Hands-on with Picasa for the Mac
I'm a somewhat dissatisfied owner of a new MacBook. One of the things I was looking forward to with the computer was the vaunted easy photo management I kept hearing about. But I found the Mac's free photo management app, iPhoto, frustrating to use, compared to the product I had become accustomed to on Windows: Google's Picasa. I didn't like the fact that I had to manually import photos into the product--even photos already on my Mac--and that the import process made duplicates of my photos when I did so. I much prefer Picasa, which simply scans your computer's directories and shows you the photos it finds on your disks.
Monday, Google is releasing Picasa 3 for Mac OS X (download). I got an early look at the new product, still marked "beta," and found it a faithful port of the PC version (Picasa is also available for Linux), minus a few features like the timeline view and geotagging (the former is probably gone for good; the latter is coming in a subsequent build). Picasa lacks some of the fun features in iPhoto, too: It doesn't take full advantage of the multi-touch trackpad features in the new MacBooks, like zoom and rotate. It does, though, read ratings and tags from iPhoto libraries, so it would be easy to use Picasa alongside an iPhoto library. But as it doesn't export back to iPhoto; it's a one-way trip for the metadata.
Picasa organizes the photos on your hard disk. It also manages importing from your cameras and memory cards.
The two programs are much the same in features, although some of the differences may matter greatly to certain users. iPhoto, for example, has a slick way to batch-edit photos, including the capability to update dates and times embedded in photos and to apply the same custom image corrections to several shots at once. Picasa also has batch-editing features, but it doesn't give you as much control. In single images, though, Picasa lets you insert text directly into photos, and offers a few handy enhancement tools missing in iPhoto, like graduated tints (useful for improving landscape shots). But overall, both products offer flexible image correction and enhancement, including variable rotation for out-of-kilter images, red-eye correction, and white-balance correction.
iPhoto currently offers much better support for printing books, calendars, and cards through Apple. Picasa should get the capability to print similar services later. iPhoto's on-screen slideshows are also better; it lets you use the "Ken Burns effect" to make watching stills more compelling.
On the other hand, Picasa lets you pin photos to the "photo tray" for batch operations like e-mailing, uploading, or making items into a collage. You can multi-select images in iPhoto to do the same thing, but the intermediate tray concept in Picasa is much easier to use--one stray mouse click won't undo your selection.
As Stephen Shankland reports, Picasa also integrates with the online Picasa Web Albums photo-sharing site, just as the Windows version does. Changes made on the sharing site (captions or name tagging) don't migrate back into your computer's library, though. iPhoto, of course, connects to Apple's Mobile Me service for online, shared galleries. Picasa Web Albums is free, though. Mobile Me costs $99 a year.
Other features coming over to Picasa Mac in the future include Webcam capture, screensaver control, and the photo preview feature from Windows (which I believe is superfluous in OS X, given its strong Preview app).
Even though this early build of Picasa is missing some features, I'm going to use it and not iPhoto. It has a cleaner and less intrusive organizational system, stronger photo-editing features, it's fast to use, and setting up online albums is free. When I want to print calendars and books I'll drop back to iPhoto, but Picasa's feature set makes it a better day-to-day product.
The editor in Picasa lets you add text and graduated filters to images.
Rafe Needleman writes about start-ups, new technologies, and Web 2.0 products, as editor of CNET's Webware. E-mail Rafe. 
Because different is only OK if it's the kind of different that happens to be exactly the same as what you were used to.
I'm interested in how people plan to use the two tools together to accomplish more. It sounds like Picasa isn't going to be as feature-rich as it is on the PC side, so I'd like to use iPhoto to do some of the batch editing, etc.
It's a matter of personal taste Mr. Needleman. I personally like the ease of use of iPhoto for day to day photo browsing. I use Photoshop (with Bridge), Aperture, iPhoto, Olympus Master, and Picasa (on a PC). I'll be checking out the Picasa for Mac version now. Oh, and important to note, none of the afore mentioned programs are in beta except for your precious Picasa!
what you have just described is classic Windowlerium: a state of confusion brought on by things being too easy. You see, he had to organize his photos by folder in Windows because of limitation in the software and OS. When he gets to the Mac, he can't shake his brain free of the fact that the computer can do all that work for him; he's been trained that he has to do that work himself.
Helllllo, Picasa for Mac!
* Yes, iPhoto seems like a great program, and is probably wonderful if you're only sharing your library with other Macs. Throw in a couple Linux machines, and even the one XP machine I have, and it just gets too messy.
First, iPhoto doesn't "require you to manually import your photos". iPhoto is geared toward people getting photos from devices. Not people who are sucking up existing libraries of JPG, BMP, PNG, etc. files. That doesn't mean iPhoto can't handle that task, but when connecting a device that contains photos, it is indeed automatic.
Second, iPhoto makes a copy of manually imported files in its own directory tree within a user's home folder so that it can easily revert to the original file without the wonderful "where's that file again?" errors that are common on programs that use a file systems as a database. It would be dumb to treat the entire hard drive like a database of photo locations. If you're going to use the file system to keep track of photos, I know I'd rather be assured that they're all in a single structure protected from other users for ease of backup and retrieval.
