Ask Slashdot: Best Software For Image Organization? 259
Wycliffe writes Like many people, I am starting to get a huge collection of digital photos from family vacations, etc. I am looking for some software that allows me to rate/tag my own photos in a quick way. I really don't want to spend the time tagging a bunch of photos and then be locked into a single piece of software, so what is the best software to help organize and tag photos so that I can quickly find highlights without being locked into that software for life? I would prefer open source to prevent lock-in and also prefer Linux but could do Windows if necessary.
Simplest is best (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Simplest is best (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure why this is modded down. This was actually my first idea. The problem with this /2004/vacation/good/ /2004/vacation/bad/
is that it effectively only allows one "tag" i.e.
The only way to have multiple categories would be with a bunch of symbolic links which
might not be too bad if there was a simple program to handle it. The other idea would be
to actually store the meta data inside of each photo. That way the meta data shouldn't
be lost if I'm forced to move to a different program assuming the new program can read
the metadata.
Re:Simplest is best (Score:5, Insightful)
I second this vote for using the file system to organise your images. This post may give me away to some of my friends, but I create folders using this template:
[YYYY-MM-DD] Descriptive Name of Trip or Event
This allows me to have multiple groups of images on a given day, say a lunchtime function and a dinner party.
For groups that span multiple days I do this:
[YYYY-MM-XX] Descriptive Name of Multi-Day Event
If I go on a big trip then what I do is create sub folders with the date (using the same format) for each event or grouping or experience that I captured.
If I have a folder of photos and want to make a small sub-selection. I make a folder called "pick" and put them in there. I may also do a low-res copy of that folder (and call it "web pick") and then I can email them easily to friends. I don't bother with links or any other garbage, 50-500MB of duplication doesn't matter a damn, and the backup software has de-duplication so doesn't care either.
Finally, I've done this for almost 15 years and it's basically worked perfectly for me and I have a fantastic collection of photos going all the way back.
Sorry, this the actual finally. Be very wary of *any* automated system based on a database or tagging system. The problem is that while initially they may seem awesome and great time savers, you will ultimately want to group [at least some of] the photos based on social, aesthetic and political assessments, and no automatic system can ever handle that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This. I have a few categories like animals, landscapes and the like where the date I have taken the pictures doesn't matter so much but most of my pictures are in [path]/happenings/[date][description]. All file names in that directory also start with the date and a description, followed by a number to keep them in a logical order.
Re: (Score:2)
That worked for me until I started uploading photos to Flickr and realized how powerful tags are for searching and organizing. I'd much rather have something equivalent for my local filesystem.
Re: (Score:3)
Even though the new Mac OS systems are pretty ugly UI wise, you can add tags to each file. This might be what you want.
If not, you can have a program that simply creates a hierarchy of each of your files within a folder and gives a unique ID to each file and folder within your top level.
Make a checksum on each file and apply that to the record for each file.
You can then find the file or folder again if you move it from one folder to another.
You can then create tags and apply them to the record for each fil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With a good filename indexing system (I use the freeware "Everything" on Windows, still looking for a comparable Linux equivalent) you don't even necessarily need categories - if you're willing to add tags to the end of the file names:
Myphotot1234___beach moon party.jpg
Fire up Everything and type in "par oon", and the list of *every* file on your computer containing those character sequences is already displayed, add "bea" and you're probably down to few enough files that you can spot
Re: Simplest is best (Score:2)
This. Structure based on how you tend to look for things. For example, I put trip photos in their own folder as I associate them with a trip. Photos that fit a subject go in an appropriate main folder. I'm an ISTx MBTI type so name things literally which also helps search. Not only do I have pics dating back to the 80s but also was a professional video editor starting with one of the first broadcast quality non-linear editing systems, meaning being able to find a visual by name from scrolling, as no se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Simplest is best (Score:2)
In my case that would be trips/Hawaii_grandma-2013-03-04 as I wouldn't have a clue when. Most OS folder sorts help there though, some more than others.
Re: (Score:2)
mkdir, find.
If you are going that route, then you should know as well:
img2txt: Show a small image in colour in a text console.
asciiview: Show the image in fullscreen b/w in a text console.
Yes, those commands work in a text console.
lightroom darktable (Score:5, Interesting)
my first thought was lightroom but darktable is free runs on linux( OSX too) and will also generate a database of your images.
