Dropping ZoomBrowser

I too deleted Zoombrowser and use Picasa2. It's much better. BTW I
recently bought a Sony W5 as my old Canon G3 is too big to put in a pocket.
The Sony software is much worse than Zoombrowser. In fact, it's completely
useless.
Jack

> I'm giving my thoughts on ZoomBrowser to save othere the time I spent
> with ths software. It came with the camera (Canon A520) and comes, I'm
> told, with all Canons. They aren't doing their customers much of a
> favor.
> I said in a previous thread, written after I first got ZoomBrowser,
> that I found it, at least initially, clunky. After a week of battling
> with it, I realize it's way beyond clunky. More like chug-chug,
> blah-blah, chug-chug. Difficult to move between the 3 main modes, Zoom,
> Scroll, and Preview. You can do certain things in each mode, but have
> to switch modes to do other things. In Zoom mode, where you can see all
> your images, more or less, half the screen is wasted by big blank
> areas, next to which are your pics, but if there's many of them,
> they'll be thumbnails smaller than a thumbnail, in other words, not
> visible. In adjacent folder window, all folders are shown, and folders
> without any pictures just waste more space.
> I'll admit the Search function is better then Picasa's, since you can
> search on more than one keyword at a time, but the keyword setup is
> ridiculously complex and difficult.
> Editing is clunky. You have to tell it to Edit, the select the pics you
> want to edit, the tell it which editing tool, the edit, then tell it
> you're done. And getting it to save and find edited images is very
> difficult.
> Practically everything is difficult in ZoomBrowser.
> I won't go into any more detail. If you have it, give it a try. Maybe
> it will work better for some of you than it did for me. Meanwhile, I'm
> back with Picasa 2, which seems, so far, more user friendly. We'll see.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Dropping ZoomBrowser 

I also love Picasa, but I kept Irfanview for three reasons.
1. the enter key lets you view full screen
2. very easy resize function
3. slide show can be stored on cd as an executable file so the computer it
is played on does not need to have any special program to run the slide
show.

Otherwise, Picasa is so good, the camera companies might as well include it
instead of their own feeble picture browser/editors.

In Windows XP, Picasa can import your pics from your camera directly into
dated folders.
Ed

"Rob Graham" <robert.k.graham.TakeThisOut@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:434a1469$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "salgud" <davegb.TakeThisOut@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> news:1128925899.508297.102570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > I'm giving my thoughts on ZoomBrowser to save othere the time I spent
> > with ths software. It came with the camera (Canon A520) and comes, I'm
> > told, with all Canons. They aren't doing their customers much of a
> > favor.
> > I said in a previous thread, written after I first got ZoomBrowser,
> > that I found it, at least initially, clunky. After a week of battling
> > with it, I realize it's way beyond clunky. More like chug-chug,
> > blah-blah, chug-chug. Difficult to move between the 3 main modes, Zoom,
> > Scroll, and Preview. You can do certain things in each mode, but have
> > to switch modes to do other things. In Zoom mode, where you can see all
> > your images, more or less, half the screen is wasted by big blank
> > areas, next to which are your pics, but if there's many of them,
> > they'll be thumbnails smaller than a thumbnail, in other words, not
> > visible. In adjacent folder window, all folders are shown, and folders
> > without any pictures just waste more space.
> > I'll admit the Search function is better then Picasa's, since you can
> > search on more than one keyword at a time, but the keyword setup is
> > ridiculously complex and difficult.
> > Editing is clunky. You have to tell it to Edit, the select the pics you
> > want to edit, the tell it which editing tool, the edit, then tell it
> > you're done. And getting it to save and find edited images is very
> > difficult.
> > Practically everything is difficult in ZoomBrowser.
> > I won't go into any more detail. If you have it, give it a try. Maybe
> > it will work better for some of you than it did for me. Meanwhile, I'm
> > back with Picasa 2, which seems, so far, more user friendly. We'll see.
> >
>
> Discovered Picasa the other day and ditched IrfanView, Zoombrowzer, and
> something else I'd tried. It's the best I've found so far. The help
system
> could be better but the tools are good and the filing system and
management
> of the thumbnails is excellent.
>
> Rob
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Dropping ZoomBrowser 

