Drobo 5N & iPhoto

and accessing this on a local network via wifi or ethernet.

iPhoto needs to have the Library sitting on disk formatted Mac OS Extended (Journaled). Users with the Library sitting on disks otherwise formatted regularly report issues including, but not limited to, importing, exporting, saving edits and sharing the photos.

See this article

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS5168

for more. Note also the comment:

“Additionally, storing the iPhoto library on a network rather than locally on your computer can also lead to poor performance or data loss.”

As for wireless access:

A strong warning: If you're trying to edit the Library (that is, make albums, move photos around, keyword, make books or slideshows etc.) or edit individual photos in it via Wireless be very careful. Dropouts are a common fact of wireless networking, and should one occur while the app is writing to the database then your Library will be damaged. Simply, I would not do this with my Libraries.

so if connected via gigabit ethernet that should overcome any risk of dropout?

It would but it doesn't solve the other problem...

Additionally, storing the iPhoto library on a network rather than locally on your computer can also lead to poor performance or data loss.”

Have a look on the DAM forum for suggestions:

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

No, as stated above, it must be on a Mac OS Extended (Journaled) drive.

Apple infuriates me with these folder systems.

I have abandoned iPhoto and Aperture because of my DROBO and this stupid file system.

Adobe's programs are much better for using standard file system that aren't proprietary.

Hello Lightroom, good-bye Aperture.

Ok do you have an iPhoto question of rth evolenteer iPhoto users here? If you doo you need to posed t more carefully since it is certainly not obvious why you posted here

LN

My point is to think twice about continuing to use iPhoto for large libraries. The nonstandard file storing is a disaster if you have huge libraries of RAW photos.

I can't use any NAS RAID device for my library due to Apple's foolish structure. I exported 40,000 RAW photos from Aperture and it will take me hours of work to get it properly organized.

So if you just use you iPhone for some photos go ahead and use iPhoto or Aperture. If you are a heavy user, you are making a HUGE mistake.

Humm -- I guess you need to learn a lot about iPhoto - I have 65,000 photos mostly RAW i my library and no problems - it works fine - and others here have as many or more

And if you are a heavy user you are making a giant mistake to try to organize files rather than us a database like iphoto that organizes photos

And interesting that nothing in your post mentions size - so you not only do not understand iPhoto but yo do not even understand how to post coherent information - if you were warning about large libraries you not only are totally incorrect about iPhoto's capabilties and strengths but forgot to mention the premise of your post - pretty lame

LN

Mac OS Extended is standard for Macs. A NAS isn't just a disk. It's a headless computer with its own operating system, usually based on Linux - that's what makes it networkable. They come in a variety of disk formats - NTFS, ExFat, Ext4 etc - so nothing standard there. Your point?

My point is this.

If you use iPhoto or Aperture you are stuck with Apple only and Mac OS Extended.

If you use Adobe Lightroom, you can use MAC OS Extended, NTFS, ExFat, Ext4, etc. It doesn't care.

So what is more flexible?

I jumped from Adobe to Aperture. My colleagues said I was crazy. No matter how good Apple is, why marry yourself to their hardware. They stuck with Adobe to use both OS X and Windows.

Now who is the smart one?

Or, you could have bought a USB, Thunderbolt, Firewire disk(s), formatted it correctly, and saved money.

I guess you have never worked in a multi-computer office?

Stop being an Apple fan boy and realize there are limitations to iPhoto and Aperture.

I am NOT a Adobe fan boy. There are limitations to their workflow as well. You just have to pick what is right for you.

iPhoto or Aperture is NOT right for large databases.

You have three choices.

1. Keep the large database and have storage and speed issues.

2. Split your libraries and have to remember were you photos are located.

3. Go to a software program that uses stardard (not container) folder structures.

So, now the name calling starts, just because someone disagrees with you? All I'm doing is correcting inaccurate information for the benefit of future readers.

Of course neither iPhoto nor Aperture are appropriate for every set up. But frankly, at 40k images you don't have a large library. There's a user over on the Aperture forum who has a 400k library that works fine. So, no you don't have to have speed or storage issues, nor do you have to split libraries. And, hate to break it to you, but both iPhoto and Aperture can work with "folder structures" since - oh, 2006 if I recall correctly in the case of iPhoto and since its release in the case of Aperture. Of course - and this is true of LR as much as Aperture and iPhoto, all there'll be in the folder structures are the originals. And yes, Aperture can even store the Originals on a NAS if you want that (so can iPhoto, but I don't recommend it).

You are correcting what you believe is wrong. That is an opinion.

However, I did not mention the possibility of keeping the originals separate from iPhoto or Aperture. As you state that is a VERY bad idea.

Do a web search. You will find most reviewers agreeing with me. Some still are willing to put up with the Containers to gain Aperture's advantages.

Still large databases is Aperture's Achilles heel. Only an Apple fan boy would deny it.

Containers cause difficulties in cross platform use, backups, and syncing! Third party software will work for a while in syncing and then a new update of iPhoto will break it.

Great programs, bad containers.