Using XP2 - I create folder in Lightroom as a subfolder already in Lightroom. This is all being done in LR. The process brings up the dialog and I go ahead and create folder but nothing appears in Lightroom. The folder is made in the file system but no new folder shows up in LR.
Thanks
Dan
Sunday, April 4, 2010
LR updates & ACR updates
Maybe allready discussed here... here are the questions:
1. Lightroom uses ACR engine, right? After Lightroom's release, ACR v4.0 was released.. how's with Lightroom engine update?
2. I have Canon 350D and Lightroom shows using ACR v3.1 -I suppose that's the version which implemented 350D camera. How does Adobe handle with ACR... does that mean my camera (for example) won't be updated/improved in ACR anymore? Just for example (again), I may not like how ACR handles colors by default -does that mean it will stay so forever (350D case closed)?
3. When using Lightroom (switching to Develope or showing 1:1 preview in Library), I find ''Loading...'' time is too long -very long, compared to some other software. Does that time (and similar speed issues) depend on ACR core engine (only)?
Thanks for answers,
Bogdan
LR updates %26 ACR updates
1. LR already has the equivalent of ACR 4.0.
2. That's when the camera was added and profiled. It's still going through the ACR 4 imaging pipeline.
3. Forget the ''loading'' indicator. Just watch the image. Sometimes loading stays up long after the image is finished loading.
LR updates %26 ACR updates
Thanks for fast response, Lee
Q1 %26amp; 2 -all clear :-)
About Q3: yes, I can start working on image while ''Loading..'' is still there -it's just that this doesn't make much sense as image is very blurry. Similar with 1:1 preview... I'd like to have it sharp there as fast as possible. IMO, if those times were faster, there would be impression of faster Lightroom in general.
Have a nice day,
Bogdan
Generally, I see the image get as sharp as it's going to get long before the loading indicator goes away.
If you select the files and go to Library %26gt; Previews %26gt; Render Standard
Previews (or render them on import), and wait until it's finished
rendering them all, the 'loading...' will disappear a lot quicker. It
also depends on the speed of your computer.
Victoria
www.photoshopservices.co.uk
Lee Jay wrote:
''Generally, I see the image get as sharp as it's going to get long before the loading indicator goes away.''
That's the case if you're switching to less than 1:1 preview (in Library/Develope) or if you've rendered 1:1 previews before or full preview is still somewhere in memory buffer.
I render medium previews (which is good enough for FIT view -overviewing photos). I also believe there's no point to have full (1:1) previews in database all the time (database grows tremendous) -engine should be fast enough to do that when needed. I don't expect this would happen instantly -but can be done faster than LR does.
Bogdan
When I switch to the Develop module, view at 100% and step through, say 30, Nikon D200 NEF images, no image attains its final sharpness until after the ''Loading'' text disappears (roughly 6-8 seconds). The *only* exception to this is if I have progressed through a number of images and then go in the opposite direction. In that case the ''Loading...'' text disappears very quickly for a few images and then reverts to 6-8 seconds per image.
Macintosh, dual 1.8 GHZ processors, 2.5 GB RAM, 750 GB internal drive used only by Lightroom.
%26gt;no image attains its final sharpness until after the ''Loading'' text disappears
Same here: image pops into focus at the precise moment that ''Loading...'' goes away. Mac also. Takes exactly 4 seconds on dual 2.3 G5.
oil companies
1. Lightroom uses ACR engine, right? After Lightroom's release, ACR v4.0 was released.. how's with Lightroom engine update?
2. I have Canon 350D and Lightroom shows using ACR v3.1 -I suppose that's the version which implemented 350D camera. How does Adobe handle with ACR... does that mean my camera (for example) won't be updated/improved in ACR anymore? Just for example (again), I may not like how ACR handles colors by default -does that mean it will stay so forever (350D case closed)?
3. When using Lightroom (switching to Develope or showing 1:1 preview in Library), I find ''Loading...'' time is too long -very long, compared to some other software. Does that time (and similar speed issues) depend on ACR core engine (only)?
Thanks for answers,
Bogdan
LR updates %26 ACR updates
1. LR already has the equivalent of ACR 4.0.
2. That's when the camera was added and profiled. It's still going through the ACR 4 imaging pipeline.
3. Forget the ''loading'' indicator. Just watch the image. Sometimes loading stays up long after the image is finished loading.
LR updates %26 ACR updates
Thanks for fast response, Lee
Q1 %26amp; 2 -all clear :-)
About Q3: yes, I can start working on image while ''Loading..'' is still there -it's just that this doesn't make much sense as image is very blurry. Similar with 1:1 preview... I'd like to have it sharp there as fast as possible. IMO, if those times were faster, there would be impression of faster Lightroom in general.
Have a nice day,
Bogdan
Generally, I see the image get as sharp as it's going to get long before the loading indicator goes away.
If you select the files and go to Library %26gt; Previews %26gt; Render Standard
Previews (or render them on import), and wait until it's finished
rendering them all, the 'loading...' will disappear a lot quicker. It
also depends on the speed of your computer.