Finally, it's clear that years of using Windows have gotten you used to files that are scattered all over user, global, and network directories. That's fine. I prefer to have MY files kept in MY directory with MY permissions - by default - whether that directory is on a share or my local disk. iPhoto's sharing, reversion, and other useful features would be far less reliable and more complicated if Apple didn't insist on storing a copy of every imported file instead of simply referencing files after an automatic import.
I will say that I wish there was an easier way to dump the files from my iPhoto directory/database into a single directory somewhere and choose that as the default way of managing photos, but that would add a lot of complexity to what is a nice, simple, compact photo organizer geared (again) to an audience attempting to move photos from devices onto a computer, and to organize those photos/media in a forgiving environment that easily allows reversion.
I hope you have a better understanding of why iPhoto does some things the way it does, and you're certainly welcome to your own preferences.
Any computer user above the level of neophite organizes their files the way they like. In other words a program needs to work with My files kept in MY directory with MY permissions, regardless of what that really looks like on a hard drive.
I'm suprised you can't see that. While I don't need a photo program to slurp up all the files on my computer I do need one to work on them where I tell it to look. If it want's to back them all up, then thats ok as long as it does it MY way.
I agree about competition being good. The better Windows and Google, and Adobe, etc. get, the better that Apple's offerings will get. Everyone wins, especially the consumer.
I'm trying to remember a release of iLife that has coincided with an OS release and I can't think of one. Historically the iLife updates appear in January while OS releases happen later in the year, often around the summer. iLife 08, for example, appeared back in summer 2007 while Leopard was not released until later in the year.
I'll stick with iPhoto for day to day browsing and e-mailing of photos, use Aperture and Photoshop for serious stuff, and just play with Picasa until I need the disk space back ;-)
I also like Picasa's single-image editor better.
When I want to create books and calendars then I'll run iPhoto and import the photos I need.
For me, being able to do work from my computer at home (when my workplace is a Windows shop) is a very important factor in whether or not I would switch, so keep up the good work!
A program that comes with Photoshop Elements (and may be available separately) is Adobe Bridge. That would be perfect for you for image cataloguing. You might also want to check out GIMP for image editing and creating. It is free and has Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X ports. It does just about everything Photoshop does, but for free. The drawback is a more clunky user interface (although it is constantly getting better).
1. Apple makes a device-to-digital-hub photo organizer, not an image editor.
2. Rafe thought iPhoto was an image editor.
3. Rafe is disappointed that Apple didn't write and include Adobe Bridge for free.
You must seriously be kidding if you expect me to believe that Rafe is a tech journalist. If he is, he must be new to the craft or exceedingly naive; who would expect Apple to whiz all over Adobe by including a free copy of software that obviates the need for Bridge/Photoshop Elements with every Mac? Does Rafe not understand the dynamics of the software industry?
Get past the hype and you are left with the real world. It's not so much "what's different" as what's harder, missing, or goofy. Different you can learn. Missing and harder to do? What's to love about that? I'm eagerly looking for the "easier to do" things. They haven't yet cropped up.
A computer is a computer, Regardless of the os they will figure out a way to **** you off.
Picasa on the other hand, is lightning fast to learn, as well as to scan through thousands of photos...if you're a long time iPhoto user and haven't tried Picasa for any length of time, I'd suggest you give it a couple weeks. I believe it will increase my productivity finding the photos I'm after by an order of magnitude. I'm sure there are some more advanced features in iPhoto, but that's what I'd use Photoshop for I suppose.
I really do consider myself a fast study, and I'm always after doing things faster and more efficiently with keystrokes (if you don't use Quicksilver yet and consider yourself a power user, GET IT!) -- so my vote is for Picasa for now. From an intuitive standpoint, Picasa really shines. I was really disappointed by iPhoto overall, because I really expected it to be far slicker like many other OS X applications are.
Have an open mind if you haven't tried Picasa. It really is pretty slick, but you'd have to put it through its paces first.
Just a bit of friendly advice, try to put aside the "Well with Microsoft I did it this way, but it's disapointing on my Mac because it's not like Microsoft" mentallity, and stop, breathe, read and learn. I know it's hard for guys sometimes to stop and read something like a manual to help us better understand how to do things. Hell, it's in our genetic makeup not to read manuals, but I promiss you that if you take the time to pick up a book, a manual, read a PDF, you might actually start to enjoy your new Mac.
So, my advice? Ditch the "well on my old system I did this" mentality, and when you are having some quality alone time in the washroom how about openning up that manual you should get and read a little. Odds are, that you will find your user experience much nicer.
Does anyone have any advise as to what I can do?
I was an iphoto user before I was a picasa user. In general I think apple software is great. Iphoto still sucks
I am very glad to see picasa on the mac.
- by Wilts09 January 6, 2009 9:02 AM PST
- A couple of minor comments that you made about iPhoto that ought to be corrected.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (47 Comments)Firstly, you do NOT have to copy all your existing photos to use iPhoto - there is an option under preferences to just use the existing copies. The only extra "duplicates" that iPhoto uses are those where the photo is edited and an edited copy saved in the iPhoto database. Editing in iPhoto is non-destructive hence the need to keep a copy.
Secondly, you can always create a temporary album for batch editing/exporting etc - I do this all the time. It should give you the same effect as the photo tray in Picasa.
Finally, there is a nice plug in for iPhoto which will upload your photos directly into Picasa web pages as an export. From what I can see, it does exactly the same as using the Picasa application.
I've no major axe to grind but I thought that these points should be cleared up.