Apple's Mac mini - Tempting PC Users Everywhere
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 25, 2005 7:39 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Editing Images with iPhoto 5
If you double-click on any image in iPhoto, you are essentially dropped into an Edit mode. Getting back and forth between the edit mode and the browsing mode is much simpler in iPhoto 5 than it was in 4. Just hit the Done button and you're back to browsing without the editing tools. But the real benefit of iPhoto 5's editing mode is that you now have all of your images at the top of the window for you to scroll through, instead of having to go back to browsing mode and then re-enter editing mode. You can also scroll left and right using the arrow keys at the bottom right corner of the window.
Given that it is designed for the type of photo editing that the vast majority of digital camera owners will be doing, the editing controls in iPhoto 5 aren't too surprising. You have an easily accessible row of buttons at the bottom of your picture window, so there's no going to a separate tool box or pulling down another menu.
The first one is rotate, which is self-explanatory. The next tool is a drop-down for dimensions (or ratios) to constrain the image canvas to prepare it better for printing; and next to that drop-down, the crop button that will finish the deed.
Then, there are the usual buttons: enhance, red-eye reduction, a retouch brush, B&W and sepia filters. And then the most important button - the Adjust button.
Hitting the adjust button brings up a translucent dashboard that has sliders to adjust the following items: brightness, contrast, color saturation, color temperature, tint and sharpness. There are also sliders to straighten the image as well as adjust the exposure and crop out the high/low color levels of the picture.
All of the sliders work in real time and for the first time, I found myself actually adjusting things like color saturation and temperature on a regular basis for the images that I imported into iPhoto. It was just so easy, since all of the useful controls were all presented for you right there.
The straighten slider is particularly neat because as soon as you start moving it, a grid appears over the image to help guide your image straightening - one of the most useful features of iPhoto. For the first time, I actually had straight images without spending a lot of time on them.
Straightening a photo in iPhoto 5
Editing images in iPhoto is very easy, but unfortunately, not a Photoshop replacement for me. The problem is that saving (exporting) images from iPhoto is a bit of an ordeal compared to doing a simple Save As under Photoshop.
The application is clearly designed for the needs of your normal digital camera enthusiast. You can easily email the photos, print them, make them into a book (which you can then order printed and made from Apple directly within the application) or even order prints using the integrated Kodak Print Service (also built-in directly to the application). However, for web publication on a site like AnandTech where photos need to be ftp'd over, iPhoto does lose some of its appeal. So for my needs, iPhoto is faster in some cases, but I can't get rid of Photoshop all together. For example, iPhoto won't let me do a custom resize of an image that doesn't scale the length and width by the same proportions, something that is sometimes necessary for our front page graphics. While iPhoto 5 produced all of the images for this article, one required launching Photoshop. The one thing that I did like about iPhoto's file export is that you can give it width and height constraints for the images and it will handle all resizing for you. Unfortunately, it doesn't always stay within those bounds if you have images of varying sizes in the selection that you're exporting.
For management of your pictures of friends, family and your hobbies, iPhoto works wonders, but it does leave me wishing that there was a more professional version of iPhoto that would add features like non-constrained sizes and ftp export. I'd like to be able to replace Photoshop completely, simply because it's too expensive of an application and too feature-filled for the needs that I have; unfortunately, iPhoto wasn't the complete replacement that I was looking for, although it came extremely close.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
198 Comments
View All Comments
KirinRiotCrash - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
#25, you can check Crucial's website for memory that will be compatible for the Mac mini: http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.asp?Mfr%2BP...Burbot - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
I am interested in a machine for Java programming and some amateur photochopping and recording. This sounds like traditional Mac domain, but lack of connectivity and expansion of Mini makes it a lot less fitting. First of all, it takes one memory stick, and 1GB SODIMM prices are fairly costly. Then I would like to get an external hard drive (sounds pretty reasonable for my needs), external sound card, mouse, keyboard, printer, scanner, hub to connect all USB stuff to one port, patience to deal with USB problems after those hordes of devices begin talking on the same port... see where it is going? Mini might be a neat thing by itself, but as soon as you try to do something serious with it, you get a rat's nest of external boxes and wires.A regular PeeCee SFF box might not be that nice looking, but it will take a couple of disks, a sound card, two memory modules, and will have a quite sufficient number of USB ports (4 rear/2 front is a common combination). So guess which one I will be getting, after all.