Victoria
www.photoshopservices.co.uk
Lee Jay wrote:
''Generally, I see the image get as sharp as it's going to get long before the loading indicator goes away.''
That's the case if you're switching to less than 1:1 preview (in Library/Develope) or if you've rendered 1:1 previews before or full preview is still somewhere in memory buffer.
I render medium previews (which is good enough for FIT view -overviewing photos). I also believe there's no point to have full (1:1) previews in database all the time (database grows tremendous) -engine should be fast enough to do that when needed. I don't expect this would happen instantly -but can be done faster than LR does.
Bogdan
When I switch to the Develop module, view at 100% and step through, say 30, Nikon D200 NEF images, no image attains its final sharpness until after the ''Loading'' text disappears (roughly 6-8 seconds). The *only* exception to this is if I have progressed through a number of images and then go in the opposite direction. In that case the ''Loading...'' text disappears very quickly for a few images and then reverts to 6-8 seconds per image.
Macintosh, dual 1.8 GHZ processors, 2.5 GB RAM, 750 GB internal drive used only by Lightroom.
%26gt;no image attains its final sharpness until after the ''Loading'' text disappears
Same here: image pops into focus at the precise moment that ''Loading...'' goes away. Mac also. Takes exactly 4 seconds on dual 2.3 G5.
Import doesn't work for me on Vista
I am running on Vista. I try to import from a CF card to my Users/John/Pictures directory. Although Lightroom sees my card and the files on it, when I try to do the import I get a dialog box saying ''The following files were not imported. Could not copy a file to the requested location.'' with a list of all the files on the CF that I had tried to import. I assume this means that there is some sort of permission problem writing to the Pictures directory. Since other programs (e.g. Canon Zoombrowser ) write to that directory with no problems, this would seem to be a Lightroom issue.
Anyone with any ideas or a solution?
Thanks,
John
Import doesn't work for me on Vista
If you did a search on Vista, you'd discover that 1) LR is not fully compatible with Vista, and 2) one of those incompatibilities is reading from a CF card.
- Pierre
Import doesn't work for me on Vista
Thanks Pierre, in the future I will do a better job of searching before asking.
Anyone with any ideas or a solution?
Thanks,
John
Import doesn't work for me on Vista
If you did a search on Vista, you'd discover that 1) LR is not fully compatible with Vista, and 2) one of those incompatibilities is reading from a CF card.
- Pierre
Import doesn't work for me on Vista
Thanks Pierre, in the future I will do a better job of searching before asking.
Metadata Browser query
In the above section of LR1 under the lens section showing a 15.0mm lens and also EF15mm F2.8 Fisheye. It is the same lens but first when fitted to a Canon 20D and the 2nd when fitted to a Canon 5D.
Is there a way of correcting that metadata info so that I am able to see all images taken with that lense irrespective of what body was used?
Many thanks
Tom
Metadata Browser query
Common problem! The metada browser is a direct reflection of the EXIF data your camera provides. If different cameras provide different names for same lens, LR doesn't know and doesn't care. For LR they are different lenses because they have different names.
I have similar problems, even with the camera's serial number, i.e. same camera shows up with different garbage serial numbers. What I did was to manually correct the xmp-file and reimported the file.
Most metadata browser data is EXIF data, some data like location is IPTC. EXIF is by definition read-only information. That's why ''official'' software will never allow writing EXIF - date information is an exception. There are some EXIF-Tools that allow just that, but I wouldn't mess around with my original RAW-files.
Metadata Browser query
It depends on your camera, what is written in the exif data.
My 10D only writes the zoom range, i.e. 17-40, my 30D writes EF 17-40 f/4L USM for the same lens.
You could change it with a exiftool, but it is easier to multi select the lenses in metadata browser (on windows CTRL-click).
Juergen
Many thanks for the explanation - it seems that I best learn to live with this issue.
Tom
Is there a way of correcting that metadata info so that I am able to see all images taken with that lense irrespective of what body was used?
Many thanks
Tom
Metadata Browser query
Common problem! The metada browser is a direct reflection of the EXIF data your camera provides. If different cameras provide different names for same lens, LR doesn't know and doesn't care. For LR they are different lenses because they have different names.
I have similar problems, even with the camera's serial number, i.e. same camera shows up with different garbage serial numbers. What I did was to manually correct the xmp-file and reimported the file.
Most metadata browser data is EXIF data, some data like location is IPTC. EXIF is by definition read-only information. That's why ''official'' software will never allow writing EXIF - date information is an exception. There are some EXIF-Tools that allow just that, but I wouldn't mess around with my original RAW-files.
Metadata Browser query
It depends on your camera, what is written in the exif data.
My 10D only writes the zoom range, i.e. 17-40, my 30D writes EF 17-40 f/4L USM for the same lens.
You could change it with a exiftool, but it is easier to multi select the lenses in metadata browser (on windows CTRL-click).