"Jack" <forrmark.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96EB7927BFEE6jafo@216.196.97.136...
>I too deleted Zoombrowser and use Picasa2. It's much better. BTW I
> recently bought a Sony W5 as my old Canon G3 is too big to put in a
> pocket.
> The Sony software is much worse than Zoombrowser. In fact, it's
> completely
> useless.
> Jack
>
>> I'm giving my thoughts on ZoomBrowser to save othere the time I spent
>> with ths software. It came with the camera (Canon A520) and comes, I'm
>> told, with all Canons. They aren't doing their customers much of a
>> favor.
>> I said in a previous thread, written after I first got ZoomBrowser,
>> that I found it, at least initially, clunky. After a week of battling
>> with it, I realize it's way beyond clunky. More like chug-chug,
>> blah-blah, chug-chug. Difficult to move between the 3 main modes, Zoom,
>> Scroll, and Preview. You can do certain things in each mode, but have
>> to switch modes to do other things. In Zoom mode, where you can see all
>> your images, more or less, half the screen is wasted by big blank
>> areas, next to which are your pics, but if there's many of them,
>> they'll be thumbnails smaller than a thumbnail, in other words, not
>> visible. In adjacent folder window, all folders are shown, and folders
>> without any pictures just waste more space.
>> I'll admit the Search function is better then Picasa's, since you can
>> search on more than one keyword at a time, but the keyword setup is
>> ridiculously complex and difficult.
>> Editing is clunky. You have to tell it to Edit, the select the pics you
>> want to edit, the tell it which editing tool, the edit, then tell it
>> you're done. And getting it to save and find edited images is very
>> difficult.
>> Practically everything is difficult in ZoomBrowser.
>> I won't go into any more detail. If you have it, give it a try. Maybe
>> it will work better for some of you than it did for me. Meanwhile, I'm
>> back with Picasa 2, which seems, so far, more user friendly. We'll see.
>>
Gentlemen (all of you), your comments are mostly on the mark but zoombrowser
does at least one thing that I haven't been able to do otherwise, namely
enter my name into the user field of the camera. You can also upload other
stuff, but I never do and frankly don't know why anyone else would. Now if
I've missed the boat here, nothing new about that, just tell me how to do it
and don't ask why I want it because offhand I really don't know!!.
It's on my machine but rarely used.
Dave Cohen
 >> Stay informed about: Dropping ZoomBrowser 

I'm keeping ZoomBrowser on my computer because it can do things with my
Canon camera that the others don't do. But won't be using it for
managing my images.
 >> Stay informed about: Dropping ZoomBrowser 

Tony Whitaker wrote:
> "salgud" <davegb RemoveThis @safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> news:1128925899.508297.102570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > I'm giving my thoughts on ZoomBrowser ...
>
> What's so hard about using Windows Explorer as your image management
> software?
> Whenever I offload my pics, I open 2 windows - one for my memory card, the
> other for my "Photos" directory. Then, I simply create a folder in the
> Photos directory, and give it a name that starts with the date (i.e., 2005
> 10-12) followed by a brief description of what I'm copying there.
> Windows Explorer can show you thumbnails. I have Irfanview associated with
> .jpegs, so, whhen I double click on a thumbnail, it comes up for closer
> viewing.
> What exactly do you get - that's important - with these image file
> management programs? Automatic naming of the folders? That just doesn't
> strike me as all that important.

Good question, Tony. You're making me think. I hate when that happens!

