Comments

1. tino

   
   Posted on: June 27, 2007 at 7:28PM  

   oh I forgot: Windows Explorer must have an integration of Life Drive as a simple virtual Folder/Drive.
2. Beau

   
   Posted on: June 28, 2007 at 3:40AM  

   Definetly looking forward to this on XP SP2 =)
3. kev_gordon

   
   Posted on: June 28, 2007 at 7:51AM  

   For me, the biggest single improvement that Microsoft could make to both Vista's Windows Photo Gallery, and this new live one is to make pictures auto-rotate using the cameras exif orientation settings. If I take a picture in portrait mode, then it should display as such.

   Because it doesnt, I am forced to use ACDSee Photo Manager, which does it.

   If this feature was added, I would ditch ACDSee and use the Windows Photo Gallery, as I really like it for all the other features.

   Please Microsoft, take this suggestion seriously, and implement it!
4. Bryan

   
   Posted on: June 28, 2007 at 1:36PM  

   Will the final version of Windows Live Photo Gallery be distributed to Vista as an update to Windows Photo Gallery, or will Vista users have to actively download it as an alternate program? If the latter is true then I think you will severely stunt your install base. Typical users won't actively download a substitute to replace a default program on their machine.
5. Brandon LeBlanc

   

   
   Posted on: June 28, 2007 at 8:00PM  

   Bryan, how Windows Live Photo Gallery will be distributed has yet to be announced. However I'm told several members of the Windows Live Photo Gallery team are peaking at the comments on this post so your feedback is being heard.

   tino, Windows Live Mail is called "Windows Live Mail" because its main purpose, while able to let you use Gmail and POP3, is to allow users to sync their mail up with Windows Live Hotmail. The "Windows Live" branding implies connection with the Windows Live services.

   kev_gordon, great feedback! I didn't even think of that until now.

   - Brandon
6. someone

   
   Posted on: June 29, 2007 at 10:22AM  

   Please convey this to the respective team:

   1. Most competing applications have export capabilities. The ability to export to formats supported by Windows Imaging Component would be awesome. Being able to export/create HD Photo files on Windows XP would be the true bliss. Btw, does this app install the Photo Gallery Viewer on XP?

   2. Flickr is the YouTube of photo sharing, so MS might as well support it as an exception.
7. jd2066

   
   Posted on: July 10, 2007 at 12:03AM  

   Hi,

   First why are programs like Windows Live Mail and this one being released as seperate programs instead of as updates though Windows Update?

   and why do these two programs support Windows XP? It seems to me that the more programs like this you release supporting Windows XP the less reason people have to upgrade to Windows Vista. Not that I want to upgrade to Vista just for Mail and Photo programs, it just seems like a odd business move.

   Second one feature I would like to see in Photo Gallery is treating videos the same as photos in regards to viewing. I.E When double clicking a video open it in Photo Gallery and in Photo Gallery have the prev/next buttons open the next video/picture.
8. radeldudel

   
   Posted on: July 10, 2007 at 7:31AM  

   I wonder if anyone at the windows photografie division group really is using RAW:(

   If someone is, I'd really like an example how they work with RAW files and the codec, since for me these codes are less than useless, they are creating more work than solving (so I uninstalled them).

   To explain: The RAW file is my unchanging original, but since viewing RAW files is way too slow to be usable, and since I can't print them, can't use them in websites, can't do anything useful other than making a great looking JPG from them, I always got a JPG with the same name next to the RAW file.

   This JPG I see in the windows foto gallery, this JPG I add my tags, comments, rating.

   And all of this is lost whenever I create the JPG from the RAW anew.

   A real PITA!

   I need a way to get my tags, rating, title from JPG to the corresponding RAW, and I need SilkyPix to put all these into the JPG whenever I create it. And I can see no way of achieving this using the RAW codec, it only got the effect that I see every picture two times, have to tag every picture two times, or have to get rid of them in some way.

   There must be a better way!!
9. pquirk

   
   Posted on: July 11, 2007 at 11:07AM  

   I'd like to echo comments by radeldudel and suggest that there's a real opportunity to go beyond the generation set feature in Adobe Photoshop Elements. What I would like is a true hierarchical dependency tree for my photos, operating very much like a source code control system. If I clip a headshot from a JPG which was derived from a CR2 file, maintain that information for me (and maybe virtualize the headshot on demand from the clipping rectangle info even when accessed via a URL.) One benefit of this approach is that each derived photo inherits the geotags, copyright and origin info, but adds addiional info about subsequent authors, intended use, etc. Another benefit is reduced storage. The same concept should apply to soundscapes built from sampled sounds, but that's a discussion for another blog.
10. themysteriousx

    
    Posted on: July 11, 2007 at 7:45PM  

    I just started using WPG, and a few limitations strike me.

    First, I can tag away, but it doesn't help with organizing the pictures folder.  A lot of people probably have thousands of photos, all with cryptic names like DSC22143.

    A way to fix this would be to adopt a "roll of film"/album paradigm, where the pictures folder is broken down into folders, one folder per roll/album, and then images inside those folders are renamed according to their metadata.

    Part of this would be in addition to having the tagging feature, would be to have special tags, with meaning rather than just regular tags.  examples could be "Location", "Date" "Subject(S)".

    This would increase the value of the metadata from just something that is useful for searching, to something that can be used and has meaning.

    Secondly, it has video's merged in with the photos.  This irritates me immensely, as I don't particularly want to have last nights tv up for tagging.

    Everything i've suggested is available in mediaplayer when dealing with music; renaming and filing according to meaningful metadata, filtering by media type.