For image processing you would also want a 1GB or better graphics card to take advantage of GPU processing, not that you are really interested in that, other people maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
To my utter surprise, the software "darktable" was already installed, and, I had apparently tagged two images the late summer 2013. I had no recollection of that... But, an "aptitude search sparetime" gave me the answer. I didn't have that.
The software may well be excellent, but, make sure you have both, the software and
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair there is a learning curve that can rival photoshop or lightroom however there is a pretty comprehensive manual to walk you through the features.
However you will need to invest a little time to get the most out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Interested, I had a look at their website and got a little laugh out of what they had to say about a Windows build:
Microsoft Windows
Unfortunately the community of this commercial distro didn't natively build dt yet.
But there's a better solution for you to try:
Download and burn a live ISO of a Linux distribution.
Reboot your machine.
Google Picasa 3 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Google Picasa 3 (Score:2)
Spot on. Picasa is fantastic.
Re:Google Picasa 3 (Score:4, Informative)
Under the Tools menu, there is an Experimental sub-menu. Select "Show duplicate files". Then I just deleted everything that shows up. Seems to work just fine. It's not automatic or anything, but it works.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 for Picasa. I like that it is cross platform. Only draw back for me is there is no easy way to share its database. If you could have the database synced across multiple machines it would be an instant win.
I also use pixfer to transfer the files from the memory cards to the pc. Its abandonware now and released free of charge but it reads the exif data from the files and renames them to suit. So my files are always placed in a director of the date the photo was taken and then the file is also renamed
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to transfer to a new machine. The problem is being able to access it from multiple machines at once. ie My machine and my wife's machine can't access the database together.
As for lock-in - it is a stand alone application with no activation or licensing requirements. It works on windows, mac & linux. JPEG is the standard and unlikely to change. Tags in picassa can be saved to the exif data so there is no lockin there. The lockin comes in that picasa does face recognition which for me is T
Showfoto (Score:2)
Showfoto, a KDE app, is designed to catalogue image files. That's its only function. If you add Digikam, Showfoto is a front-end to this raw-developing and editing program.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Digikam's the best i've found so far - but it doesn't work very well under gnome unfortunately, and i don't like kde. I've tried pretty much all the Linux photo organisation software and Digikam's best so far - even with its gnome incompatibility. All in all, the issue of managing photos seems to be constantly problematic.
Automatic rating (Score:2)
Just post them all on "Hot or not"
Software doesn't really matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This really seems like the way to go. You say software doesn't matter but the first couple pieces of software
I tried to use seemed to want to create a database or some other proprietary way of storing the metadata.
I would have no problem with a proprietary cache as long as the actual metadata is saved with the original
image. Shotwell, picassa, digikam, and gthumb seem to be the more popular ones. Do you know if any of
those support in-place metadata or is there something else you would recommend? Shotwel
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hi there,
For archiving purposes, it is best to never touch the original files. It helps when you have thousands of files and during the years you have made backups on different places/disks.
When you consolidate (because either you consolidate or you lose your photos/memories) if you have photos that differ only for the exif tags is a nightmare to understand which photos are ok and which are not.
Always prefer programs that do not touch your photos. I recently found that one of the programs I used in
Re: (Score:2)
If anybody wants to implement such a system from scratch, I would advise against modifying the image files, since that makes deduplication and backups harder (you backup a file, than tag one copy and now have two different files).
Building on some ideas I'm using in a backup software I'm working on [file4life.org] (please take a look and give feedback if you have some time to spare) I would suggest associating tags and exif info to an hash value of the image files. This way, getting info about a file would be: read file -
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I definitely want metadata to be stored in the image file itself, because if you do it any other way, there's always a risk of losing that association. I feel you're setting yourself up for a disaster if you use a hash, because the moment anything touches that file for *any reason*, poof, that metadata is now gone. You're highlighted the huge weakness in your system, but then created a tautology by saying "but modifying the original files is a bad idea anyway". It's only a bad idea if you've
Re: (Score:3)
Keep It Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep It Simple
This is something you want to work for decades.
Don't get fancy.
Don't use image organization software that will stop being supported or become useless with an OS update that kills off legacy software.
Just name your files well.
Establish a format for naming.
