 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2006Good Mac picture viewerw
I just got a DSLR camera and am finding that frequently when a picture looks clear at full screen on a 1280 x 1024 average quality LCD monitor, its flaws quickly become evident once one magnifies it a bit. I've been using the Opera internet browser because its the only program that I've found that has full screen (no toolbars or status bars wasting screen space), keyboard screen magnification and a keyboard shortcut for instantly resizing it to screen width. I just hate hopping back and forth to the mouse thousands of times a day for nothing. However the problem with Opera is that it can only seem to load one image at a time. Now that my images are larger, and my computer isn't extremely fast, I'm waiting several seconds for each picture. This is gruesome if I want to browse 100's of pictures. iPhoto 6 seems to do a good job organization and display except I haven't found a way of magnifying the image more than full screen, which is absolutely indispensable for seeing if its really clear or not. Suggestions most welcome. > iPhoto 6 seems to do a good job organization > and display except I haven't found a way of magnifying the image more > than full screen, which is absolutely indispensable for seeing if its > really clear or not. Suggestions most welcome. Right-click the image, then select "Edit in Separate Window" command. In the new window that opens, center bottom on the toolbar is "Size". Default probably is "Fit to Window". In iPhoto 5, it allows up to 200%. -hh > > iPhoto 6 seems to do a good job organization > > and display except I haven't found a way of magnifying the image more [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Default probably is "Fit to Window". In iPhoto 5, it allows up to > 200%. Here is another example of Apple's infatuation with all things rodent. There is no keyboard shortcut for adjusting the size. What a time wasting hassle of having to work the mouse, plus you can't make it full screen while adjusting the size. Idiots. I can't believe they are supposed to be a graphics oriented company. What a total joke. But I do appreciate you showing me its capabilities. If it wasn't for this zoom thing, iPhoto 6 would make a pretty good viewer. But zoom is the only way to know if you're photo is clear at all. Its like selling a car without brakes. Its kind of a necessity. Unless you're using a rotating 30" monitor which only about .000001 of the population does. That's a 30" Apple monitor on a rotating monitor arm so you can get decent height detail. > Here is another example of Apple's infatuation with all things rodent. > There is no keyboard shortcut for adjusting the size. What a time > wasting hassle of having to work the mouse, plus you can't make it full > screen while adjusting the size. Idiots. I can't believe they are > supposed to be a graphics oriented company. What a total joke. To each his own. YMMV, but it is a consumer-level application that comes bundled for free with the hardware. If you don't like it, solve your problem by throwing it out and buying some alternative that you like better. Insofar as "having" to work with the mouse, I don't find that I do that much keyboard typing in a graphical manipulation workspace ... it doesn't matter if its iPhoto, or Photoshop CS2: it is virtually *all* "mousing around" with various tools, perhaps with the non-dominant hand resting on the cluster of Control/ALT/Option/Shift keys (probably depending on if you've used PShop for longer than they've supported multiple-button mice). > But zoom is the only way to know if you're photo is clear at all. Or you can print a proof. > Its like selling a car without brakes. Its kind of a necessity. And the feature exists, although not necessarily to the degree that Photoshop (and probably Aperature) does, but it is adequate to determine critical focus...at least, as best as one can on a 72dpi screen, regardless of magnification. -hh > > Here is another example of Apple's infatuation with all things rodent. > > There is no keyboard shortcut for adjusting the size. What a time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > free with the hardware. If you don't like it, solve your problem by > throwing it out and buying some alternative that you like better. I know I shouldn't expect the world - but zooming seems like the most basic of needs. And I expect more considering that graphics is supposed to be their forte. Sort of like spreadsheets and Microsoft. > Insofar as "having" to work with the mouse, I don't find that I do that > much keyboard typing in a graphical manipulation workspace ... Its not typing - its image manipulation. By the time a user has moved his hand to the mouse, I've already done the shortcut and am ready to do more. Mice are slow - anybody who says different has the keyboard dexterity of a sloth. Plus, right handed people have to jump over the numeric keys to get to the mouse. More wasted time and effort. At least left handed people have a huge advantage there. > it doesn't matter if its iPhoto, or Photoshop CS2: it is virtually *all* > "mousing around" with various tools, perhaps with the non-dominant hand > resting on the cluster of Control/ALT/Option/Shift keys (probably > depending on if you've used PShop for longer than they've supported > multiple-button mice). But many programs enable keyboard shortcuts to minimize that. I just hope for one of those. Of course you have to use the mouse throughout the day; I'm just saying software designers need to minimize it as much as possible. Anything done often needs a keyboard shortcut. > > But zoom is the only way to know if you're photo is clear at all. > > Or you can print a proof. Sure - if you can afford the ink of printing 200 pictures at near poster size for fun. That will eat into your photo budget a tad. > > Its like selling a car