Juergen
Many thanks for the explanation - it seems that I best learn to live with this issue.
Tom
Importing EPS files
I like Lightroom, but I can't get it to import EPS files. It simply won't recognise them. If I open an EPS file in Photoshop and resave it as a JPEG ... no problem, Lightroom sees it and will import it. Any suggestions?
Importing EPS files
Well, keep doing that? LR isn't designed to handle all formats, and eps is one it doesn't.
Importing EPS files
6000 times? Ouch. Thanks anyway John.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to leave it there. Of course, I'd make a quick little batch process action, and go have a couple of cups... depending on why the files are being imported into LR, of course.
As a strong believer that all photos are graphics, and that all graphics can be pixel captured -- by camera, scanner, or PDF -- I'd also like to lend my voice to the chorus of those interested in seeing EPS, ai, and PDF files supported. Indesign would be nice too!
'' seeing EPS, ai, and PDF files supported''
Nope...get Bridge. The intent and design of Lightroom is to concentrate on digital photo files (raw or jpg) first and foremost to avoid the same problem Bridge has which is it has too many masters to serve. The fact that Lightroom was extended to import tiff and psds is enough of an expansion. Originally, LR beta 1 couldn't even import psds...
I feel the issues with Bridge are more related to it being the first stab at a digital asset workflow. The next generation DAM will benefit from the lessons of LR, but it doesn't negate the fact that with the suite a photo can be a bunch pixels glued together in any popular adobe format.
Lightroom is not a Photoshop substitute; it's much narrower in both purpose and design. Photoshop is like a swiss army knife -- it is designed to do things that are useful to web designers, photographers, digital artists, graphic artists, videographers, law enforcement officials, scientists, etc. It's mostly a pixel manipulation program, but it includes a fair amount of vector stuff as well. As I said, it's like a swiss army knife, but (unlike a swiss army knife) it actually is very good at most of what it does.
Lightroom, on the other hand, is designed as a photographer's workflow database. Its primary function, other than to operate as a database, is to allow images from the camera to be manipulated similarly to how Adobe Camera Raw handles them. This means that the core functionality of LR is linear color space manipulation.
Some parts of this are directly pixel-related, but all of the functions are based on RGB pixel files. Even when it was extended to manipulate the color space of non-linear color space files (TIFFs and JPEGs), it did so in a way that was very close to what it does with the ACR functionalities. This cannot be easily extended to vector-based file types, such as Illustrator or EPS files. Likewise, it cannot be easily extended to CMYK files.
Modifying LR to handle vector file types or CMYK files would be a departure from its purpose and design concepts similar to modifying a car to fly or go across water. Most users of cars don't want to pay for this or need this; likewise, most digital photographers don't want to pay for or need a photographic workflow program that will handle file types that they don't use in their workflow. To the extent photographers need to convert their work for final publication to CMYK, they can use Photoshop, which they likely also have.
%26gt;This cannot be easily extended to vector-based file types, such as Illustrator or EPS files.
I don't think this is what anyone was asking.
I can confirm it's not what I've been pitching for.
%26gt;Modifying LR to handle vector file types or CMYK files would be a departure from its purpose and design concepts similar to modifying a car to fly or go across water.
??? I guess that depends on what you mean by handle. Modifying LR to render previews of these files isn't rocket science -- for those that think rocket science is hard. The most important asset of LR is the tracking and processing of the digital assets it ingests. I'm only interested in generating a flattened preview of those assets -- much as Bridge and some other applications and OS's already do. Photos of photos are used much more widely than the original photo itself.
Given that these standards were developed ''in-house'' by Adobe, I don't think they need to fly or walk across water to incorporate this request. They have the technolgy. Perhaps it's just the comprehension of this potential that's missing and appears to be putting people on the defensive.
%26gt;most digital photographers don't want to pay for or need a photographic workflow program that will handle file types that they don't use in their workflow. To the extent photographers need to convert their work for final publication to CMYK, they can use Photoshop, which they likely also have.
While you may presume to speak for all photographers, I only speak for that portion which is interested in tracking their assets and keeping a photo of them on file. I suspect that's a lot more people than you think.
A few years back, before and during the launch of ACR, many photographers (check the DPreview and photo.net archives to statisfy yourself) argued that RAW files were unnecessary as JPEGS were as good as a photographer ever needed. As people become aware of how to use their assets -- their minds changed. I'm sure you wouldn't have wanted Jeff or myself to have taken your position back then that photographers didn't need or want to pay for something they didn't understand -- like RAW files.
Hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
If Lightroom allows psd files with vector data for clipping paths and text it should also allow EPS files that are RGB pixel based. As part of a photographers workflow keeping track and stacking of related image files in the photoshop eps format is important.
I agree that Lightroom should not be designed for vector only eps files.
A line can be drawn, like that which presently exists for psd files, that would disallow vector only files.
On the subject of CMYK files - it would be great if they could be added only for the purpose of Digital Asset Management.
Importing EPS files
Well, keep doing that? LR isn't designed to handle all formats, and eps is one it doesn't.
