Tommylux

Q: iPhoto with NAS

Hi, I have had this dilemma for about 3 years or so and it drives me crazy, I need a genius!

 

I read the following article with great interest by Terence Devlin:

iPhoto and File Management

 

He makes some very good points about the benefits of a managed library, which I can't disagree on, such as importing photos and not having to worry about files breaking the link to the library.

 

However, I just struggle to adopt the managed library approach. Don't get me wrong, I would love to use iPhoto, I particularly like the integration to Facebook. I quote:

"
Some of the reasons people offer for running a Referenced Library include the following:

I have too many photos to fit on my disk.

You can run a Managed Library from any locally connected USB/Firewire/Thunderbolt disk (note: not a NAS) that is formatted Mac OS Extended (Journaled) with a wired connection.
"

To set the scene, I have 338GB of photos currently, with 10TB potential maximum and I am using a NAS.

img.PNG

 

1. I suppose I could get an external hard drive to store the entire library, but in reality, I didn't buy a MacBook Pro so I could lug around a hard drive to view my photos.

 

2. So why not use the "Copy Files to the iPhoto Library Folder..." option? Well, Ideally this is what I want to do, but I do want to automatically add new files when the operating system detects them, or by a script. I want photos to respect the existing folder structure and preset this inside photos. I want photos to remove photos that are no longer there.

 

3. If I used a manage library, I cannot have "one version of the truth". Currently my NAS makes available my photos on the internet as it has it's own web server. This is quite cost saving on online photo providers.

 

4. A managed library ties you down to MacOS. I have had my MBP for 3 years now and i'm starting to get fed up with limited third party applications and having to run windows for non supported applications. Though, I still appreciate the brand and anticipate the next iphone / apple watch.

 

5. So why not just browse to the CIFS / AFP share and browse the photos from there? For some reason, regardless of the protocol, it takes ages for Mac to enumerate through the network drive to display photos. Windows running in Fusion, browses the CIFS share no problem.

 

6. Why not use another photo viewer? I have tried numerous amounts of viewers, quite a lot of them on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_image_viewersall with different performance or functionality limitations (such as uploading to facebook) but this still takes up countless hours searching for alternatives and having difficulties uninstalling them (because Mac's don't have a proper uninstaller and files are left behind)

 

I have also considered / considering the likes of Cloud Storage. (apple / Google);

 

I loved Picasa for Mac. It used to be able to handle much of this functionality for me, but they never did get round to supporting retina displays and have discontinued development to focus on their online photo service. Google's new service is suitable if they maintained folder names as album names, but no - they put everything into one big stream and don't natively support facebook - never saw that coming ay! I think Apple Photos is good if you live in the "bubble".

 

So I was hoping someone could put me in the right direction and make some workflow /application suggestions. I Ideally like a script to maintain my apple photo library, updating it based on the folder structure in my NAS.

 

I appreciate your time to understand my situation

 

Tom

Posted on Jul 20, 2016 12:31 PM

Close

Q: iPhoto with NAS

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

  • by Terence Devlin,

    Terence Devlin Terence Devlin Jul 20, 2016 3:56 PM in response to Tommylux
    Level 10 (139,475 points)
    iLife
    Jul 20, 2016 3:56 PM in response to Tommylux

    Some thoughts:

     

    1. Forget iPhoto. It's dead. No longer developed. No future there.

     

    2. If you're thinking of changing OS at some point in the future then forget its successor, Photos.app too. These apps have advantages but easy migration to Windows is not one of them.

     

    3. You seems a bit confused: iPhoto, Photos, Aperture, Picasa, Lightroom, Capture One et al are not Image Viewers. All of them are database driven media managers that use non-destructive processing. That, in a nutshell, is your problem. Regardless of what app you use you'll be trying to run an Mac (or Windows) database on a Linux computer (which, essentially, is what a NAS is).