Organize images in directories / folders.
Use the operating system search feature.
K.I.S.S.
Re:Keep It Simple (Score:5, Funny)
Just name your files well.
Mine are all called DSCNxxxx.JPG.
Re:Keep It Simple (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Google Plus (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
sure, until they pull it.
Have you heard they're planning on pulling the plug on GMail and putting up something called Inbox that's supposed to integrate with the desktop??
The fuck?? I've used GMail for fucking years, I think I better start thinking about buying my own domain and running my own email server... the whole point of GMail was that I didn't have to run my own mail server!
Anything that's OS independent? (Score:4)
As long as we're on the subject, I'd like to know about such software, too, but I'd like something that's OS independent, and stores images locally. My mom has an enormous collection of family photos, dating back to the early 20th century, that I'd like to catalog while she's still around. It would be nice if she could do the annotations on her Windows machine, while I organize everything on my Linux machine. Ideally, we could copy the images and associated data back and forth using a CDROM or USB key.
Re: (Score:3)
LAMP it with a Mediawiki service (go cloud or local). No need to back-n-forth with any usb key, just drop a shortcut on her desktop and make her an account, it's just a case then of upload the picture, create a page for it with the metadata on it, job done.
My images are organised on a mediawiki stack, paged by date. it works fucking brilliantly. Text search on what I type on the page next to each image, boom motherfucker.
Cataloging write-only archives (Score:5, Interesting)
Based on my experience as an executor, you should pick the best one or two photos from each significant occasion, record the date, location and the people (forename and surname) it shows in a plain text file and trash the rest. Fortunately chronological order is both the easiest and best way of organising such a collection. Don't bother keeping pictures that don't have clearly recognisable people in them because it's only these that will be of any interest in future.
Then, when you die your kids will inherit a nice collection of ca 100 family photos complete with enough information to make them interesting and give them a context.
Namgge
Re:Cataloging write-only archives (Score:5, Interesting)
Please GOD don't do this!
If you want to create a best of album to pass on to your kids then by all mean to that. But don't trash the rest! Storage is cheap so there is no reason you shouldn't keep everything. One of the best finds I ever had from my great grandparents was a suitcase full of old photos taken around the turn of the century. Most of them were of random life, and even though I didn't know who the people were it was a fascinating insight into how they lived. It was only 110 years ago but I found the differences incredible and much more relatable in photo form then in a book.
I have just over 60gb of digital photos now. Many of them are crap. Another chunk are essentially duplicates where I have taken 20 photos to capture a moment. What we do is put together a highlights book for each year. We actually print them using a company that makes coffee book style books. It's a lot of work, sifting through the images, editing and cropping them and then finally putting them together in a 40-60 page book. But it is so worth it. We now have 13 of these books and we will start on 2014 shortly.
Re: Cataloging write-only archives (Score:4, Interesting)
Jpeg has been the standard for years now, I doubt very much that it will become inaccessible anytime soon. And the best thing about digitised photos is the don't degrade like the physical versions. Proprietary mail storage files are not really comparable.
The other nice thing about digital is that all it takes is a codec to read something. I don't need to dig out the old vcr etc.
As for the old home videos, I made the concious decision about 5 years ago to transfer all of them to digital for exactly the reasons you outlined. So I spent days going through all mine and my parents videos and captured them on a pc. I also worked with my dad to scan every single photo and slide that he had. It took us 2 years and we went through 4 scanners in the process but they are now done. We also worked through them naming and dating them as best we could.
And finally why would I have a reader for my first digital camera? I don't even own it anymore and I can't even remember what type of cards it took (I think it was CF). I have transferred them onto my NAS and will have reused the card multiple times. They're not like film canisters.....
In the end there is no guarantee that my system will be readable in x years time. But using common standards, such as jpeg, and LTO tapes to back them up mean chances are they will be for someone who cares enough to look. In addition I print the yearly summary that exist in the physical world and requires no special interface to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Because why delete them? It's not like the storage is expensive and I have learned that what you want to see in photos changes over time. And by crap I mean, daughter pulling a stupid face, or slightly blurry, or taken just after the event I wanted to capture. They still contain a memory. They just aren't what I would put on the wall.
