the Picasa EULA and your quote is correct, yet incomplete. The EULA also states....
"You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services." << In other words, Google is stating, clearly, that you own the copyright to all of your content and Google is not trying to take that way from you.
....it is very clear what is considered"content" and what is "services". You do not give up any rights to your content, period. The quote you mention above has more to deal with the online portion of the Picasa software, not with the Desktop app itself--it'sunder the Picasa EULA under sec. 1.1 (the very, very top), as stated...
+1.1 "Your use of Google's products, software, services, and _web sites_ _(referred to collectively as the "Services" in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement)_ is subject to the terms of the legal agreement between you and Google.+
Now, when you read it up close, it is saying that anything you transmit to Picasa that is public may be used in the front page advertising (just like Flickr does, _see below_). Moreover, they put this in the EULA...
+In addition, by submitting, posting or displaying Content _which is intended to be available to the general public_, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services. _Google will discontinue this licensed use within a commercially reasonable period after such Content is removed from Picasa Web Albums._ Google reserves the right to refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Content in its sole discretion.+
Here's Yahoo/Flickr's EULA....
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html
+Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Yahoo! Services. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services, _you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable_+
If you read either of them, they are both telling you the *exact same thing*--make it public, we'll use it. You can post to either service as private or unlisted, but what's the point? Plus, they are not going to use anything that is not intended for the general public (as Google's EULA specifically states) for their own advertising.
I think ppl have this misconception that Google is going on your computer, ripping your photos out from under you, and showing your kid's 4th birthday party photos all over Google Ads. Bottom line, it is only saying that if you make something Public, it's possible that it will end up as part of a gallery advertisement just as it would on a Google or Yahoo Image search.
Perhaps you're a trusting soul and I'm a jaded cynic. But I wouldn't give that right to anybody.
Hey, don't get me wrong....I've got my tin foil hat right here but there is a lot of misinformation out there and ppl take things out of context. Plus, if you think Google's EULA is "scary", read Facebook's EULA sometime. I can sooner understand people's concern over privacy than I do over the concern over copyright.

Faster alternative to cfcontent for large file downloads?

I am using cfcontent to securely download files so the user
can not see the path the file is stored in. With small files this
is fine, but with large 100mb+ files, it is much, much slower than
a straight html anchor tag. Does anyone have a fast alternative to
using cfheader/cfcontent for large files?
Thanks

You should be able to use Java to handle this, either through
a custom tag or you might be able to call the Java classes directly
in Coldfusion. I don't know much about Java, but I found this
example on the Web and got it to work for uploading files. Here's
an example of the code. Hope it gives you some direction:

Faster Alternatives to Bridge CC

I only use Bridge as a photo browser--I use Lightroom/Photoshop for any real work.
But sometimes I just want to browse a folder and be able to zoom and/or open in Photoshop.
So I do use Bridge in this very limited way.
But CC is so slow as to be non-functional. [running Mountain Lion on Core i7 with 16GB RAM]
I use a lot of CC software--Lightroom, InDesign, Photoshop, Premiere Pro, Audition--none of it crawls like this.
So, my question is--is there a faster, professional [i.e. NOT Picassa] photo browser that I can replace Bridge with?
[I have a lot of photos on archived on several drives]
Obviously, there's Photo Mechanic...which I may go to if I have to, especially on location. But for now I was hoping for something a little less expensive. Plus it duplicates a lot of Lightroom does, which is my main workhorse.
I just want a photo browser.
Thanks,
Margot