Importing EPS files
6000 times? Ouch. Thanks anyway John.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to leave it there. Of course, I'd make a quick little batch process action, and go have a couple of cups... depending on why the files are being imported into LR, of course.
As a strong believer that all photos are graphics, and that all graphics can be pixel captured -- by camera, scanner, or PDF -- I'd also like to lend my voice to the chorus of those interested in seeing EPS, ai, and PDF files supported. Indesign would be nice too!
'' seeing EPS, ai, and PDF files supported''
Nope...get Bridge. The intent and design of Lightroom is to concentrate on digital photo files (raw or jpg) first and foremost to avoid the same problem Bridge has which is it has too many masters to serve. The fact that Lightroom was extended to import tiff and psds is enough of an expansion. Originally, LR beta 1 couldn't even import psds...
I feel the issues with Bridge are more related to it being the first stab at a digital asset workflow. The next generation DAM will benefit from the lessons of LR, but it doesn't negate the fact that with the suite a photo can be a bunch pixels glued together in any popular adobe format.
Lightroom is not a Photoshop substitute; it's much narrower in both purpose and design. Photoshop is like a swiss army knife -- it is designed to do things that are useful to web designers, photographers, digital artists, graphic artists, videographers, law enforcement officials, scientists, etc. It's mostly a pixel manipulation program, but it includes a fair amount of vector stuff as well. As I said, it's like a swiss army knife, but (unlike a swiss army knife) it actually is very good at most of what it does.
Lightroom, on the other hand, is designed as a photographer's workflow database. Its primary function, other than to operate as a database, is to allow images from the camera to be manipulated similarly to how Adobe Camera Raw handles them. This means that the core functionality of LR is linear color space manipulation.
Some parts of this are directly pixel-related, but all of the functions are based on RGB pixel files. Even when it was extended to manipulate the color space of non-linear color space files (TIFFs and JPEGs), it did so in a way that was very close to what it does with the ACR functionalities. This cannot be easily extended to vector-based file types, such as Illustrator or EPS files. Likewise, it cannot be easily extended to CMYK files.
Modifying LR to handle vector file types or CMYK files would be a departure from its purpose and design concepts similar to modifying a car to fly or go across water. Most users of cars don't want to pay for this or need this; likewise, most digital photographers don't want to pay for or need a photographic workflow program that will handle file types that they don't use in their workflow. To the extent photographers need to convert their work for final publication to CMYK, they can use Photoshop, which they likely also have.
%26gt;This cannot be easily extended to vector-based file types, such as Illustrator or EPS files.
I don't think this is what anyone was asking.
I can confirm it's not what I've been pitching for.
%26gt;Modifying LR to handle vector file types or CMYK files would be a departure from its purpose and design concepts similar to modifying a car to fly or go across water.
??? I guess that depends on what you mean by handle. Modifying LR to render previews of these files isn't rocket science -- for those that think rocket science is hard. The most important asset of LR is the tracking and processing of the digital assets it ingests. I'm only interested in generating a flattened preview of those assets -- much as Bridge and some other applications and OS's already do. Photos of photos are used much more widely than the original photo itself.
Given that these standards were developed ''in-house'' by Adobe, I don't think they need to fly or walk across water to incorporate this request. They have the technolgy. Perhaps it's just the comprehension of this potential that's missing and appears to be putting people on the defensive.
%26gt;most digital photographers don't want to pay for or need a photographic workflow program that will handle file types that they don't use in their workflow. To the extent photographers need to convert their work for final publication to CMYK, they can use Photoshop, which they likely also have.
While you may presume to speak for all photographers, I only speak for that portion which is interested in tracking their assets and keeping a photo of them on file. I suspect that's a lot more people than you think.
A few years back, before and during the launch of ACR, many photographers (check the DPreview and photo.net archives to statisfy yourself) argued that RAW files were unnecessary as JPEGS were as good as a photographer ever needed. As people become aware of how to use their assets -- their minds changed. I'm sure you wouldn't have wanted Jeff or myself to have taken your position back then that photographers didn't need or want to pay for something they didn't understand -- like RAW files.
Hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
If Lightroom allows psd files with vector data for clipping paths and text it should also allow EPS files that are RGB pixel based. As part of a photographers workflow keeping track and stacking of related image files in the photoshop eps format is important.
I agree that Lightroom should not be designed for vector only eps files.
A line can be drawn, like that which presently exists for psd files, that would disallow vector only files.
On the subject of CMYK files - it would be great if they could be added only for the purpose of Digital Asset Management.
What's in a photo anyway?
Bridge has the ability to preview .ai, EPS, and PDF files. LR insists tha it can't preview these items as they are not photos.
I recall Thomas Knoll stating in the ACR forum some time ago that the goal of the LR team was to bring ACR -- or was that Bridge? -- and LR compatability onto the same playing field.
Does anyone know if LR is still moving toward previewing placed photos and artwork in Indesign, Illustrator, and Acrobat files? T'would sure be handy for cataloging purposes ... whether photos, dustjackets, illustrations, or posterwork ...