without brakes. Its kind of a necessity. > > And the feature exists, although not necessarily to the degree that > Photoshop (and probably Aperature) does, but it is adequate to > determine critical focus...at least, as best as one can on a 72dpi > screen, regardless of magnification. http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html Interesting article. Thanks for the tips. I'll unearth Creative Suite and Photoshop! > I know I shouldn't expect the world - but zooming seems like the most > basic of needs. And I expect more considering that graphics is supposed > to be their forte. Since it bothers you so much, just use "Automator" to create a custom macro and assign it to a key. > Sort of like spreadsheets and Microsoft. Actually, spreadheets were conceived by Dan Bricklin, refined by Bob Frankston, developed by their company Software Arts, and distributed by Personal Software as "Visicalc". The year was 1979. > > Insofar as "having" to work with the mouse, I don't find that I do that > > much keyboard typing in a graphical manipulation workspace ... > > Its not typing - its image manipulation. By the time a user has moved > his hand to the mouse, I've already done the shortcut and am ready to do > more. You're (incorrectly) assuming that one's hand ever left the mouse / pointing device. > Mice are slow ... Yet faster than going back and forth to the keyboard with your dominant hand between operations. > But many programs enable keyboard shortcuts to minimize that. I just > hope for one of those. Of course you have to use the mouse throughout > the day; I'm just saying software designers need to minimize it as much > as possible. Anything done often needs a keyboard shortcut. You're (incorrectly) assuming that the keyboard is always the best tool for the job. > > > But zoom is the only way to know if you're photo is clear at all. > > > > Or you can print a proof. > > Sure - if you can afford the ink of printing 200 pictures at near poster > size for fun. That will eat into your photo budget a tad. First is my gross cull, then critical review, then 'contact print' style proofs, then the brutal review, then its finally to the final set for full size prints. IMO, if you actually have 200 in your final set, if you didn't start with over 2,000, then as the saying goes, "your trash can isn't big enough". -hh > > I know I shouldn't expect the world - but zooming seems like the most > > basic of needs. And I expect more considering that graphics is supposed > > to be their forte. > > Since it bothers you so much, just use "Automator" to create a custom > macro and assign it to a key. Interesting - I'll try that. Thanks. >>> iPhoto 6 seems to do a good job organization >>> and display except I haven't found a way of magnifying the image more [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > That's a 30" Apple monitor on a rotating monitor arm so you can get > decent height detail. Me detects a possible troll.... Come on. If you don't like the single button Mac mouse, buy any two, three, scroll wheel, whatever Mouse.. it works just fine on the Mac. As for keystrokes. if there is a key stroke in the Windows software, then there is one in Mac. Done deal. iPhoto is a consumer grade photo application. It is also a pretty darn good one as it does a lot of simple things well. As far as if my photos are "clear" ..... a nebulous term at best then may Mac is quite cabable of showing clearity.. than includes my 12 inch iBook and my 23 inch Cinema Display. If you are that critical of your photos, then go buy the equipement necessary. Color, exposure and contrast can be seen at nearly any magnification. As far as sharpness etc, it depends on the use. If I am preparing an image to be viewed at 640x480 on a computer screen, they I don't give a flying c**** what it looks like at 1024x768. Its not important. I am printing a 5x7 then I care about the resolution at that magnification. Look at your photos in the intedended viewing mode. If you are printing 16x20's then by all means you need to look at them under very high magnifications If you were doing this, you would have purchased Photoshop some time ago, in which case you could view them at some pretty amazing magnifactions. As far as WIndows goes, I have not seen an included full featured and fully licensed application that even comes close to iPhoto. If you are looking for something inexpensive but powerful, then go look at Adobe Elements.. you can zoom pretty well with that and it gives the casual photographer and budding pro... just about everything he/she needs including that wonderful Adobe ACR (Camera RAW) import filter. BTW.. It does the same stuff on Mac as it does on Windows. Cool! I certainly hope you don't toss photos based on some perceived imperfection at 16x zoom. Good portraits don't stand well at this magnication... but at normal viewing, they look amazing. Many other photos don't as well. Otherwise, hit the help file.... it can reveal many things.  SignatureJim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo > >>> iPhoto 6 seems to do a good job organization > >>> and display except I haven't found a way of magnifying the image more [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Me detects a possible troll.... Come on. Sorry if that's the way it came across - didn't mean it. > If you don't like the > single button Mac mouse, buy any two, three, scroll wheel, whatever > Mouse.. it works just fine on the Mac. Apple doesn't make any decent input devices. I don't use them. > As for keystrokes. if there is > a key stroke in the Windows software, then there is one in Mac. I wish that was true. OS X doesn't even have a window maximize button. How stupid is that? There is no cut command in their version of Windows Explorer. You've got to copy then go back and delete the file. Retarded. I could go on and on. They have a mostly brilliant OS that is