     

    4. If you want the non destructive processing feature: From the parameters you describe I'd check out Lightroom. It has both Windows and Mac versions and I would clarify two things: a: Can you run the Library from a NAS (I don't think so) or can you at least store the files there. Using it's Smart Preview feature this may be possible. b: How easy is it to migrate from the Mac to the Windows version. Answers to those on the Adobe forums, I reckon, which are here:

     

    https://forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom

     

    5. If you don't want the non-destructive processing feature then check out the DAM forum here:

     

    http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php

     

    The folks there will be knowledgeable on the kinds of issues you're concerned about.

     

    On your numbered questions:

     

    1. That's a bit like complaining you bought a two-seater car and now you can't fit your four kids and grandma in it. You bought a machine that doesn't have the capacity you want, so now you need to make compromises.

     

    2. iPhoto simply does not have the tools to manage a referenced library, Aperture did, but that's dead too. Photos doesn't either. Lightroom does.

     

    3. Actually, the whole point of apps like iPhoto and so on is that you can have multiple versions of the truth. But if you want only one, and no other possibilities, then you want to directly edit the files. You need an Image Browser and a Photo editor.

     

    4. See above. But to be pedantic, a managed Library doesn't tie you to the OS as you can export everything you put into iPhoto out of it. There's no lock in.

     

    5. No idea about that.

     

    6. See 3.

  • by Old Toad,

    Old Toad Old Toad Jul 21, 2016 9:37 AM in response to Tommylux
    Level 10 (140,898 points)
    Photos for Mac
    Jul 21, 2016 9:37 AM in response to Tommylux

    A possible app that will let you work on Macs and Windows machines is  Media Pro. 

     

    1 - you can manage the file grouping and have it reflected in the Finder.  But it is also a database app and will let you do grouping via Catalog Fields which are like albums in iPhoto. It allows you to batch rename the files with any text with a sequential number added on:

    Media Pro002.jpg

    Or you can rename with the EXIF capture date.

     

    2 - It has built in image editor with these functions:

    Media Pro001.jpg

    It also has a versioning feature that saves edits outside the original file thus preserving the digital negative.

     

    3 - doesn't have integrated sharing, etc.  You'l have to to that via the Finder.

     

    5 - meets that requirement.

     

    6 - I use MP as my primary DAM (digital asset management) application along with 3rd party editors for the heavy duty editing:

    Media Pro002.jpg

     

    It can rename the original files, write all IPTC metadata to the files themselves, and display the IPTC fields of your choice beneath the thumbnail and large media images.  It has a list, thumbnail and media viewing mode as well as light table mode to compare photos side by side. 

     

    It's cross platform capable and will also import and catalog audio, movie, text, Word, pdf, font, HTML and publishing files.

     

    There's a demo version available to let you try it out. I've also written a tutorial on how to convert an iPhoto library to a Media Pro system and preserve the keywords, metadata and albums:  #4 - Converting an Photo 6(06), 7(08), 8(09) or 9(11) Library to an Media Pro Catalog System


    I use it as my primary DAM and use iPhoto/Photos for special projects like books, calendars, etc.

     

    OTsig.png

  • by Tommylux,

    Tommylux Tommylux Jul 22, 2016 1:58 AM in response to Terence Devlin
    Level 1 (12 points)
    iLife
    Jul 22, 2016 1:58 AM in response to Terence Devlin

    HI Terence, thanks for your time to understand my situation,

     

    To clarify some points: I don't mind using a database driven media manager and/or with non-destructive processing. For instance, how picasa was, but Picasa also included the functionality to save changes back to disk.

     

    Lightroom seems to be a good option just now, given the situation and I believe I can index files from a NAS. -Perhaps the Media Pro also below. Though generally speaking, I get a feeling that Lightroom is a little chunky, probably has a few many features I probably won't use, not quite as slick as picasa was and both products are expensive.