This is a late reply but hopefully it might help you or someone else.
For those who don't want to read my mammoth post this is the condensed version:
Bridge/Lightroom = good but painfully slow.
Alternatives for PC:
ACDSee Pro ( I use Pro 6.0)
Faststone - Free and fast.
Alternatives for Mac:
ACDSee Pro ( I use 2.0)
Xee - Free and fast, but few features
On to the full version.
First, my experience with Bridge/Lightroom then further down my solution:
Bridge/lightroom both have good file management tools and lots of other features but as you've discovered they are slow.
I've used Lightroom (sparingly) since 3.0 up to 5.0. Only reason I have the latest version now is because i'm subscribing to Adobe CC and I hoped for some improvements regarding speed and workflow but was disappointed. Still slow image to image rendering and still no way to simply browse files without importing them. (or have I missed something?)
Main thing is still that it's slow.
Bridge has been around for a long time now and I've tried using it since my first version which shipped with Adobe Master Collection CS3. I've jumped on every single update Adobe has thrown at it but it is still painfully slow when browsing/viewing images and forget about selecting images based on sharpness as it simply cannot handle proper scaling to screen size on the fly. It has to create preview files first, which I have still not managed to set up in spite of an excess of 100 hours research/re-install/cache purging/mucking with settings etc..
My experience tells me that the only way to accurately gauge focus in Bridge is to zoom in 100%, something that also takes extra time especially with raw files.
I really want to love Bridge since that would mean my Adobe CC subscription would handle everything I need, but no, I simply cannot get around the fact that Bridge is too slow to be efficient.
For the record my systems are not slow, the specs are:
PC:
QuadCore i7 2.8GHz
12GB RAM
120GB SSD system drive
Seagate 3TB 7200rpm photo drives
Eizo 24" flat monitor (don't have the model nr right now but it's a S-PVA panel with good colors)
Mac:
Macbook Pro Retina 15"
2.6 GHz i7
16 GB Ram
256GB SSD
3:rd party solutions I use/used that you might give a try:
My first choice is ACDSEE - I currently own ACDSEE Pro 6.0 for PC and 2.0 for Mac. I mainly use it to go through my memory cards during import and for that it is MILES AHEAD Lightroom/Bridge.
There is a decent Categories feature that I sometimes use to keep track of where certain types of images are. For example I've created sets of categories for different clients to keep track of my best images for each client.
I usually go through my memory cards and simply hit CTRL+B to save to save selected photos into the image basket, this gives me a virtual selection that I can choose to copy elsewhere or perhaps open in Photoshop straight from the memory card.
It also serves as a blazing fast image viewer, it handles most image formats including jpg/png/gif/psd etc. Best of all, it's REALLY FAST compared to Lightroom and Bridge. It even handles quite big .PSD's however the bigger they get the longer it takes obviously.
There are key differences between the PC version and Mac version with the PC version being better according to me. One example: The PC version uses two different keyboard shortcuts for the virtual "Image Basket", CTRL+B to add images, ALT+X to remove them from the basket. The Mac version(2.0) only has a "Tag" function where adding/removing images from the tagged list is done with the same shortcut which means you have to exit fullscreen in order to be 100% sure you have added/removed the tag. Also I had to reassign the shortcut because the standard one did nothing.
I've used ACDSee on the PC about 7 years, it's been really buggy at times, most notably known for "ragequitting" on you while browsing images but the last 3 versions or so have behaved really well. I have still experienced errors forcing me to shut it down but it is now a rare problem and I prefer that risk over the inexcusable slow Bridge/Lightroom. Pro 2.0 is my first experience with it on Mac and it still needs some tweaks but some of my gripes are partly related to getting used to the Mac interface.
Free alternatives that I've used and recommend:
For PC I would say Faststone is a really good option, it's fast, reads most image formats, has a tagging function which gives a graphic que wether or not the image is tagged (small pink square appears in the upper left corner if I remember correctly). It has lots of features easily accessed in fullscreen by simply moving the cursor to either side of the screen. Oh and it displays the images way sharper than Bridge/Lightroom without the need to zoom in 100%. Just as with ACDSee it's often possible to determine the sharpness of an image with the image fitted to the screen size, without going 100%.
For Mac I initially wanted a Faststone alternative since ACDSee wasn't available at first. My research led me to "Xee", a free image viewer that works well although lacks thumbnail view and has nothing equivalent of the Image Basket or tag function for ACDSee.
Ok, I think I've done my share of typing today, I hope someone finds this information useful.
If you read this Adobe; C'mon... shape up Bridge and Lightroom already, you've had many years to get it right but alot of users still see poor performance in those otherwise great programs.

Faster transfers of iPhoto library

So I bought an SSD for my MBP and am in the process of transferring everything to my new NAS from my existing hard drive. Unfortunately, I found that my iPhoto library is about 225Gb large and after initiating the copy from the MBP to the NAS, it says it's gonna take 6 days...actually, make that 7 (it keeps going up). I can't wait a week to move everything over...does anyone have a better idea to get this done quickly?
It might also help to note that I do have a Time Capsule with backups of everything, including my iPhoto library. If there's a way to install the new drive, restore everything except the media files, then move it all to the NAS straight from the Time Capsule, that would be fantastic. If that's not possible, I'd be happy with any way to speed up this process. Thanks!

The iPhoto Library is a package that contains a large number of tiny files (reference files for faces, locations, albums, thumbnails, etc). The Finder needs to sort out all this before it starts copying, and it overestimates the time required. In my experience not much seems to happen during the first 10-15 minutes of the copy process except the estimated time keeps rising to a scary level; but once it actually starts copying things speed up. It's still not as fast as a "normal" copy, I think the reason has something to do with the iPhoto Library being a package and the internal structure of the library. The same slowness exists wtih iCal files, by the way.
There are some workarounds on the internet that people have used but they involve digging into the iPhoto LIbrary package and manually copying portions to a new folder on the destination drive, then renaming and some other stuff. When you do that you risk corrupting the Library. I wouldn't advise doing it.
Does the NAS have a USB, FW or eSATA port that you could use to attach it directly to your Mac for the copy process? Copying via a direct connection will usually be faster than via your network, especially if you have FW800 or eSATA. In my experience copying disk-to-disk via a gigabit network is about as fast as FW800 if you are only copying a few files and they aren't too big. But as the number and size of the files rises, FW800 does a lot better.