Also the duplicates are not identical, they are all slightly different, just separated by less than a second. Google+ does cool things with those. I was rather commenting
Re: (Score:2)
If it is a static composition then I agree with you. ie if I have arranged something for a photoshoot and I am simply moving between exposure levels etc then pick the best and move on. But most of the multi-exposures I am talking about are trying to catch a photo of a child running around or something similar.
As I have also said I run two separate collections. One is that you have described, pick the best pic. The other is an exhaustive collection of everything ever taken. I guess I don't see any reaso
There's only one image organizing program (Score:3)
Adobe Lightroom. Nothing else even comes close, on OS X or Windows. It organizes sets of images on any combination of storage devices you want, including those disconnected-mostly archives that people with a serious number of photographs always eventually have. It has a tagging system to make searching easy. It gives you control of image metadata. It has most of the editing power of Photoshop with an intuitively easy interface, rather than one that has grown haphazardly bloatwise over the years like PS. It lets you archive everything in RAW if you wish. Editing is nondestructive, so you can peel off prior edits and re-edit an old image at any time. And yes, you can call your favorite external editor, including PS, when you need to do something really fancy.
It's also the only Adobe product that is still reasonably priced and available as an installed program. The others now have to be rented on the company's cloud site.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very much afraid that you are right. The biggest gripes I have with it is that (a) it comes from Adobe, and (b) the map functions don't work on a case-sensitive file system on Mac OS X.
Adobe for reasons only known to itself absolutely refuses to support case-sensitive file systems for Mac OS X. For Lightroom this `only' means that the map functions don't work (at least in LR 4; LR 5 may be better or worse). For Photoshop it means that it can not even be installed on a case-sensitive file system; the ins
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard of various other software breaking when used with case-sensitive filesystems on OS X - not making an excuse for that software, but what is the benefit of running with such a filesystem anyway? I'm genuinely interested.
(I've been running with the default case-preserving, case-insensitive filesystems for a decade or more, and not hit any problems.)
Re: (Score:2)
Timezone handling seems to be very weak as well.
That said, I can't live without Lightroom. I guess I'm going to making LR5 last a very long time because I don't want to change to rental licensing a la creative cloud.
+1 Lightroom (Score:2)
+1 for Lightroom. I manage over 50,000 photos taken over the last 17 years and I can find images very quickly. I think a task like this would be difficult without a database backed approach but that, of course, comes with trade-offs. Of course LR can write out any meta-data changes to the image files or an XMP file. I used to be an Adobe fanboi but with their new subscription model, not so much. I still think LR is the best tool out there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm genuinely curious - what does Lightroom do that iPhoto on OS X doesn't? I have extensive (non-professional) photo archives in iTunes for the easy import, automatic facial recognition, ease of posting to social media etc. but if Lightroom does really awesome stuff I would certainly consider switching.
Re: (Score:2)
Adobe Lightroom. Nothing else even comes close, on OS X or Windows. It organizes sets of images on any combination of storage devices you want, including those disconnected-mostly archives that people with a serious number of photographs always eventually have. It has a tagging system to make searching easy. It gives you control of image metadata. It has most of the editing power of Photoshop with an intuitively easy interface, rather than one that has grown haphazardly bloatwise over the years like PS. It lets you archive everything in RAW if you wish. Editing is nondestructive, so you can peel off prior edits and re-edit an old image at any time. And yes, you can call your favorite external editor, including PS, when you need to do something really fancy.
It's also the only Adobe product that is still reasonably priced and available as an installed program. The others now have to be rented on the company's cloud site.
You forgot to mention that it also has plugins for various online photo services, social media sites, etc. just in case you decide to want to share them with Aunt Betty in Ohio....
I use folders. (Score:3, Interesting)
Vacation
|--->October 2011 - Caribbean
|--->10-27-2011 - Jamaica
Transfers to/from any platform with a copy/paste.
I keep slimmed down albums (nee: sets) on flickr where I (and others) can add notes.
Re: (Score:2)
Folders combines with picasa for me. /yyyy-mm-dd-Jamaica/yyyy-mm-dd-imgxxx - Me before sunburn.jpg
Picasa gives me xif data and tags.
Re: (Score:2)
With minimal snark, how hard is it to look at the file names and figure out which ones will have what I'm looking for? If I'm looking thru my pictures, it's because I want to look at my pictures. I'm not worried about being able to search for a specific picture with optimal efficiency.
