Do you use Google's Picasa?

[Tuolumne]

Do you use Picasa or some other post-processing software most of the time? I use Picasa for about 90% of my work.

I just noticed that Google has released Version 3 of the fantastic Picasa, their post-processing and photo inventorying software. I have used this for several years now and have been extremely happy with it. It is intended for jpg processing, but it does recognize almost all common raw formats and displays them. It just doesn't develop them very well.

With jpgs it is like magic, many one-button fixes that seem to do just the right thing without fiddling with alot of sliders. The new version 3 has cloning, the main reason I had to run other sw like Lightroom or CS3 to touch up scans or digital images.

The inventory and search is worth the price of admission alone (free!). It instantly finds (and I do mean instantly) any image depending on the name of its folder or the title you may have given it in Picasa or its file name. Right now it is managing over 175,000 of my digital images with nary a hiccup.

I know many people look down on jpgs and only consider raw worthy of use. Perhaps if they gave Picasa a try they'd change their mind.

/T

 

[kuzano]

You forgot to mention the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button

You forgot to mention the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button

It never ceases to amaze me when I just want to perk up a Jpg that is flat or slightly off somehow, pushing the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button comes up with a result that gets me where I want to go, or close enough, in one step.

Also, the sharpen tool is quite useful and very easy.. no sliders, no graphs, just push the button. If the sharpen isn't quite enough, push it again.

That was the last version. I will be interested in seeing what's in the new release.

Oh yeah, I have CS3, and Light Room, but I am 65 years old. I don't know if I have enough life left to learn them. Plus, I prefer the capture aspect of photography.... not gluing my Ass to a chair in front of a computer.

 

[__hh]

I use it as my MAIN image cataloging/viewing program. The search function is just magic... just type in part of the file name and it pops up immediately (works best if you have a file naming regime such as date,film,camera,etc). The exporting features are great, and integrates well with picassaweb, flickr, facebook, etc....

Just be careful of those hidden "Temporary" folders

 

[bmattock]

I am not trying to be disagreeable, because many people like Picasa and it seems to handle photo editing chores well. So if a person likes it, and wants to keep using it, more power to them.

But as a Linux user, I can say this - IMHO, it is slow, it is clunky, and it stores photos behind the scenes with all the dexterity of a child stuffing toys into a closet just before suppertime. It disobeys me and goes off searching attached drives when I've told it not to, its default behavior is to immediately slow down my PC to a complete crawl until I can manage to convince it (usually requiring several attempts) to only look where I tell it to look. In short, it's a mess. I've installed it and then deinstalled is more than once. I don't object to how it handles the editing chores, but how it stores and handles photos is a hodge-podge of software ugliness. It smells of slow, bloated, Java badness. I'm pro-Google, but Picasa is stinkware.

I use digiKam, which is a Linux-only product. Between that and my own Perl scripts, I've got things pretty much the way I like them. digiKam uses Kipi plugins for minor editing chores, and I switch to The GIMP for the heavy lifting. Works a treat.

 

[Tuolumne]

I am not trying to be disagreeable, because many people like Picasa and it seems to handle photo editing chores well. So if a person likes it, and wants to keep using it, more power to them.

But as a Linux user, I can say this - IMHO, it is slow, it is clunky, and it stores photos behind the scenes with all the dexterity of a child stuffing toys into a closet just before suppertime. It disobeys me and goes off searching attached drives when I've told it not to, its default behavior is to immediately slow down my PC to a complete crawl until I can manage to convince it (usually requiring several attempts) to only look where I tell it to look. In short, it's a mess. I've installed it and then deinstalled is more than once. I don't object to how it handles the editing chores, but how it stores and handles photos is a hodge-podge of software ugliness. It smells of slow, bloated, Java badness. I'm pro-Google, but Picasa is stinkware.

I use digiKam, which is a Linux-only product. Between that and my own Perl scripts, I've got things pretty much the way I like them. digiKam uses Kipi plugins for minor editing chores, and I switch to The GIMP for the heavy lifting. Works a treat.

Perhaps it runs differently on Linux. I have none of those problems on my Windows PC, and as I said, it is managing around 175,000 of my digital images. As for where it stores all of its backups, I don't know and I don't care, as long as it does what I want.

I also have been playing around with the new Version 3 and have discovered that it now handles some RAW files quite capably: DNG and Canon RAW so far work amazingly well with it. So, it appears that even Raw shooters will be able to give Picasa a try.

/T

 

[bmattock]

Perhaps it runs differently on Linux. I have none of those problems on my Windows PC, and as I said, it is managing around 175,000 of my digital images. As for where it stores all of its backups, I don't know and I don't care, as long as it does what I want.

I also have been playing around with the new Version 3 and have discovered that it now handles some RAW files quite capably: DNG and Canon RAW so far work amazingly well with it. So, it appears that even Raw shooters will be able to give Picasa a try.

/T

I'm hip. I guess I'm too much the techie - I do care where my photos, backups, and work product are stored.

FWIW, digiKam and assorted Linux editing / viewing tools have been doing RAW of all sorts since the beginning - courtesy of 'dcraw', whose code is so clean and fast (and open source), that many Windows and Mac "RAW" utilities incorporate the code directly.

But if you're happy with Picasa, then absolutely, go for it.

 

[Tuolumne]

I like how fast it is. I can edit a bunch of photos in the time it takes CS3 to just write one if its files. This new version seems even better, especially with its support for Raw formats.

 

[Ducky]

Oh yeah, I have CS3, and Light Room, but I am 65 years old. I don't know if I have enough life left to learn them. Plus, I prefer the capture aspect of photography.... not gluing my Ass to a chair in front of a computer.

I'm even older than that and have given up trying to learn anything new. I'm obsolete and will be used for land fill someday but for now, what I got, I got.

 

[kuzano]

You are not being disagreeable......

You are not being disagreeable......

I am not trying to be disagreeable
But as a Linux user, I can say this

You are simply a linux user........ which is.......Ummm... being disagreable, at the very least.😀

Picasa is optimized for Windows... Not linux.

Truly... Linux is great, but it is a total commitment to eschew anything Microsoft or Apple compatible. Open Source software should always and only be used in the Open Source community.

 

[nightfly]

I've heard good things and would love a good, fast, photo organizer, but there's no Mac version.

I've never liked iPhoto (makes copy of you images and sticks in it's own database), so basically I use Photoshop for editing, store everything hierarchically on my hard drive, and with the excitement that commonly accompanies doing my taxes or going to the dentist, go into iView Media Pro to organize and tag my images in infrequent spurts.

 

[charjohncarter]

It is what I use, I go to PSE for cloning, borders and contrast control if needed. Thanks for the heads up on v3. I'll down load it now.