Photo Management in Windows 10

My question doesn't have anything to do with Cakewalk, which is why I'm posting it here. Maybe one of you computer whizzes can help me with this problem. My wife wants to have paper prints made of a bunch of our digital pictures. In the past I would use Picasa to view the pictures, which are organized by date in subdirectories on the computer. When I saw a picture I wanted to print, I would tell Picasa to tag it. When I was done looking through the directories, I could have Picasa move copies of all the tagged pictures to another directory. Then when it was time to upload pictures to Costco, or wherever, for printing I could simply upload that directory in one batch since all the pictures I wanted were already in there.

Google no longer supports Picasa, so I couldn't install it on the new computer. Instead they want ALL your pictures stored and organized on their servers, which I'm not willing to do. Now I can't for the life of me figure out how to do this seemingly simple thing. I've figured out how to view the pictures in the Windows 10 photo app and even how to select individual pictures to be placed in an album of my choosing (for example, "Photos to be Printed"). What I can't figure out is how to get all the pictures in that album to go where I want them.

I realize actual photo albums are going the way of buggy whips and VHS players, but we can't be the only people who still do this. I probably just haven't found the right software yet (something expensive used by professionals, no doubt).

Paulo, thanks for the reply. Mostly it's a question of efficiency. When you're going through dozens of photos in different directories and you want to view them one at a time to decide which ones are worth printing, it really slows you down to switch back and forth between the file viewer and the file explorer to keep copying files to where you want them. It's much faster to tag them (one click) and then perform all the file transfers at once. I guess I was spoiled with my WinXP machine and expected Win10 to have greater functionality rather than less.

BTW - Personally, I still use Picasa locally.  I don't let Google keep anything of mine online.
 

henkejs
Paulo, thanks for the reply. Mostly it's a question of efficiency. When you're going through dozens of photos in different directories and you want to view them one at a time to decide which ones are worth printing, it really slows you down to switch back and forth between the file viewer and the file explorer to keep copying files to where you want them. It's much faster to tag them (one click) and then perform all the file transfers at once. I guess I was spoiled with my WinXP machine and expected Win10 to have greater functionality rather than less.

Does this not do what you want ?
 

 

Thanks to all for taking the time to offer your suggestions.
 
@paulo: Windows Live Photo Gallery was apparently discontinued in Win10. From the discussions I've read, it looks as though if you upgrade from Win7 to Win10 you'll keep Photo Gallery. My PC came with Win10 and I couldn't get Windows Essentials (with Photo Gallery) to install. Google search shows some workarounds for the installation problem, but I haven't pursued them. It seems as though a lot of people preferred Photo Gallery to the new Photos app in Win10, but apparently Microsoft thought differently.
 
@craigb: I was really disappointed when I went to install Picasa on my new PC and found out it was no longer supported. It was my favorite photo management tool on WinXP. Like you, I'm not going to let Google keep my documents online.
 
@sharke: I downloaded IrfanView this morning. The interface is a bit clunky, but the program has a lot of powerful tools. I've figured out how to make it do what I want without too many extra steps. And "free" is always good.
 
@DrLumen: Your batch file works great with Windows File Explorer. Just this morning I was wondering how the targets for the "Send to" dialog get populated, and now I know.
 
I think a combination of IrfanView and the File Explorer/batch file method will do everything I need. Thanks again everyone.
 

henkejs
@craigb: I was really disappointed when I went to install Picasa on my new PC and found out it was no longer supported. It was my favorite photo management tool on WinXP. Like you, I'm not going to let Google keep my documents online.

True, it's not supported anymore (meaning no more updates), but I still installed it on my Windows 10 machine and use it every day.

patm300e
I use Photoshop Elements...The Organizer is very nice.  I typically do not spend the time to edit the pictures though.  I take too many, but the batch import can automatically fix red eye!
 

 
Why the heck would I want a program to "organize" my pictures, since I already have them organized in their own folder with dates?  Weird ... allowing a program to do for you what it can not do, and change dates on things left and right, which is bad. My box of negatives is listed by dates, and event. So I know where my GONG pictures come from, and other bands, for example.
 
From a professional standpoint, and I ran a photo lab that did school and sports piccies for kids and all that, and we printed everything with a Lucht and Peko and such. The bigger problem for these photo labs, was that they were not turning digital fast enough to keep up with the demand, like ID cards the same day or next as the school pictures and all that. The printing machines at the time (18 years ago) were the crap, and the paper was even more expensive, than feasible for any photo lab.
 
Nowadays, you can buy the paper at Wal-Mart, or Fred Meyer/Kroger and it's not that bad, however, I have not seen, any program that can bring up the pictures, help clean it up and then print it, and maybe Photoshop is the better one here, but I am not about to spend $600 dollars on it. However, for professional work this would be necessary, as you could clear spots and dots and scratches on the film (if scanned), and take out red eye and such for fairly good family pictures ... with one exception. I am not a fan of these pictures beyond 8x10 at all, as the quality is not good enough it seems, but I wonder if the problem is the computer thinking it can not print something that looks like a 16x20 on the computer, but in actuality you only need a 5x7. That resolution and size change is a bit worrisome, and not an issue in a photo lab. We had cameras that could take expand with lenses and such to a fairly large print.
 
But there was a trick here for larger pictures. 8x10's and beyond from a 35mm film is grainy. But from a 645 film, or a 120/220 film it's not an issue, until you go past 16x20. I have not studied or seen how this has been handled on any digital camera as yet, and have been trying to find information on it, only to get side stepped to something else about digital. The "size" of the digital print can determine how good your print will be, but this is something that is usually only visible on a professional lab, not at home.

 
 
That folder probably contains some quite innocent music-related stuff.
 
Or a guide on how to succeed in the noble art of inviting female ladies to attend a soiree of some description.

paulo

SteveStrummerUK
 
 
That folder probably contains some quite innocent music-related stuff.
 
Or a guide on how to succeed in the noble art of inviting female ladies to attend a soiree of some description.

Could be a map or diagram of some kind.......?
 
G marks the spot ?

You are a terrible influence on me Paulo.
 
 

paulo

SteveStrummerUK
 
 
You are a terrible influence on me Paulo.
 
 

 

 
I have no idea what you mean by that.

OK then.

SteveStrummerUK
 
Mind you ....
 
 
... I think a hearty and rousing "Well Done!" is in order.

 
Well done.