KISS It (Score:2)
I use a perl script and organize everything into YYYY/MM/DD directories and then links to another directory composed of sub-directories of tag names that I store in the exif.
Print them all (Score:5, Funny)
Print them all and put them in labelled shoeboxes.
digiKam (Score:5, Informative)
digiKam [digikam.org], free, runs on the major platforms, has the feature you've asked for and all the features you haven't asked for but, based on my experience, you will need.
Quoting from:- [digikam.org]
Note: it's not very stable if you insist on running it on Windoof. Very reliable on Linux, I haven't tried with OSX.
Features [digikam.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That doesn't mention something I consider to be a great feature of digikam's tagging system: it can store it in the EXIF data instead of an internal database. Helps solve the submitter's lock-in avoidance and lets you use things like exiftool and some scripting to search for tags and perform arbitrary actions on matching files.
It's likewise nice that the albums are sorted using the filesystem hierarchy in a human-readable way, rather than using some freakish database scheme
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Digikam's good - so long as you use kde. I don't, but i put up with its annoying gnome incompatibilities because it's the best there is - and i've tried all the rest.
Mind Memory (Score:2)
About a week ago I was talking to a couple people who had a very interesting startup. They were working on an application which would "gamify" your media collection (images and videos) and let you play a game where you would identify and sort your digital memories.
I don't know where do they sit on this, maybe it was at concept stage, maybe it was more advanced, I didn't ask. But I'll ask and let you know. Sounded like a pretty neat concept, though, and I'd definitely buy such a game which would turn what's
Content Management Systems (Score:2)
Use Windows Explorer (Score:3)
Right-click on the file, and select 'Details'. The EXIF tags are shown and can be edited here. Title, subject, rating, tags, comments, etc.
You can ctrl-select multiple files and edit the data that will be the same on all of them at once. For example, select all 50 photos from your vacation, and give them the subject 'Vacation 2014'. These tags are part of each file, and are indexed and searchable on Windows and OSX. I haven't tried it on Linux or FreeBSD yet, but I would imagine one of the various desktops' search functions will search (and index?) the tags.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The meta-data is stored in the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But SOOOOO slow and painful to do it this way! You will be tagging to the end of time with a right click multi menu approach.
Use something like image tagger or one of the other dedicated applications which allows you to add data to the exif tags without the pain of using explorer.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be great once setup, but I'll never be spending that hour to figure it out because I would spend that hour trying to find a more user-friendly tool.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/... [queensu.ca]
exiftool is an opensource perl library. You can do everything Image Tagger does on the command line with exiftool. Image tagger however does all the hard work of building the commands for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I do appreciate the information you provided and maybe I will end up personally using it to tag my photos, because I do agree that 3 or 4 clicks on every file is certainly a waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
I like Picassa (Score:2)
Don't need photo-organizing softare (Score:2)
You don't have to use software that was written for organizing photos. First figure out the attributes that you care about (ex: year, location, occasion). Then:
Put the file names and attribute information into a spreadsheet. One row per photo. First column for the file name, then one column per attribute (year, etc.). Then you can search, sort and filter the spreadsheet, to find certain kinds of photos. If there are too many photos for one spreadsheet, split them up into several spreadsheets. (Ex: one sprea
Ecch (Score:2)
It's pretty bad out there for organization and storage. I tried using just flat directories by date as others mentioned but then it became difficult to find things when you didn't know when the event happened. Then I went with Gallery, but it got comment spammed. Then I went with Gallery 2, but that POS is a total disaster, enough that the entire project seems to be shut down.
I'm using smugmug now. Easy to upload and download, they have a fairly open API for writing your own interface, and you can easil
Aperture (Score:2)
Sharepoint (Score:2)
Wrote My Own (Score:2)
Tagging, Tag cloud, organizing by event, upload capable from portable devices as well as computers. Written on a LAMP system (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP). I have a special tag to identify pictures I want to rotate through the main page. It's still not quite where I want it to be but my stuff generally is a work in progress.
