File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I have problems with organizing my photos on my computer. Pic related here.

Which program does /p/ suggest to organize photos?
Some features that are important:
[- Of course good organization of the photos.]
- thumbnails that are saved and NOT created every time you want to get an overview of your pics
- multiple tags, meaning that i can give every pic that has a tree in it the tag "tree" and later search for tree and it gives me all pics with that tag
- other useful features i don't have in my mind
- VERY IMPORTANT: the program has to be FAST (so that it runs well on older machines, too
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:07:25 01:44:34Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width380Image Height288
>> Anonymous
You're asking for too much. Especially at that last one's note.

I just put them in folders.
>> Anonymous
>>207412
right now i also put them in folders but it sucks bigtime. plus there is no way for using tags. (beside putting the tags into the filename but that would really suck)

>Especially at that last one's note.
Thats why I hate the programmers of today. Because hardware is so strong, software doesn't need to be optimized that much anymore. That leads to things like windows vista.. but thats another discussion.
What I mean is, why should a photo organize-program use that much resource?
>> Anonymous
try picasa. I'm not sure if it has tags but it does covers your other points.
>> ?????????
>>207408
Bridge motherfucker, heard of it?
>> Anonymous
i know photoshop uses tags,but i dont think its very fast for older machines
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>207415
Thanks, I'll try it.
Btw, I looked it up: it does have tags. :)
>> Anonymous
try aperture 2
http://www.apple.com/aperture/trial/
>> Anonymous
>>207424
I thought about using Linux but it right now I'll have to stick with Windows.
Thanks for the link, though.

>>207426
yeah. i agree lol
>> Anonymous
>>207432
seems neat but it will run very slow on an older machine doesnt it?