To answer your question, auto-naming the files is nice, but not
important. What I like about the electronic photo albums is the ability
to find a picture later, particularly if I can't remember when I took
it. I have a very visual memory, but can't remember dates or numbers to
save my life. In a couple of years, I can easily see myself looking for
a pic and not being able to remember what year I took it, much less
what month. I want to index the pics in pretty standard categories,
like family, vacations, etc. And with each kids name.
Which leads to the other nice thing about electronic albums, I don't
have to open a folder, look through it, close it, open another, close
it, etc. So if I'm looking for a particular pic of my son Mike, I can
filter for Mike (granted, if I've indexed them), then quickly scroll
through all the albums that contain that keyword.
With some of the albums, I can choose which photo editor I want for a
particular task. I'm new to digital photography, but I've already seen
many people in this NG who like one editor for cropping, another for
color adjustment. With some of these albums, you can just select the
editor you want at the moment, edit from within the album, then close,
open the other editor and make the next adjustment. With Explorer
folders, I'd have to go find the photo, open it in the first editor,
edit, save and close, open the second editor, find the photo, edit,
save and close.
These programs also display the EXIF data and histogram right next to
the pic, if I want. With the pics in folders, to see the metadata, I'd
have to open them in the editor.
For example, just last night I was talking with my son, a professional
photojournalist, about some of the pics I had taken with my new camera
and had sent him to look at. While we were on the phone, I brought up
Picasa, went to those pics to see the EXIF data while we discussed it.
Much easier than if the pics had been in Explorer folders!
I'm glad you asked your question. It's gotten me much clearer on why I
want the electronic photo album. It'll help me make my decision better.
 >> Stay informed about: Dropping ZoomBrowser 

"salgud" <davegb.DeleteThis@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
news:1128925899.508297.102570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I'm giving my thoughts on ZoomBrowser ...

What's so hard about using Windows Explorer as your image management
software?
Whenever I offload my pics, I open 2 windows - one for my memory card, the
other for my "Photos" directory. Then, I simply create a folder in the
Photos directory, and give it a name that starts with the date (i.e., 2005
10-12) followed by a brief description of what I'm copying there.
Windows Explorer can show you thumbnails. I have Irfanview associated with
..jpegs, so, whhen I double click on a thumbnail, it comes up for closer
viewing.
What exactly do you get - that's important - with these image file
management programs? Automatic naming of the folders? That just doesn't
strike me as all that important.
 >> Stay informed about: Dropping ZoomBrowser 

Tony Whitaker wrote:
> "salgud" <davegb.DeleteThis@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> news:1128925899.508297.102570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I'm giving my thoughts on ZoomBrowser ...
>
>
> What's so hard about using Windows Explorer as your image management
> software?

I agree. The only reason I use ZoomBrowser is that you can't run
Raw Image Task standalone. I do wonder how to stop it dropping
ZbThumbnail files on my desktop every time it runs though.

- Len
 >> Stay informed about: Dropping ZoomBrowser 

"salgud" <davegb.TakeThisOut@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
news:1129125313.912714.309060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> To answer your question, auto-naming the files is nice, but not
> important. What I like about the electronic photo albums is the ability
> to find a picture later, particularly if I can't remember when I took
> it. I have a very visual memory, but can't remember dates or numbers to
> save my life. In a couple of years, I can easily see myself looking for
> a pic and not being able to remember what year I took it, much less
> what month. I want to index the pics in pretty standard categories,
> like family, vacations, etc. And with each kids name.
> Which leads to the other nice thing about electronic albums, I don't
> have to open a folder, look through it, close it, open another, close
> it, etc. So if I'm looking for a particular pic of my son Mike, I can
> filter for Mike (granted, if I've indexed them), then quickly scroll
> through all the albums that contain that keyword.

So, are you saying that photo album software automatically categorize your
photos, or facilitates your categorizing of them? How does it do that? It
seems to me to be pretty easy to create a folder named "2005 - Photos of
Mike", open another Windows Explorer instance, look at the thumbnails of the
pics on your card, and then drag pictures of Mike into the "2005 - Photos of
Mike" directory.

> With some of the albums, I can choose which photo editor I want for a
> particular task. ...

Well, yeah, I understand the need for a picture viewer. I mentioned that I
use Irfanview.
 >> Stay informed about: Dropping ZoomBrowser 

"Leonard" <user RemoveThis @example.net> wrote in message
news:lnd3f.10414$6c4.5685@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> I agree. The only reason I use ZoomBrowser is that you can't run
> Raw Image Task standalone. I do wonder how to stop it dropping
> ZbThumbnail files on my desktop every time it runs though.