     

    Also to clarify - I am not complaining about the capacity of the MBP - I choose the biggest spec; 16GB, 512 SSD etc. But for instance, part of this is taken up for bootcamp anyway.. Besides the point: I have a central nas which contains videos; photos; software in a central, always accessible nas which provides many other services such as web server and docker. Something which I am very fond of.

     

    When I say single version of the truth, I mean that I want my files to reside on the NAS, not copied into photo. For instance, when I upgraded to Photos, I now seem to have two libraries. I can see how this could cause storage issues and uncertainty for users weather or not they can just delete the original library.

     

    The problem with browsing files via finder is that I find it very slow to navigate. All my wireless is AC, though I believe the MBP is N only; but I get ~450mb connection to the wireless. A folder of 2000 struggles to browse. I am unsure if there is a reason for this - weather its because of the protocol i'm using, though I have tried CIFFS and AFP. Not the same experience from a windows machine, that is why I am interested to see if I can improve this. Nonetheless, I think it is recommended to use a DAM application so that you take the load off the network. The index/thumbnails, I am happy to be local.

     

    In my opinion, there is a bit of a lock in with a managed library. That is, if you want to embrace the functionality of Photos, but store the file in a specified location - for whatever that may be, such as: hosting the photos via Synology PhotoStation, or making them available over DLNA to your non-apple TV - you cant. This is the core beauty of apple - encouragement to use all things apple.

     

    Can't even share my photos on non-apple smart TV's - I can't buy yet another HDMI device to satisfy another requirement. I have SkyQ, Amazon, Chrome and none of them can collaborate together over a standard protocol. I also cannot expect family / friends to buy apple TV's if I wanted to spontaneously show off some holiday pictures on the TV.

     

    I am just saying: It feels that I live in an age where technology is actually behind, not in front. Everything should just work.

     

    To return back to my topic, I think picassa had it right, I just don't see sense why they stopped development of Picasa. I think I would enjoy it if I could just use apple photos and sync this to the file system. It so happens that I am a SQL developer. I heard the database is SQL related, but I have never written for Mac and don't know how to connect/mount the photos database, but its something that is worth having a look at and see if I can write my own syncing application. Any pointers?

     

    Its a very frustrating topic and one which I have been looking to resolve for a few years now and try and work out the best backup method is for all my photos (some DSLR). To set the record straight, I do generally like Apple and have read the Isaacson's biography, but sometimes I have to agree that apple sometimes controls the experience a little too much.

     

    Look forward to your comments.

  • by Terence Devlin,

    Terence Devlin Terence Devlin Jul 22, 2016 3:13 AM in response to Tommylux
    Level 10 (139,475 points)
    iLife
    Jul 22, 2016 3:13 AM in response to Tommylux

    You seem to be confusing some applications with the entire ecosystem. Apps like iPhoto and Photos are designed for the Apple ecosystem. Remember Apple is a hardware company. It makes software that facilitates the interactions of the hardware it sells. It doesn't make a NAS so its software is not optimised in that direction. It does make phones, tablets and Macs, and its software works in that space very well.

     

    But that's not what you want. You want to work on a mixed environment of different devices from different brands. This too is possible, but not with the applications that Apple provides for free. So, now you need third-party software. And you're correct. There is very little standardisation. It's VHS v Betamax to the nth degree these days as everyone wants their share.

     

    iPhoto/Photos and Aperture all have the ability to save the changes, and the process for doing this is by exporting.

     

    Lightroom is pretty much the same. They stopped making Picasa because they realised they'd never be able to monetise it the way they can with their web service.

     

    At a guess, you seem to have two Libraries because you have both an iPhoto and a Photos one? They don't use up much extra space as the both use Hard Links to point to the same files. That said, having both is an intermediary stage and in time it's assumed that the user would ditch the iPhoto one, having migrated it to Photos. Why keep the dead library from the dead app?

     

    So again: look at what you want to do and pick the software that gets you closest. Apple's free apps are not the ones you want. You're going to have analogous problems in Windows, you know... so if you're seriously thinking of switching there, better factor that in.