Write it yourself. You'll learn quite a lot and invest time into your photos :)
[John]
Facebook (Score:2)
I am certainly not suggesting he use Facebook, quite the opposite. I
Tags on OS X (Score:2)
I am aware that the original poster wants to use Linux and may be talked into using Windows but probably not into buying a Mac. But since other people will have the same question and some of them may be Mac users, here it goes:
Many responders have already suggested creating ingenious folder structures that will help you keep a basic level of organization to the photo collection. Use any of those systems, and augment it by making use of OS X's extremely useful tagging feature [arstechnica.com].
Furthermore, there are many appl
systemd is the best I've found. (Score:4, Funny)
systemd is the best file compression software I've ever found. It got installed on my Debian computer recently. Now all my files on that computer are effectively 0 bytes in size, because I can't access them at all because my frigging system won't even boot.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yep. Why make up all this crap about family and vacations and shit??
Everyone knows it's for a porn collection. Hell, I face the same dilemma. How do you automatically detect and delete duplicate images?
Re: (Score:2)
...How do you automatically detect and delete duplicate images?
This:
http://doublekiller.en.softoni... [softonic.com]
Image Organization (Score:2, Funny)
A database (sqlite would do fine), a little Python (sqlite included), an image display program (painless if we're talking jpeg/gig/png, might be knotty for RAW DSLR images) and thou.
Open source, features up to you, no lock in because you can export it to any format you're willing to take the time to fool with. Best environment for this kind of undertaking is a web browser and some CGI, both of which, under linux as you prefer, are easily handled.
Image organization is a pretty minimal undertaking, if that's
Re: (Score:2)
as long as you have the relevant filters in place, you should be fine. I run everything through a WAMP stack, including RAW format, for thumbnailing (via Imagemagick) etc on a wiki-type interface. So what you see on that is basically png tiles which link to metadata (kept in a mysql table) and the full resolution originals. Shit works. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Just took a look at Imagemagick; they've definitely come a long way in RAW support. But I'm a little confused about what they mean by:
Does it read CR2 or not? I have a 6D DSLR, so CR2 support was the first thing I looked for. Then there are the RAW, S-RAW and M-RAW variants.
Just curious.
Re: (Score:3)
short answer: yes, it does.
source: I process my brother's 5D cards.
Re: (Score:2)
6D even. Hard to see these keys in near total darkness.
Re: (Score:3)
...but it saves on random number generator cycles...
Re:Image Organization (Score:5, Insightful)
The OP asked for a software solution, and your response is that he/she needs to become a database and Python programmer. How clueless can you be?
Re:Image Organization (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
OK simplest software solution. Place all photos in one directory, the create links/shortcuts to those photos in different appropriately titled directories. Now create the appropriate directory structure so as to best access those images and retitle those links/shortcuts as appropriate. It can all be done with a typical file manager even though it is a long, slow process, absolutely no lock in at all, no changes at all to original image, just be careful when you think you are copying images that you are not
Re: (Score:3)
On a side note : IMO, You should have started indexing your kids at 0...
Re: (Score:2)
1-indexing is principally better than 0-indexing, because it is more intuitive, logical and less error-prone.
If my wife and I were truly error prone we wouldn't have this indexing problem in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
I came to suggest Digikam. If it the absolute best free photo manager for any platform. It supports geo-tagged photos, a slew of editing functions in a dedicated editor, automatic camera download and renaming, tagging, blah blah blah.
Re: (Score:2)
Your application, although very useful, suffers from the same issue all other similarly-oriented applications do: it's boring.
I appreciate your efforts, but you should really ask yourself: what does my app bring to the market? Why would a potential customer use my application and not one of the very many others that are out there?
Re: (Score:3)
The software isn't meant to entertain you. It's meant to help organize photos. If you want to be entertained, check out the games section.
Re: (Score:2)
picasa and iphoto suffer from planned obsolescence.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the planned obsolescence with Picasa? And how would they enforce it? JPG isn't going anywhere anytime soon and I don't see a shift to a brand new format that picasa doesn't support happening.
Also it runs on all platforms with minimal dependencies.
picasa
Depends: libc6
Depends: libasound2
liboss4-salsa-asound2
Depends: zlib1g
Depends: gconf2
Depends: libfreetype6
Even if picasa was abandoned you can sti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But wha do you do ten years from now when you change operating systems or that mtadata program gets abandoned? All that indexing work out the window. But my "tagged in the filename" collection still works just fine, with cross-platform support in any OS that can perform file name searching on the drive.