What's in a photo anyway?
''Does anyone know if LR is still moving toward previewing placed photos and artwork in Indesign, Illustrator, and Acrobat files?''
No, Lightroom is being designed for photos...only.
What's in a photo anyway?
And Thomas' prognostication (?- can the designer prognositcate, or is it something else?) came true- ACR and LR are virtually on par in handling of RAW files.
%26gt;Lightroom is being designed for photos...only
Shame, cuz I thought all pixelations had become ubiquitous ... :-(
Yet for some funny reason LR seems to handle PSD's just fine.
I wonder if John Paul would consider his revisionist photography as photography ... or not?
Oh, you can have other than photos in LR, if they are TIFFs, PSDs or JPEGs, but photographs is what LR is all about. Bridge has the links to non Photo apps, not LR.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Layered TIFFs and PSDs are not functionally that much different than layered PDFs, EPS or Ai files. It just suprised me Jeff is so absolutely confident LR is being limited to ''camera photos''. I guess I'm losing the strategy here. %26lt;sigh%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;Cataloging all kinds of derivative photo works seems to me like a no brainer and a natural extension for LR. It's a win-win (i.e. suite) for both Adobe and it's customers.
The rationale behind Adobe decision seems to me quite obvious. The core of the application is developing module and all the formats supported can be modified using exactly the same functions.
I cannot imagine how could you change white balance or curves for pdf files.
%26gt; I cannot imagine how could you change white balance or curves for pdf files.
The same way as a PSD.
I recall Thomas Knoll stating in the ACR forum some time ago that the goal of the LR team was to bring ACR -- or was that Bridge? -- and LR compatability onto the same playing field.
Does anyone know if LR is still moving toward previewing placed photos and artwork in Indesign, Illustrator, and Acrobat files? T'would sure be handy for cataloging purposes ... whether photos, dustjackets, illustrations, or posterwork ...
What's in a photo anyway?
''Does anyone know if LR is still moving toward previewing placed photos and artwork in Indesign, Illustrator, and Acrobat files?''
No, Lightroom is being designed for photos...only.
What's in a photo anyway?
And Thomas' prognostication (?- can the designer prognositcate, or is it something else?) came true- ACR and LR are virtually on par in handling of RAW files.
%26gt;Lightroom is being designed for photos...only
Shame, cuz I thought all pixelations had become ubiquitous ... :-(
Yet for some funny reason LR seems to handle PSD's just fine.
I wonder if John Paul would consider his revisionist photography as photography ... or not?
Oh, you can have other than photos in LR, if they are TIFFs, PSDs or JPEGs, but photographs is what LR is all about. Bridge has the links to non Photo apps, not LR.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Layered TIFFs and PSDs are not functionally that much different than layered PDFs, EPS or Ai files. It just suprised me Jeff is so absolutely confident LR is being limited to ''camera photos''. I guess I'm losing the strategy here. %26lt;sigh%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;Cataloging all kinds of derivative photo works seems to me like a no brainer and a natural extension for LR. It's a win-win (i.e. suite) for both Adobe and it's customers.
The rationale behind Adobe decision seems to me quite obvious. The core of the application is developing module and all the formats supported can be modified using exactly the same functions.
I cannot imagine how could you change white balance or curves for pdf files.
%26gt; I cannot imagine how could you change white balance or curves for pdf files.
The same way as a PSD.
Keyword error correction
On checking through my keywords I noticed I had 2 entries for Scotland one of was Scotland, whilst the other is Scotland , i.e a space between the d and the ,.
There are about 1200 images where I need to remove that space - any suggestions would be very much appreciated.
Many thanks
Tom
Keyword error correction
''There are about 1200 images where I need to remove that space - any suggestions would be very much appreciated. ''
In the metadata browser, select the keyword that is incorrect...the 1200 images should be the only images visible. Slect all and in the metadata panel, select the incorrect keyword and retype it correctly then hit enter. That should change all the incorrect keywords to the correct keywords.
Then, in the Keyword panel delete the incorrect keyword.
Keyword error correction
Many thanks Jeff that worked a treat.
Tom
There are about 1200 images where I need to remove that space - any suggestions would be very much appreciated.
Many thanks
Tom
Keyword error correction
''There are about 1200 images where I need to remove that space - any suggestions would be very much appreciated. ''
In the metadata browser, select the keyword that is incorrect...the 1200 images should be the only images visible. Slect all and in the metadata panel, select the incorrect keyword and retype it correctly then hit enter. That should change all the incorrect keywords to the correct keywords.
Then, in the Keyword panel delete the incorrect keyword.
Keyword error correction
Many thanks Jeff that worked a treat.
Tom
Plus sign next to a folder?
Hey all,
I have a little plus sign next to the file total for a folder I made called ''2007''. There are no subfolders. Any idea what it means? Not much in the way of documentation that I can find...
