Itunes allows library to point to other folders and not copy files - WHY DOESN'T iPHOTO?

Question

Hopefully Terence Devlin and other experts will see this. I really am intrigued as to iphoto behaviour and seek some clarification.
I just waded through 13 pages of an old thread that was locked where Terence kept saying iphoto was all one needed to work with one's photos and kept getting called on the fact he would not answer the question "where are my photos" (photos = files) because it was so darn dangerous for anyone to touch the actual files in the iphoto library.
I have a use case I need help on and an example of Apple's utter inconsistency here.
Inconsistency: iTunes lets me create a library all the while pointing to the original files that *I* have imported and structured in a given directory/folder stucture.  Yes it means I manually manage what is in itunes etc, but that's how I like it. The key thing is that itunes allows the choice to import (copy) files (which makes duplicate and doubles hard disk usage) or not.
iphoto does not allow that option.
I just converted to Mac from a PC and copied in over 100gb of photo files - some 16,000 photos. I import new pics to the Mac using Canon native software and store them accoring to a structure/taxonomy that *I* determine and want to control - not some software's predetermined idea of events or locations or whatever.  In itunes I can make 'music' an 'audiobook' or I can make a podcast 'music', I can edit the metadata to order things in the 'library' as *I* choose and the itunes library is coole with this without havign ANY of the soruce files in its library. Naively, I thought iphoto would follow a similar philosophy.
Use case: I discovered that iphoto has some very effective functionality for management of my uploads and sets etc in Flickr, but to do so I have to import my pics, obviously. So I did import the whole 'Pictures' folder - not for a moment considering that Apple would be dumb enough to copy every pic and make a duplicate, or that I might not get the chance to say yes or no to this in the settings, as per itunes.  Having looed for that optin and failed to find it I imported anyway to see what happened. After I realised that the Mac was heating up and files were being copied and I was going to lose another 100+gb of disk space I forced this to quit.  And thanks to others on that other thread I found the iphoto library and deleted the whole thing, getting back 100bg of drive space. All I want to do is use iphoto for the Flickr sharing/management functionality - I have no use for it otherwise. 
Why would Apple think that not having to duplicate files is ok for itunes but not a viable option for iphoto? Why would I want to double the disk space used for every photo I store? At the very least iphoto needs to come with a health warning that it should only be used to import from external devices and be the sole manager of photos, unless one wants to use double the disk space.
So if I want to use the sharing (i.e. Flickr uploading and management of sets etc) capabilities, should I import all or some of my folders, do my work and then delete the library each time to reclaim the disk space?

Answer 1

If I import photos to iPhoto, the originals are deleted? So if I import from a card I have taken from my camera or if I connect my camera directly, the act of importing into iPhoto wipes them from my card?
Again, you need to check your facts before getting indignant. This is simply not true. It's an option you have and not one I recommend using. But it's only an option.
Storage costs money and I do not want to have two copies of every pic on my hard disk - especially given huge filesizes of RAW files today.
No one is suggesting that you have two copies. You have your iPhoto Library and then you back that up. Again, less indignnation, more careful study.
I do use other photo managers (e.g. native Canon tools) quite happily and they are far less 'exclusive' - i.e. I can use different apps with the same native file structure.
Using other photo managers makes little sense, any more than having two address books. How do you keep them in sync. Your comment about file structure is important, we'll come back to that.
If I want to go back to a Windows PC or any other machine and want to retain the "manual" file labelling and directory structure that I have implemented and been using for years, it seems that having a reference library that *I* know the taxonomy of is actually an advantage if I want to go somewhere else.
If you want to retain exactly the same filing structure you have now, then don't use any Photo Manager. Stick to the file manager. You'll be missing out on a lot of options, but hey ho, it's what you want.
That said, if you want to migrate from iPhoto to a Windows Machine then that's what File -> Export is for, and you can export from iPhoto to a folder tree matching your Events.
And this is a big one: This is true of any Photo Manger. Especially one with lossless processing - iPhoto, Aperture, Lightroom et al.
Here's the principle: IT IS MY DATA AND I WILL DECIDE HOW IT IS LABELLED - WHAT THE FILENAMES ARE - AND HOW IT IS STRUCTURED INTO DIRECTORIES AND SUB-DIRECTORIES.  I WILL DECIDE WHICH APPLICATION I USE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT DATA AT ANY POINT IN TIME
DId you stomp your foot while writing those block capitals too?
But here's the thing: It's your data then why the heck are you dealing with Files?
This is the key difference, and frankly, unless you can geet this you're always going to have problems with Photo Mangers.
The illustration I use is as follows: In my iTunes Library I have a file called 'Let_it_Be_The_Beatles.mp3'. So what is that, exactly? It's not the song. The Beatles never wrote an mp3. They wrote a tune and lyrics. They recorded it and a copy of that recording is stored in the mp3 file. So the file is just a container for the recording. That container is designed in a specific way attuned to the characteristics and requirements of the data. Hence, mp3.
Similarly, that Jpeg is not your photo, it's a container designed to hold that kind of data. iPhoto is all about the data and not about the container. So, regardless of where you choose to store the file, iPhoto will manage the photo, edit the photo, add metadata to the Photo but never touch the file. If you choose to export - unless you specifically choose to export the original - iPhoto will export the Photo into a new container - a new file containing the photo.
See? It's about the data and the data and the file are not the same thing. Organising your photos based on the files is like organising a shoestore based on the boxes and not the shoes.
And here's the thing: anything you want to do with your Photos can be done either with or via your Photo Manager.
And again, I strongly stress, this is true of iPhoto, Aperture and Lightroom.
And please note: either with or via... Want to use a 3rd party editor, that can be done easily and so on.
Let me correct you. "If you use an APPLE Photo Manager then it's the go-to app for whatever you do with your photos.
Doesn't matter who makes it.
Other Photo Managers may have more flexibility and enable greater user control."
Sure. iPhoto's a $15 app. Aperture is a $70 one. Adobe's Lightroom is about $150. Pay more get more options.
And remember where we came in here: You said you weren't able to choose where to store your files. You're wrong. You can. All I'm saying is that there's no point and more work to it.
For many - including me - the Apple way seems way too dictatorial -
Whoa. Apple are dictating nothing. You don't have to use iPhoto, you don't have to use a Mac. And remember:
...where we came in here: You said you weren't able t choose where to store your files. You're wrong. You can. All I'm saying is that there's no point and more work to it
Are Ford dictatorial demanding you steer the car using a wheel? Sheez.
and yes there are certainly advantages for some types of users of trusting one piece of software to do everything, however non-transparent it may be what it is doing or why, and with the dangers of trying to do ANYTHING else at all with one's photos.
And again, everything is quite transparent if you take a little while to understand it. You don't understand it because you're coming from a file management  and not a data management perspective. Also no one is suggesting using "one piece of software to do everything". iPhoto leverages the Finder for storage, QuickTime for display, uses and Open-Source database and so on, it protects your original file like a digital negative.
iPhoto may well not be the app for you. That's especially true since you don't understand it and are confusing it with a file manager. That's fine. But please, stop saying things that aren't true.