Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

Automatically and manually rotated photos don't count as edits?

Apple, you have quite a double-standard in iPhoto.


When photos tagged with orientation information (rotation info) by the camera are imported to iPhoto, they are auto-rotated during the import process, and a copy of the 'Original' that hasn't been auto-rotated goes into the 'Originals' or 'Masters' (for iPhoto 9) folder. The auto-rotated version goes into a 'Modified' folder and is what is displayed/referenced inside iPhoto after the import.


This is a fact - it happens, and has happened for several versions of iPhoto. I'm not going to argue about the waste of hard drive space [thousands of] auto-rotated photo 'Original' backups take up, because I can understand the strict reasoning that yes, this auto-rotated version is NOT the original, so make a backup copy of the original in the 'Originals' folder. This logic is very technically accurate, from a computer's standpoint, at least.


By this logic, the un-rotated version is the original, and the rotated version has been modified: it is another version—an edit of the original.


But it's not.


According to iPhoto, going against this established logic pattern, the reality is that iPhoto does not count rotated photos as 'Edits.'


Try rotating a photo, or importing photos that have been auto-rotated during the import, and then creating a Smart Album for 'Photo + is + Edited.' You won't see those photos there (unless you made other edits to those photos, like changing the brightness, etc).


This is a blatant contradiction. It is the opposite of what iPhoto has trained us to expect by its own logic of the whole 'Original' vs. 'Modified' scheme.


Rotations should throw the 'Edited' flag the moment a new version is created of the file, am I right? Having that smart album switch for 'Edited' is useless if you wanted to find all images that differ from what was shot on the camera. And they haven't even been touched outside of iPhoto!


You devs working on iPhoto - please explain your hipocrisy! And make up your mind - is the photo original or not?

MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2010), OS X Mavericks (10.9.1), iPhoto 9.5.1

Posted on Jan 25, 2014 5:00 PM

Reply
16 replies

Jan 25, 2014 11:37 PM in response to LarryHN

I follow you now. iPhoto in this manner would be 'making things easier' for the average user who picks images from their iPhoto library to use in other applications or online. They would end up picking this post-rotated image, already set in the right orientation, rather than having those appliation try and interpret it from the original.


That's all fine and good, as I said I at least agree with the logic of an auto-rotated image being a new copy for use in previewing and other apps like you say. However this doesn't really address why iPhoto doesn't mark that new, auto-rotated copy as an edit.


Why does iPhoto make a discrepency between rotating an image and cropping an image? Are they both not edits of the original?

Jan 26, 2014 12:03 AM in response to Atwixtor

so lets assume that 1,000,000,000 respond that you are totally correct - so what - it still is what it is - and this forum is only about iPhoto exactly as it is - it is strictly about voleteer users helping other users us iPhoto correctly - it is not about what iPhoto might be - or what it should be - or what it could be - or what you personally tink it should be - it is only about what it is - and what it is is what it is - logical or illogical - good or bad - etc, etc, etc


So what exactly is your point?


LN

Jan 26, 2014 12:43 AM in response to LarryHN

In the strictest sense of the words, yes, the photo has been manipulated. But it's invisible to the user. On their camera it's seen the right way up, and in iPhoto it's seen the right way up. The user doesn't know anything about exif display tags, neither does s/he have to. Then when they share the image to an email or word processor, it all just works.


So, why don't these images show up in an Edited Smart Album? I would guess - and it's no more than a guess - that the developers think


a: it would be confusing to the user: - I didn't edit that photo, why does iPhoto think I did?

b: it would clutter up the Edited smart album with images that - most likely - the user isn't actually looking for.

c: There's no good reason to find such images.


But those are guesses, and no more.

Jan 26, 2014 9:38 AM in response to Atwixtor

Why does iPhoto make a discrepency between rotating an image and cropping an image? Are they both not edits of the original?

Because the rotate does'nt change the image at all, just rotates it so you don't have to rotate your display to see it without twisting your neck into a pretzell. 🙂


However, a crop removes some of the image and is, therefore, an edit. However, you can do a Revert to Original on one of the auto rotated images and it will remove it (only to have it recreated immediately) which is partly similar to an edited photo's response to that same revert feature, just not permanent.


OT

Jan 26, 2014 1:55 PM in response to Old Toad

TD - Thanks for your take. I follow that practical logic, and agree with a/b/c. The only reason I wanted them to show up in an 'Edited' smart album would be to target auto-rotates, duplicate them in their final orientation, and delete the source files, leaving me just a new original file that is naturally in portrait orientation, since 'there's no good reason to find such images' then why keep a backup original of a non-rotated image? 12MB for one photo no one will ever want the original of, vs. 6MB for just the final rotated one...


OT - In iPhoto '09 I noticed that amusing revert behavior you describe. However in iPhoto '11, 'Revert to Original' is grayed out, even though there is both an original and a modified version. So - and I agree on this now - if the rotated image doesn't change the image, and doesn't count an edit, then why keep the non-rotated, original version? If it's not an 'edit', then why the need for a 'Modified' and 'Original' duality?

Jan 26, 2014 2:55 PM in response to Atwixtor

The Original is preserved because everything is based on it - it's the original plus the edit decisions. Without the original you have nothing to export, nothing to share, nothing to edit. That's how non-destructuve editing works, and you want that, don't you? Or if you don't, why use iPhoto?


Remember, that Rotated version is just a Preview - that's what's used in Media Browsers and drag and drop. It's a medium quality-good for most things-but missing a lot of metadata version of the image designed for use where that sort of quality is required. However, you can export much higher quality than that using the File -> Export command, into a variety of formats, at different qualities preserving and adding metadata, and so on.


The key issue here is simple: either you want non-destructive editing or you don't. If you don't then you should not be using iPhoto as it's designed expressly to work in that mode. That's what it's designed for.

Jan 26, 2014 3:19 PM in response to Yer_Man

Reading all these threads the last few weeks has made me a believer in the advantages of iPhoto's non-destructive architecture. I get that the principle is you always have an original - always. I'm not suggesting that iPhoto get rid of the original of the rotated image. I'm suggesting that iPhoto uses the full-resolution version of the rotated photo that it rotates - automatically all by itself - as the 'Original' and treat it as such. You're never going to want to go back and make edits to a picture that's sideways. Do you see what I'm saying?


If it doesn't make a full resolution version of the auto-rotated version, it should. That seems to be the only chink in this hypothetical workflow.

Jan 26, 2014 3:43 PM in response to Atwixtor

Sorry - but once again although you love to argue - we are simply users no different from you and no one here has any power to make any changes no mater how good of changes they are (and IMHO yours is not - replacing the original bit for bit copy of the imported image with one that has been modified in anyway makes no sense at all - now you no longer have the "original"


SO not it does not make any sense at all to call a modified copy the original - but if it did it would make no different at all


If you have any questions that you want answered about how to use iPhoto as it is this is a great place to ask them - it really is not a great place to sit around and makeup things to argue about - expecially ones where you are totally wrong but keep pressing your incorrect opinion over and over and over and over and over and over The original by defination can not have any modifications made to it and still be the original


LN

Automatically and manually rotated photos don't count as edits?

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple ID.