LR reports that I have 1056 images in ''2007'', whereas the finder shows I have 1074. Am I missing 18 photos somehow?
Also, next to ''All Photographs'', I have 8167/8171. Not sure what this discrepancy means. Am I missing 4 pics? Again, according to the finder, I have 8416 image files. A much bigger discrepancy. Any tips as to resolving these numbers?
Thanks,
rkny
Plus sign next to a folder?
You have some images in stacks? that's what the + means...and why you have numbers/numbers readouts.
Plus sign next to a folder?
Thanks. I did have some images in stacks. I highlighted everything, selected unstack all, (and/or expand stacks) and I'm still getting the plus sign.
-rkny
Then you may have a filter on.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Nope, filters are off. Thanks anyhow.
Exact same problem here - all stacks expanded and no filters on - I can even see the files not displayed in the Library View when I open the source folder in the Finder (thank God!), But I cannot get them to show up in the Library - even when I choose ''Check for mising folders and photos''?
One of my folders kept showing 337+ - finally gave up and deleted the folder and reimported it from scratch (lost all my stacks, etc.) all 345 images that the finder showed to be there, now show up again (for a while anyway). About had a heart attack as several of my ''Edited'' files showed to be lost - they were still there, Lightromm just could not see them anymore.
If you see this type of thing I suggest you close LR and reopen to see if they show before more drastic action.
Virtual Copies also create the + sign and change apparent counts.
oil companies
I have a little plus sign next to the file total for a folder I made called ''2007''. There are no subfolders. Any idea what it means? Not much in the way of documentation that I can find...
LR reports that I have 1056 images in ''2007'', whereas the finder shows I have 1074. Am I missing 18 photos somehow?
Also, next to ''All Photographs'', I have 8167/8171. Not sure what this discrepancy means. Am I missing 4 pics? Again, according to the finder, I have 8416 image files. A much bigger discrepancy. Any tips as to resolving these numbers?
Thanks,
rkny
Plus sign next to a folder?
You have some images in stacks? that's what the + means...and why you have numbers/numbers readouts.
Plus sign next to a folder?
Thanks. I did have some images in stacks. I highlighted everything, selected unstack all, (and/or expand stacks) and I'm still getting the plus sign.
-rkny
Then you may have a filter on.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Nope, filters are off. Thanks anyhow.
Exact same problem here - all stacks expanded and no filters on - I can even see the files not displayed in the Library View when I open the source folder in the Finder (thank God!), But I cannot get them to show up in the Library - even when I choose ''Check for mising folders and photos''?
One of my folders kept showing 337+ - finally gave up and deleted the folder and reimported it from scratch (lost all my stacks, etc.) all 345 images that the finder showed to be there, now show up again (for a while anyway). About had a heart attack as several of my ''Edited'' files showed to be lost - they were still there, Lightromm just could not see them anymore.
If you see this type of thing I suggest you close LR and reopen to see if they show before more drastic action.
Virtual Copies also create the + sign and change apparent counts.
LR ''equivalent'' to Photoshop USM Local...
I've been playing with LR 1.0 and I can't seem to find any sort of ''equivalent'' way of getting the results I get from the Unsharp Mask ''Local Contrast Enhancement'' effect. I've tried working with the curves, the exposure sliders, the contrast slider, etc., but nothing I do gives me the effect I get with a USM LCE effect, which I can achieve in Photoshop very quickly.
I fully realize that I'm simply ''used to'' a certain way of working, and that there are other options and methodologies for post processing in LR that I'm not yet accustomed to. With all the research that has gone into LR, there is obviously a way of processing that leads to a similar end result as what I'm used to, but so far, I just can't get results out of LR as good as what I'm used to with PS.
Can anyone give me any suggestions on this?
Thanks,
Larry
LR ''equivalent'' to Photoshop USM Local...
Try bumping Blacks and Fill Light pretty High like %26gt;50
LR ''equivalent'' to Photoshop USM Local...
That isn't working for me. The closest control I can find to the LCE effect is the ''Contrast'' slider (which would of course make sense since it's ''contrast''), but this is an approximation at best. For some shots, the end result is nothing like the effect I get with LCE.
Thanks,
Larry
LCE/haze reduction is an often-requested feature. Hopefully it will show up in a future release.
I fully realize that I'm simply ''used to'' a certain way of working, and that there are other options and methodologies for post processing in LR that I'm not yet accustomed to. With all the research that has gone into LR, there is obviously a way of processing that leads to a similar end result as what I'm used to, but so far, I just can't get results out of LR as good as what I'm used to with PS.
Can anyone give me any suggestions on this?
Thanks,
Larry
LR ''equivalent'' to Photoshop USM Local...
Try bumping Blacks and Fill Light pretty High like %26gt;50
LR ''equivalent'' to Photoshop USM Local...
That isn't working for me. The closest control I can find to the LCE effect is the ''Contrast'' slider (which would of course make sense since it's ''contrast''), but this is an approximation at best. For some shots, the end result is nothing like the effect I get with LCE.