plagued with illogical stupid thoughtless characteristics. And they don't address them, version after version. They'd rather design something pretty. Could somebody give that company a shot of testosterone? I wonder: is there anybody straight working in that company? Or do they all just gush and squeal about their stylish designs? > Done deal. iPhoto is a consumer grade photo application. It is also a > pretty darn good one as it does a lot of simple things well. Agreed. Just missing some very obvious things. Like most of Apple's software. Only their email program, Mail, seems like a finished product. Its superb. You'll notice that if you ever go on Apple newsgroups or forums almost nobody posts anything about Mail. Its like it doesn't exist. That's a mark of excellence. A true test of engineering care and comprehensive thought. But everything else.......whooo. > As far as if my photos are "clear" ..... a nebulous term at best then > may Mac is quite cabable of showing clearity.. than includes my 12 inch > iBook and my 23 inch Cinema Display. There is no way any 12 inch display at 1024 x 768 is going to tell you anything about true clarity when you're displaying it full screen. There just isn't nearly enough detail being displayed. > If you are that critical of your > photos, then go buy the equipement necessary. I don't need any equipment. Just a program that does what I mentioned. The hardware is not the problem. Its the software. > Color, exposure and contrast can be seen at nearly any magnification. > As far as sharpness etc, it depends on the use. If I am preparing an image to be viewed > at 640x480 on a computer screen, they I don't give a flying c**** what > it looks like at 1024x768. Agreed - though its got nothing to do with quality. At 640 x 480 you could have vaseline smeared all over the lens and not notice. > Its not important. I am printing a 5x7 then > I care about the resolution at that magnification. Look at your > photos in the intedended viewing mode. That's my point. You have to enlarge something to perceive detail. > If you are printing 16x20's > then by all means you need to look at them under very high > magnifications If you were doing this, you would have purchased > Photoshop some time ago, in which case you could view them at some > pretty amazing magnifactions. I have Photoshop (7 I think) but don't use it as its very slow on my system. I don't need a billion features - just simple viewing features I mentioned. Even Photoshop is not so great for viewing last time I tried. Quite cumbersome - but that may have been my lack of knowledge on the product. I'll try it again. > As far as WIndows goes, I have not seen an included full featured and > fully licensed application that even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (Camera RAW) import filter. BTW.. It does the same stuff on Mac as it > does on Windows. Cool! I've got the Creative Suite 2 I think. I need to try it I guess. Is Adobe Elements included with Creative Suite 2? I need only 2 things: to be able to zoom with a keyboard (no rodent!) to several times screen size and to instantly revert to full screen for perspective (with a keyboard command of course.) My other needs are easily met regarding organization, etc. I haven't got into retouching as I'm new to digital photography and am focusing on shooting better pictures rather than correcting my mistakes with software. That will come later as its a whole world unto itself. > I certainly hope you don't toss photos based on some perceived > imperfection at 16x zoom. Good portraits don't stand well at this > magnication... but at normal viewing, they look amazing. Many other > photos don't as well. Understood. Few people have skin good enough for that! Including me. But I see that some photos are noticeably sharper and I have yet to isolate some of the reasons. When I shoot at 800/sec or on a tripod I am hoping to eliminate all camera shake and so now I'm looking at other reasons. I'm a sharpness fanatic and find it thrilling seeing detail just open up when displayed on a quality monitor. I'm using a 19" LCD 1280x1024 monitor and realize that if it was 1600 x 1200 with better contrast ratio, etc, I would see better full screen detail. But still not enough without magnification. Plus I'll eventually get a full frame DSLR with quality glass so the detail is only going to dramatically increase. The Opera browser is wonderful for displaying huge magnification and being instantly able to go back to screen width for perspective. If only I could open more than one picture at a time with it. At 3 - 4 mp each, it takes a few seconds for each to display. Multiply that by 200 and its a pain. And the quest goes on. > > If you don't like the > > single button Mac mouse, buy any two, three, scroll wheel, whatever > > Mouse.. it works just fine on the Mac. > > Apple doesn't make any decent input devices. I don't use them. No one mentioned buying an Apple mouse. > > As for keystrokes. if there is > > a key stroke in the Windows software, then there is one in Mac. > > I wish that was true. OS X doesn't even have a window maximize button. > How stupid is that? There is no cut command in their version of Windows > Explorer. You've got to copy then go back and delete the file. Er, no. That's wrong. > Retarded. I could go on and on. They have a mostly brilliant OS that > is plagued with illogical stupid thoughtless characteristics. And they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > company? Or do they all just gush and squeal about their stylish > designs? What has sexuality got to do with the price of fish? Luke SignatureLincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET) Swansea City 2-2 Southend United We went up twice with Tilly and Brush > > > As for keystrokes. if there is > > > a key stroke in the Windows software, then there is one in Mac. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Er, no. That's wrong. Please explain. Where is the maximize button for general windows (Alt Spacebar X in Windows) and where is the Cut command? Sure you can Command and Drag but that doesn't seem to work with multiple files. Plus dragging compared to a Cut keyboard shortcut is very inefficient for anyone with the appendage dexterity of a lobotomized chimpanzee stricken with Parkinson's Disease. > > > > As for keystrokes. if there is > > > > a key stroke in the Windows software, then there is one in Mac. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Please explain. Where is the maximize button for general windows (Alt > Spacebar X in Windows) Sorry, please be clear that I was referring to the absence of cut as being wrong. There is a window maximise button: it's green and featured on pretty much every window. There is not, as far as I know, a keyboard shortcut for that. I can't say that I've ever missed it but I'm sure one could be rigged up very quickly in AppleScript. > and where is the Cut command? Sure you can > Command and Drag but that doesn't seem to work with multiple files. Which version of OS X are you on? It works here on OS X.4.7. Indeed, I cannot remember it not working. > Plus dragging compared to a Cut keyboard shortcut is very inefficient > for anyone with the appendage dexterity of a lobotomized chimpanzee > stricken with Parkinson's Disease. ! Luke SignatureLincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET) Swansea City 2-2 Southend United We went up twice with Tilly and Brush > I just got a DSLR camera and am finding that frequently when a picture > looks clear at full screen on a 1280 x 1024 average quality LCD monitor, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > space), keyboard screen magnification and a keyboard shortcut for > instantly resizing it to screen width. Opera? Give me a break. You would be better off using Preview. Look, if you want a real picture viewer you have to pay for it. Aperture gives you a single keystroke switch back and forth or you can even compare pictures side by side and designate one to stay put while you scroll through the rest. Just hit the F key to toggle. And all your pictures are loaded all the time with Aperture. Or use iView Media Pro. Great light table feature with absolutely nothing on the screen but the picture and more hotkeys than you can shake a stick at. Speaking of mice, have you tried Apple's new wireless eight button Mighty Mouse? > > I just got a DSLR camera and am finding that frequently when a picture > > looks clear at full screen on a 1280 x 1024 average quality LCD monitor, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Opera? Give me a break. You would be better off using Preview. Preview is pretty good. But they don't have an quick "fit to screen width" shortcut. You have to ponderously hit the Command - or + until it arrives at the right size. Otherwise its pretty efficient. > Look, if you want a real picture viewer you have to pay for it. No problem. > Aperture gives you a single keystroke switch back and forth or you can > even compare pictures side by side and designate one to stay put while > you scroll through the rest. Just hit the F key to toggle. And all your > pictures are loaded all the time with Aperture. How does Photoshop 7 compare with Aperture? I can't get Photoshop to go full screen but almost. > Or use iView Media Pro. Great light table feature with absolutely > nothing on the screen but the picture and more hotkeys than you can > shake a stick at. Sounds great. I'll try it. > Speaking of mice, have you tried Apple's new wireless eight button > Mighty Mouse? 8 button? No I use a 700 button Microsoft....:) > > Aperture gives you a single keystroke switch back and forth or you can > > even compare pictures side by side and designate one to stay put while [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How does Photoshop 7 compare with Aperture? I can't get Photoshop to go > full screen but almost. Whatever Aperture is (and you either love it or hate it) it is no Photoshop. The editing controls are rudimentary, at best. It is not too bad at rendering RAW, though. My biggest gripes are that it requires the whole library to sit on a single hard drive, it allows only one external editor and that editor has to work with either PSD or TIFF files (no RAW), it strips all your ISO EXIF data such as copyright and location when it makes a copy to use with an external editor, it also strips this data for several other operations, and the editing controls are so small as to be useless. These are all fatal flaws as far as I am concerned. It is pretty. I like the stacks idea. I like the fact that it protects your original files from modification. I like the very powerful search tools and organization interface. I like the hotkeys (for the most part -- some of them can cause all your photos to disappear if you hit a key right next to some commonly used keys; it is alarming but once you realize what has happened you can bring them right back). > > Or use iView Media Pro. Great light table feature with absolutely > > nothing on the screen but the picture and more hotkeys than you can > > shake a stick at. > > Sounds great. I'll try it. The only issue with iView that I have seen is that it can become unstable with very large catalogs, which is how it organizes its files. Probably a memory issue more than anything else. I would keep catalogs under 10,000 images in size. Its search, sorting, and organizing tools are very far behind those of Aperture, but at least iView does not claim to be an image editor. > > Speaking of mice, have you tried Apple's new wireless eight button > > Mighty Mouse? > > 8 button? No I use a 700 button Microsoft....:) What do you think of graphic tablets? I have never been able to get the hang of those things. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.