Faster alternative to Math.random()?

hi,
i have profiled a mini-game i've written and found that calls to Math.random are taking up a good proportion of the time (5%). The source for Math.random() is     public static double random() {
   if (randomNumberGenerator == null) initRNG();
   return randomNumberGenerator.nextDouble();
}which is exactly as expected.
I don't need any statistical guarantees about the randomness (just need to add some noise to some moving entities paths), so was wondering if there are any neat tricks to do this faster..
thanks,
asjf

Another alternative is to pregenerate several 1000 random numbers,
stick them in an array, and just cycle through the array. actually, might do that! (do need doubles half the time, but will convert the others to ints)
otherwise have found this which looks v. promising:
http://www.honeylocust.com/RngPack/

Faster performance storing iPhoto library on boot SSD or secondary?

I'm running an early 2008 Mac Pro, 2.8GHz 8-core, with multiple hard drives (side note - this Mac Pro only supports up to SATA II). My iPhoto library has grown quite large (~350GB) and I am looking to upgrade the 1TB mechanical HD it is on to a similarly-sized SSD (probably the Samsung 840 EVO).
My question: is there any performance benefit to storing my iPhoto library on the same SSD as the OS, as opposed to storing it on another SSD? Or will the read/write speeds be about the same?

It might open a wee bit faster if it's on the boot SSD as opposed to an external (?) or other SSD but I'd be surprised if it's enough to really be noticeable. The other aspects of using iPhoto should be about the same for both drives. Once the library is open it's the amount of RAM that can make a difference.

Alternatives to iPhoto

the way iPhoto organises photos is driving me crazy. I can see no logic is storing by date created. However, I do not want to get into a debate about this.
A question...can anyone suggest alternative products that will allow me to organise photos into directories of my choosing.
thanks
MST

I'll admit that it has a steeper learning curve than iPhoto or some but it allows you to create your own folder system, catalog the image files in those folders, catalog image files that reside on removable media and still see the thumbnails when the media has been dismounted, create Catalog Sets (like albums) keywords, Supplemental Categories (again similar to albums) and have those values synced (written) back to the original files so it you create another catalog of those images, those items will be read into the new catalog. You have a "Lightbox" feature where up to 4 images can be displayed on the monitor for very close, eye loupe, comparison. It has version control when using it's own editing tools which allows you to make multiple edits and same them all, not just the last one like iPhoto. That's just for starters. BUT, you'll need to read the manual (yes, I really hated that) to get the crux of how it works. It is designed for professional photographers who use the EXIF and metadata a lot. It can batch rename the actual file names, not just the titles as in iPhoto. If you move a folder to another location it can usually track it in real time and keep the links current. Yada, yada, yada.
What it can't do is make books and the type of slideshow that iPhoto does. So I create special libraries just for the books I need and drag photos from iView's window into iPhoto's window to add to the book album.

Alternatives to iPhoto Library Manager?

A friend asked that I copy several photo collections onto a thumb drive for transfer to her machine.
Both my friend and I have iPhoto.
I tried using iPhoto Library Manager to copy some of my events into a new iPhoto Library on my friend's 32 GB thumb drive. (I don't want to copy my entire library over, as my iPhoto collection totals over 50,000 photos.) iPhoto Library Manager gave me a warning message that I need to purchase the software in order to copy photos from one library to another. As I have no real long-term use for iPhoto Library Manager, I would prefer not to buy it.
Are there any freeware alternatives that allow me to copy specific events from one iPhoto library to another? I want to do this to preseve some of the information (including informative Event titles) so my friend can navigate all these photos more easily.
An alternative might be to duplicate my entire iPhoto library and then delete most of it, leaving only the stuff my friend needs. This sounds like a VERY laborious route to take. (Unless iPhoto makes it easy somehow.)
MY HARDWARE
iMac 13,1 (late-2012) 2.9 GHz Core i5, 1 TB HDD, 8 GB RAM
MY SOFTWARE
MacOS 10.8
iLife 2011
Toast 9

Library Manager will only copy a limited number at a time in trial mode. Once you buy that restriction is lifted.
As for alternatives, no there are none at all, not to mind free ones.
That said, what exactly do you want to copy... Copying with Library Manager gets everything - Original, edits, edit history, all the metadata, faces and so on.
If you don't want everything then you can simply export from your iPhoto to a folder on the desktop. Copy that folder to the other machine and there import. This process will have the following limitations:
- you will need to choose between the original and editied version, you won't get both and you'll lose the edit history (the ability to revert to the original, if you export the edted version)
- You won't get the Faces.
Petty much everything else can be exported. If you wan to preserver the Event titles then simply create a folder on the desktop. Name it for the Event. Export the contents of that Event to the folder. Repeat.
This User Tip
https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-4921
has details of the options in the Export dialogue.