Thanks,
Larry
LCE/haze reduction is an often-requested feature. Hopefully it will show up in a future release.
Low-res jpg looks awesome !
I developed my 4M RAW images. I developed a picture using 100% jpg quality which resulted in a 3,519KB file and the same picture using 61% resolution (240ppi) which resulted in a 453KB file. I printed both on 8x10 and could see a difference, but not nearly as much as I had thought. Focusing on a hair in the picture, I could tell one was a tiny bit darker. WOW !!!! 3.5M vs. 45K... that's almost 10% and close to no degradation. Am I missing something or should I convert my whole database to files that are in the 900KB range IF I ASSUME I''LL NEVER PRINT LARGER THAN AN 8X10 NOR TRY TO ZOOM IN ON ANYTHING ??
Sorry if this sounds stupid to the professionals.. whom I can imagine are wincing at this point :).
Thanks,
-Ed
Low-res jpg looks awesome !
I would keep them as raw, it is the original.
Why would you want to make them all into low res jpegs anyway?
Low-res jpg looks awesome !
RAW is your negative, and while it's good you can get good prints from a much smaller file, one day you may wish to redevelop from RAW, and/or print much larger. Or crop, or .....
%26gt;IF I ASSUME I''LL NEVER PRINT LARGER THAN AN 8X10 NOR TRY TO ZOOM IN ON ANYTHING ??
I don't think you should assume this. What if some amazing new technology provides you w/the opportunity to make 16x20 prints of unbelievable quality for cheap? (for example)
I like the way LR runs w/small files in the library, so I shoot RAW+jpg on my camera (D-80), stash the RAWs away (ext. HD) and load those jpgs into LR. They're small, fine JPGs w/enough data for the size image you mention, if needed, and LR is nice and speedy. (Also, my laptop HD is not filling up too fast) I don't have to postprocess each RAW, either.
Works for me, but I just can't ''burn that bridge'' and toss those RAWs.
jeff
Addendum:
The enhancement of LR's speed by using smaller library files applies to Importing, Exporting, Printing, Web module.
There should be no noticeable increase in speed while working in Library, Develop, or SlideShow modules, as I understand it. These modules use the previews, which have been built during Import.
jeff
Hi Jeff,
the workflow you described by shooting Raw + JPG stashing the RAW files away and using solely the jpgs only uses a fraction of the potential of LR.
I heard the statements of a very good photographer saying that he isn't good enough to shoot jpg. What he tried to say was that he needs the adjustments you only get with raw files.
Try adjusting White Balance with a Raw file and the corresponding jpg. This is like day and night. And this is just one example.
regards
Chris
%26gt;the workflow you described by shooting Raw + JPG stashing the RAW files away and using solely the jpgs only uses a fraction of the potential of LR.
I agree, and for me this fraction is probably 9/10. ;)
When I've botched the exposure, the RAW file can be quite helpful for detail recovery, i.e. the highlights. Otherwise, the JPG is fine, especially as LR always works with the original library file. One reiteration of a fine-quality JPG is no problem, IMO, and one reiteration will get you wherever you want to go in LR. It's great!
%26gt;Try adjusting White Balance with a Raw file and the corresponding jpg. This is like day and night.
I think that's too generalized. If the camera has selected the correct WB, there should be no diff. After all, the camera is working with the same RAW data. So far, my D-80 has nailed it. Another reason I keep those RAWs is for the occasion when the camera blows it. When that occurs, you are correct - I'll use the RAW file to adjust the WB, not that botched JPG, which I'll discard. This hasn't happened, yet.
Keep in mind also, that I'm not (at this time) doing any special effects to my images, such as Greyscale, Sepia tone, etc. So if the in-camera generated JPG has accurate WB and I've exposed it correctly, I crop and sharpen in PP, and that's about it, having applied my camera-calibration preset on import. Maybe some shadow recovery, too. BTW, I have in-camera sharpening set to NONE.
Coming from years in the darkroom and from scanning film, this workflow is so rewarding and easy that I shoot more photos. :) The in-camera processing (sharpening not included) is so good that the JPGs save me PP time/effort for most images.
I appreciate your comments just the same, Chris. If I'm wrong about this, I'd like to know, and the sooner the better. :)
thanks,
jeff
PS: someone will ask, ''What about Capture NX?'' Just like NikonScan software before it, Capture NX sucks, on toast, IMO. Great camera company, they need to stay out of the software business. NX is a clunky, slow, pretty app. No, thanks. The D-80 makes a fine JPG.
Jeff,
I use a D70 and I agree that the nikon jpgs are quite good. But let me make two remarks here.
1. I like using my 50mm f1.4 lens to shoot indoor without flash. This gives a very natural light especially if you try to capture action on a stage. But in this use case I rarely get good WB in the jpgs with my D70 and I rely heavily on RAW.
2. I switched to Raw a year ago using Photoshop CS2, Bridge and PhotoKit Sharpener. After comparing my JPGs with JPGs created with my Raw work flow including Capture sharpening resizing and Output sharpening for the Monitor I realized that the switch to this workflow had more impact regarding to image quality than as going from 3 to 6Megaixels. It was just WOW!