I have a Canon S230 that I got - Jeez, I think it's been over 3 years ago,
now. It came with (of course) with ZoomBrowser. I installed it on my
previous computer, a 666mhz Pentium 3, and it choked hard. I wondered why
anyone would even bother with it when it was so easy to what I'd been doing
using Windows Explorer. Maybe it would perform better on my current
computer, a 2.66ghz Pentium 4. I would hope so. But I just don't feel any
need for it.
 >> Stay informed about: Dropping ZoomBrowser 

Tony Whitaker wrote:
> "salgud" <davegb.TakeThisOut@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> news:1129125313.912714.309060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > To answer your question, auto-naming the files is nice, but not
> > important. What I like about the electronic photo albums is the ability
> > to find a picture later, particularly if I can't remember when I took
> > it. I have a very visual memory, but can't remember dates or numbers to
> > save my life. In a couple of years, I can easily see myself looking for
> > a pic and not being able to remember what year I took it, much less
> > what month. I want to index the pics in pretty standard categories,
> > like family, vacations, etc. And with each kids name.
> > Which leads to the other nice thing about electronic albums, I don't
> > have to open a folder, look through it, close it, open another, close
> > it, etc. So if I'm looking for a particular pic of my son Mike, I can
> > filter for Mike (granted, if I've indexed them), then quickly scroll
> > through all the albums that contain that keyword.
>
> So, are you saying that photo album software automatically categorize your
> photos, or facilitates your categorizing of them? How does it do that? It
> seems to me to be pretty easy to create a folder named "2005 - Photos of
> Mike", open another Windows Explorer instance, look at the thumbnails of the
> pics on your card, and then drag pictures of Mike into the "2005 - Photos of
> Mike" directory.

But with album software, I can keyword the image under a dozen keyords,
not just one or 2. Suppose the pic has all 3 of my sons in it, and it
was taken in Costa Rica on vacation going to one of my son's wedding in
Costa Rica? I don't want to have to name a file 2005_10-14 Mike Rob
Eric kids Costa Rica vacation wedding etc, etc. In album software I can
just enter those as keywords. With the software I can easily
multi-index them. Then I can call it up under any of those keywords.
And I don't have to open and close bunches of folders to view and edit.


> > With some of the albums, I can choose which photo editor I want for a
> > particular task. ...
>
> Well, yeah, I understand the need for a picture viewer. I mentioned that I
> use Irfanview.

So album software is just a viewer with a few added features. Sounds
like you don't need them, but I do. Viva la difference!
 >> Stay informed about: Dropping ZoomBrowser 

orang37 wrote:
> "salgud" <davegb RemoveThis @safebrowse.com> wrote in message
> news:1129044703.359974.310530@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I'm keeping ZoomBrowser on my computer because it can do things with my
> > Canon camera that the others don't do. But won't be using it for
> > managing my images.
> >
>
> What can it do that is unique ? I am curious.
>
> O37

It can set custom settings for the camera (sounds, gaphics, etc.) and
can control the shutter from my computer (for macro photography, for
instance).
 >> Stay informed about: Dropping ZoomBrowser 

"salgud" <davegb.RemoveThis@safebrowse.com> wrote in message
news:1129044703.359974.310530@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm keeping ZoomBrowser on my computer because it can do things with my
> Canon camera that the others don't do. But won't be using it for
> managing my images.
>

What can it do that is unique ? I am curious.

O37
 >> Stay informed about: Dropping ZoomBrowser 

davegb.RemoveThis@safebrowse.com (salgud) wrote in
news:1128925899.508297.102570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> Practically everything is difficult in ZoomBrowser.

I'm particularly annoyed that ZB 5.5 now installs a SERVICE on my
machine which is running all the time, and which also REQUIRES that I
run other services that I don't need (or want) running on my machine.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert.RemoveThis@iphouse.com
 >> Stay informed about: Dropping ZoomBrowser