T
Test Man
Does anyone know if Photo Story 3 is either included in Vista or does the
download from Microsoft's Downloads site work on Vista?
download from Microsoft's Downloads site work on Vista?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Billh
Not included but the free download works fine for me on Vista.
P
PapaJohn
it works fine for me too... the same download as for XP
G
Guest
Many features are now in Movie Maker.
T
Test Man
Brilliant, exactly what I was hoping for, thanks.
A
Adam Albright
Does anyone know if Photo Story 3 is either included in Vista or does the
download from Microsoft's Downloads site work on Vista?
Vista comes with Photo Galley build in. It is a basic image viewer.
You can see simple slide shows with it, control the speed and turn a
simple transation Miscosoft calls fade which is actually a disolve on
or off. It also includes some basic tools to adjust the image
including a red eye tool. Also you can drag files to a DVD and make a
data disc of them. Also you can drag images to movie maker and use it
to do some simple things. Not bad considering it is free.
One nice feature of Vista that is fairly well intergrated is from
Explorer or from Photo Gallery you can annotate and write directly to
the file's header (sometimes) adding such comments as date taken,
location, ranking, over a couple hundred other classificatons. however
like so many "features" in Vista they are BROKEN.
As I'm writing this I tried to add some fields to several images just
to test it and Vista responded with a error code then promptly said it
had no idea what the error code means. You got to love Microsoft. They
try and sometimes come up with nice features, but all too often they
fall flat on their face in the testing phase and such features don't
work as advertised. ;-)
G
Guest
It is not similar at all to MM in Vista and PS3 in XP.
M
mxh
Adam Albright said:As I'm writing this I tried to add some fields to several images just
to test it and Vista responded with a error code then promptly said it
had no idea what the error code means. You got to love Microsoft. They
try and sometimes come up with nice features, but all too often they
fall flat on their face in the testing phase and such features don't
work as advertised. ;-)
I haven't had any trouble with it. In fact, I've been looking for a way to
organize my some 12,000 digital photos. Believe it or not, Vista's PG has
fit the bill. I am able to rank them (star rating) and apply multiple tags
to each image, allowing lightning fast image production. For instance, one
tag I use is 'Family'. If I type 'fa' in the search box and tell it to
search all items in PG, it will immediately bring up all images I have
tagged with 'family' (or any tags starting with 'fa').
Another plus is that PG uses XMP, which other programs, such as PhotoShop
Bridge use. IOW, my tags and star ratings show up in Bridge. I think it
likely that this 'XMP' will become the standard, allowing one to rate songs
and images in PG one time for many programs (iTunes is another issue
altogether. So far, the star ratings don't show up in 7.02.16. Perhaps a
later version.
The bottom line is this:
I have been telling myself that I'm going to come up with some kind of
system for organizing my images. Vista PG solved my problem, and already, I
am coming across quality images that I didn't even remember taking. This
system is very efficient and has revolutionized the way I handle my digital
images. AS I import them from the camera, PG downloads them to a dated
directory it creates in the parent directory I specify in set up. From
there, I tag them and no longer worry about the file location unless I need
to get to it for some reason.
Yes, there are bugs (one glaring bug is that PG automatically saves any
changes made to an image file when closing the file, which means I can't
rotate a file to view in PG without it re-saving to lossy jpg). But I can
work around the bugs because I get so much functionality in return. Enough
rambling.
mxh
G
Guest
You don't have to keep them in jpeg. I use png by choice. I only convert if
I have a reason too.
Most people store files in folders. Tags are useless.
Metadata is also written to other standards if it already exists in a file
and older standard metadata copied to XMP.
I have a reason too.
Most people store files in folders. Tags are useless.
Metadata is also written to other standards if it already exists in a file
and older standard metadata copied to XMP.
A
Adam Albright
You don't have to keep them in jpeg. I use png by choice. I only convert if
I have a reason too.
What's your reason for posting here, you like getting laughed at?