Stylex - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
I want to buy one of these, but I don't want to pay apple's ourrageous prices for RAM, what kind of memory should I buy besides apple's? I was unaware that the SPD of the modules would be an issue. Is there any 'safe' non-apple ram for this?lookmark - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
Nice article, very balanced.re hopejr. (#13) -- I imagine the mac mini would be pretty decent for intermediate audio editing, but you'd have to purchase a USB audio adapter like Griffin's iMic (around $40), as the mini has audio line-out only.
Questar - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
#18,The reason why people rudely rant and rave against Macs, or Intel, MS, Etc. is due to their need for validation.
Most people here are AMD PC users. There is a herd mentality, kind of "you're ok, I'm ok". People are looking for the assurances from others that their decisions/prejudices are the "right" ones.
Just look at way people here gang up in Intel. I can just see it now, people will respond to this saying Intel makes crap..etc. But Intel makes fine products, just like Apple. Most people here feel elevated by tearing down someone/something that is not their personal preference, and feel pumped up that others support them.
rivieracadman - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
#12 It would be important to remember that the Dell (or any other cheap PC for that matter) only come with a 30 Day warrenty. Don't get me wrong, I'm a PC guy through and through, but I have had to repair more of those pieces of junk then I can count. Not to mention that the mini is quieter, nicer to look at, and much smaller. I have even considered buying one. It would be great for a support unit. A RAM upgrade is only $70 more, and most people already have a keyboard, mouse monitor, and speakers. If I couldn't build my own systems I would perfer to select what I wanted as well. I hate LCD monitors BTW...On a side note, you have to consider the market as well. My mother in law is very happy with her 400mhz K62, and my mother is very happy with her 1Ghz Athlon. Both running Mandrake Linux. They play games, edit photos from their digital cameras, surf the web, and who knows. Both machines only have 256MB of RAM and 32MB/64MB MX Nvidia Cards. If they ever allow me to upgrade their machines I think I may go with the minis.
ehanneken - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
Hm, make that a, b, c, and d (not a, b, b, and c).ehanneken - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
I bought a Mac Mini for two reasons. First, I was curious about OS X. Second, I was looking for a Unix file server thata) was small
b) was inexpensive
b) consumed little power
c) looked reasonably attractive
The Mac Mini fit those criteria reasonably well. My next best option was a mini-ITX PC, but I gathered from my research that they tend to be noisier and less powerful than the Mac Mini.
brichpmr - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
Excellent article, Anand. My own 1.33 ghz G4 is quite snappy with sufficient ram, so the 512 mb suggestion is right on the money.tinydancer - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - link
Nice review Anand! Thanks for the objectivity, which is more than I can say for some of your readers. I usually don't respond in these posts, but this I can't avoid. Why people hate on Macs is beyond me. Mac haters were weened to early and have an inferiority complex, which translates into an inability to LET IT GO!. The fact is that Macs are about style and creativity seperate from function. Macs do what they do very well and with reliability. No...Macs are not the fastest, baddest computers on the planet, and who cares--only PC users that have no life except to worry about wether their GPU will handle Doom III. Hardware is hardware, where apple makes up the difference is in the OS and apps. The Mini will fill a void in the market for some wether they have a mouse, monitor or not. But you know what....keep hating. I like being part of the 2% market share, because I don't have to deal with the other 98% of you @$$#0!&$. It really doesn't matter to me if you ever get the point. Enjoy your grey box and your blue screen after it crashes!