Slideshow software alternative to iPhoto

I create slideshows for weddings & other events on a periodic basis. When I do this in Final Cut, I have absolute control over every slide in terms of transitions, movements, and time onscreen, but it's very time intensive and most people don't want to pay for the time involved.
When I create slideshows in iPhoto, it's a simple and straightforward approach that's less expensive, but I don't have any control over individual photos that I might want to do something different with. It's a one-way only setup.
I'm looking for a "middle of the road" software program that has templates for slideshow creation that I can just plug the pics into, but still allows for some control with each photo (transitions, time onscreen, and even movement of the photo if possible.
Does anyone have a good recommendation for Mac?
Thanks!!

There are many ways to produce slide shows using iPhoto, iMovie or iDVD and some limit the number of photos you can use (iDVD has a 99 chapter (slide) limitation).
If what you want is what I want, namely to be able to use high resolution photos (even 300 dpi tiff files), to pan and zoom individual photos, use a variety of transitions, to add and edit music or commentary, place text exactly where you want it, and to end up with a DVD that looks good on both your Mac and a TV - in other words end up with and end result that does not look like an old fashioned slide show from a projector - you may be interested in how I do it. You don't have to do it my way, but the following may be food for thought!
Firstly you need proper software to assemble the photos, decide on the duration of each, the transitions you want to use, and how to pan and zoom individual photos where required, and add proper titles. For this I use Photo to Movie. You can read about what it can do on their website:
http://www.lqgraphics.com/software/phototomovie.php
(Other users here use the alternative FotoMagico: http://www.boinx.com/fotomagico/homevspro/ which you may prefer - I have no experience with it.)
Neither of these are freeware, but are worth the investment if you are going to do a lot of slide shows. Read about them in detail, then decide which one you feel is best suited to your needs.
Once you have timed and arranged and manipulated the photos to your liking in Photo to Movie, it exports the file to iMovie 6 as a DV stream. You can add music in Photo to Movie, but I prefer doing this in iMovie where it is easier to edit. You can now further edit the slide show in iMovie just as you would a movie, then send it to iDVD 7, or Toast, for burning.
You will be pleasantly surprised at how professional the results can be!
To simply create a slide show in iDVD 8 from images in iPhoto or stored in other places on your hard disk or a connected server, look here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1089

Valid alternative to iPhoto?

It does exist a valid alternative (software) to iPhoto? I use it on an iBook G3 but I've a lot of problems!

Since this is an iPhoto support forum maybe you would be better of to stop the RANT and try to resolve teh problems that your system and you have - or learn to use google and look for something that pleases you
iPhoto works just fine and if you took the time to learn how to use it as it can do everything you want
For example fully manual organization is available using folders and albums
seperating work and personal photos is trivial using keywords and smart albums - or even seperate libraries
LN

Free (or cheap) alternative to iPhoto, with more features.

Hello. I posted this on the Aperture forum,and it was suggested that I post it here as well
---orig post---
I need a rec. for a free, light, easy to learn image editor for Mac. I am new to Mac, though this is not for my use, it's for a colleague who is not real computer savvy.
Basically, she's doing some very rudimentary Web design and needs to be able to do things like re-size/re-sample images, and some basic combining of images, things like adding a logo to a header image, adding transparency, and things like that.
On the Windows side, I have always used Irfanview. Is there an equivalent for the Mac?
Yes, I have done a few Google searches, but most programs I've found are either too complicated or cost money. She is a volunteer and does not want to spend money.
Thanks so much for your help.
-----snip------
I'm posting this here since the Aperture folks said iPhoto could do some but not all of what she requires.For example, it sounds like it cannot combine images using layers, or set transparency levels.
Again, what I need is an easy to use program. Photoshop Elements was suggested, but I just have a feeling this will overwhelm her.
If anyone has other suggestions, pls share.

I suggest you give Photoshop Elements 9 for Mac a try. You can download a demo which is good for about 20 days. It has about 75% of Photoshop's capabilities at around 1/7 of the price. Some of the editing you can do with it are:
Click to view full size
Click to view full size
Click to view video screenshot
Click to view full size
It's an awful lot of editor for the money IMO.

Faster alternatives to iPhoto?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for