More experiments, maybe means something to people that understand this software.
Recall that I have an iphoto library on a mac-mini and it fails to export the original (jpeg) images to a folder on a WD MyBookLive NAS. It works if the export is a re-processed 2.5M jpeg or 75M tiff and it works if the target folder is on the mac-mini. Fails for the original, unedited jpeg file to the NAS.
For the record, a link (alias in mac-speak?) on the mac-mini to a NAS folder doesn't work. It can't be fooled.
A brand new iphoto library on the mac-mini with 2 photos, won't export original files to the NAS. Only if they've been converted in some way.
But..... I wouldn't recommend it, not a solution..... an iphoto library on the MyBookLive will export original (jpeg) images to both the MyBookLive and the mac-mini.
Summary: orginal files will export mac-to-mac but not mac-to-NAS. Original file will export from a library on the NAS to both the NAS and mac. In practice, the iphoto library on the NAS seems very slow, upends my backup strategy, and others have reported "issues".
Reviewing pictures on a TV via network storage has got to be more commonplace than it used to be. iPhoto seems an inexpensive, simple way to generate albums on a NAS for this application.
For the record, a link (alias in mac-speak?) on the mac-mini to a NAS folder doesn't work.
This confuses me - as I understand your question your library in on the Mac Mini and you are tying to export photos to the NAS - how does this relate to the question?
It may be that the best solution is to export to a desktop folder and then use the finder to move those photos to the NAS - followed by deleting the desktop folder
iPhoto seems an inexpensive, simple way to generate albums on a NAS for this application.
iPhoto is inexpensive - hence its significant limitations - more expensive programs (like Aperture) are much more robust -- IMHO it is an outstanding program and an outstanding value - but it is not everything to everyone
I can export the images to the mac and copy to the NAS. Feels like a bug.
I'm new to both mac and photography. Honestly, I don't really understand the utility of a database tool like iphoto/aperature/photo mechanic versus a simple file structure. But experienced people use these tools and sometimes it's worth trying to find out what they see that I don't.
I've trying to establish an easy work flow with iphoto, but it isn't working. Eventually, iphoto and the OS will be updated and I'll try again. Right now, exporting and copying seems more trouble than it's worth just for image organization. For editing and transfer, I've been using Nikon software that is surprisingly good, considering they're a hardware company and their version 2, like aperture, is getting long in the tooth.
Thanks for the reponse.
The link was an experiment. iphoto prefers to write to it's own volume, so I made a local link on the mac that pointed to the folder on the NAS where the data is actually suppose to reside. It didn't work and computer people are probably not surprised.
Agree, since iphoto doesn't have the library capabilities of aperature, it's not fair to complain when asking it to work over multiple volumes. From that point of view we're lucky it can work with external storage at all.
Honestly, I don't really understand the utility of a database tool like iphoto/aperature/photo mechanic versus a simple file structure.
Two words: Lossless Processing
Then two more: Better searching - make that three: Much Better Searching
Last words: Infinitely more power when it comes to organisation.
Lossless processing means that your original is never touched, it's treated as a digital negative and all editing is virual and not committed until you export a file. So, especially if you're shooting Jpeg, there's no quality degradation. As a side benefit: endless multiple versions with no wasted disk space.
The Finder will, at it's most basic level, search on date and filename. It will do more of you poke around, but it's only ever leveraging file data. It treats all files the same: pdf, Jpeg, Raws, mp3 and so on. But each of these data types have quite specific metadata also available - in the case of images IPTC and Exif for a start. Photo apps leverage this data so you have more to search on
This is not such a problem when you have 500 photos, but when you have 50k or 500k trying to remember if that shot of your puppy is IMG_1234.jpeg or IMG_2134.jpeg can be difficult.
Finally, the finder is limited when it comes to organisation. Files in Folders. Some basic structure, like say Year-Month-Day and off you go. Again...not such a problem when you have 500 photos, but when you have 50k or 500k... you get the picture.
Here's a canned answer I use to demonstrate some of the organisational features in iPhoto:
I use Events simply as big buckets of Photos: Spring 08, July - Nov 06 are typical Events in my Library. I use keywords and Smart Albums extensively. I title the pics broadly.
I keyword on a
Where basis (The When is in the photos's Exif metadata). I also rate the pics on a 1 - 5 star basis.
Using this system I can find pretty much find any pic in my 45k library in a couple of seconds.
So, for example, I have a batch of pics titled 'Seattle 08' and a typical keywording might include: John, Anne, Landscape, mountain, trees, snow. With a rating included it's so very easy to find the best pics we took at Mount Rainier.
File -> New Smart Album
set it to 'All"
title contains Seattle
keyword is mountain
keyword is snow
rating is 5 stars
Or, want a chronological album of John from birth to today?
New Smart Album
Keyword is John
Set the View options to Sort By Date Ascending
Want only the best pics?
add Rating is greater than 4 stars
The best thing about this system is that it's dynamic. If I add 50 more pics of John to the Library tomorrow, as I keyword and rate them they are added to the Smart Album.
In the end, organisation is about finding the pics. The point is to make locating that pic or batch of pics findable fast. This system works for me.