- Lightroom vs picasa movie#
- Lightroom vs picasa install#
- Lightroom vs picasa manual#
- Lightroom vs picasa windows#
When writing metadata, IMatch converts Face Annotations back into XMP regions automatically. When importing files, IMatch extracts face annotations created by these products from the XMP record and converts them into IMatch Face Annotations. Viewing, using and editing face tags created in Google Picasa or Adobe Lightroom is easy in IMatch. See People and Face Recognition in the IMatch help system for more information. Since version 2020 IMatch includes AI-powered face detection technology and powerful features for managing people. If you’re in the lookout for similar tools with comparable capabilities, search for iPhoto (Mac) and Adobe Lightroom.This article is for an older version of IMatch.
Lightroom vs picasa windows#
Hopefully, we can expect more from Windows Live Gallery in the near future. Picasa provides much more flexibility and features in all those individual modules implemented when compared to Windows Live Gallery. This comparison can go further covering more minute details which doesn’t seem to be necessary for inferring the result.
Lightroom vs picasa movie#
Picasa goes much further in this aspect with Blogging, Collage, Geo-Tagging, Places association, multiple-image Screensaver, Movie Creation, Poster creation and list goes on. Live Gallery provides the facility to make a blog post and to create a Data CD with the images. They both performed good here since they all searched based on tags and file names and provided the results. Picasa has the leading edge here due to the availability of Quick tags and it seems to support all the standard tagging mechanisms like IPTC and EXIF.
Lightroom vs picasa install#
Live Gallery did asked me to install additional plug-in. Based on the formats that i had, Picasa handled all my videos and images without the need of any additional codec installs. Multiple format support for image and video Windows Live Gallery asks us to install plug-in for this. Common raw formats are supported by default in Picasa. You can even export them with watermarks. Just in case, if you ended having some raw images for conversion, Picasa does this job much easier. Picasa allows you to export photos in bulk to the desired quality and size while Live gallery just provides a rename and resize facility for single images. Sync is much customizable and powerful operation in Picasa when compared to Live Gallery. Live Gallery supports adding Plug-ins too for sharing to other sites. You will love the one touch abilities to fix your images and the ability to provide watermark or captions.īoth of them inherently supports their own photo sharing services online. Live Gallery needs to improve a lot on this aspect.Īgain, Picasa is much better here. Both the tools sometimes detects some part of the images as faces, while actually they are not.
Lightroom vs picasa manual#
Live Gallery needs more manual activity to add people tags, making the workflow more cumbersome. Each naming seems to improve Picasa's intelligence and face detection becomes more reliable and less error-prone.
As soon as the photos are added, Picasa scans them and groups them for you to name them. This is one place where Picasa rocks! Picasa has the easiest workflow (to assign the names for the detected faces in photos) available. But if you prefer flexibility, Picasa is the one. If your priority is for simplicity, Live Gallery wins here. Picasa's UI has more options with various view modes and sliders all around providing greater flexibility. The UI is not much congested as Picasa may be because of the less visible features of Live gallery. User Interface - Intuitiveness and simplicity At this instant, there are not even comparable. If you're someone who went out to choose between Picasa and Windows Live Photo Gallery, don't look further.