Unfortunately this work flow is not (yet) there with LR. I still use the ImageProcessor script with PhotoKit Sharpener Actions to render the JPGs for the slideshows. But all I want to say is that the switch to RAW made a huge difference to the quality of my pictures.
Chris
Sorry if this sounds stupid to the professionals.. whom I can imagine are wincing at this point :).
Thanks,
-Ed
Low-res jpg looks awesome !
I would keep them as raw, it is the original.
Why would you want to make them all into low res jpegs anyway?
Low-res jpg looks awesome !
RAW is your negative, and while it's good you can get good prints from a much smaller file, one day you may wish to redevelop from RAW, and/or print much larger. Or crop, or .....
%26gt;IF I ASSUME I''LL NEVER PRINT LARGER THAN AN 8X10 NOR TRY TO ZOOM IN ON ANYTHING ??
I don't think you should assume this. What if some amazing new technology provides you w/the opportunity to make 16x20 prints of unbelievable quality for cheap? (for example)
I like the way LR runs w/small files in the library, so I shoot RAW+jpg on my camera (D-80), stash the RAWs away (ext. HD) and load those jpgs into LR. They're small, fine JPGs w/enough data for the size image you mention, if needed, and LR is nice and speedy. (Also, my laptop HD is not filling up too fast) I don't have to postprocess each RAW, either.
Works for me, but I just can't ''burn that bridge'' and toss those RAWs.
jeff
Addendum:
The enhancement of LR's speed by using smaller library files applies to Importing, Exporting, Printing, Web module.
There should be no noticeable increase in speed while working in Library, Develop, or SlideShow modules, as I understand it. These modules use the previews, which have been built during Import.
jeff
Hi Jeff,
the workflow you described by shooting Raw + JPG stashing the RAW files away and using solely the jpgs only uses a fraction of the potential of LR.
I heard the statements of a very good photographer saying that he isn't good enough to shoot jpg. What he tried to say was that he needs the adjustments you only get with raw files.
Try adjusting White Balance with a Raw file and the corresponding jpg. This is like day and night. And this is just one example.
regards
Chris
%26gt;the workflow you described by shooting Raw + JPG stashing the RAW files away and using solely the jpgs only uses a fraction of the potential of LR.
I agree, and for me this fraction is probably 9/10. ;)
When I've botched the exposure, the RAW file can be quite helpful for detail recovery, i.e. the highlights. Otherwise, the JPG is fine, especially as LR always works with the original library file. One reiteration of a fine-quality JPG is no problem, IMO, and one reiteration will get you wherever you want to go in LR. It's great!
%26gt;Try adjusting White Balance with a Raw file and the corresponding jpg. This is like day and night.
I think that's too generalized. If the camera has selected the correct WB, there should be no diff. After all, the camera is working with the same RAW data. So far, my D-80 has nailed it. Another reason I keep those RAWs is for the occasion when the camera blows it. When that occurs, you are correct - I'll use the RAW file to adjust the WB, not that botched JPG, which I'll discard. This hasn't happened, yet.
Keep in mind also, that I'm not (at this time) doing any special effects to my images, such as Greyscale, Sepia tone, etc. So if the in-camera generated JPG has accurate WB and I've exposed it correctly, I crop and sharpen in PP, and that's about it, having applied my camera-calibration preset on import. Maybe some shadow recovery, too. BTW, I have in-camera sharpening set to NONE.
Coming from years in the darkroom and from scanning film, this workflow is so rewarding and easy that I shoot more photos. :) The in-camera processing (sharpening not included) is so good that the JPGs save me PP time/effort for most images.
I appreciate your comments just the same, Chris. If I'm wrong about this, I'd like to know, and the sooner the better. :)
thanks,
jeff
PS: someone will ask, ''What about Capture NX?'' Just like NikonScan software before it, Capture NX sucks, on toast, IMO. Great camera company, they need to stay out of the software business. NX is a clunky, slow, pretty app. No, thanks. The D-80 makes a fine JPG.
Jeff,
I use a D70 and I agree that the nikon jpgs are quite good. But let me make two remarks here.
1. I like using my 50mm f1.4 lens to shoot indoor without flash. This gives a very natural light especially if you try to capture action on a stage. But in this use case I rarely get good WB in the jpgs with my D70 and I rely heavily on RAW.
2. I switched to Raw a year ago using Photoshop CS2, Bridge and PhotoKit Sharpener. After comparing my JPGs with JPGs created with my Raw work flow including Capture sharpening resizing and Output sharpening for the Monitor I realized that the switch to this workflow had more impact regarding to image quality than as going from 3 to 6Megaixels. It was just WOW!
Unfortunately this work flow is not (yet) there with LR. I still use the ImageProcessor script with PhotoKit Sharpener Actions to render the JPGs for the slideshows. But all I want to say is that the switch to RAW made a huge difference to the quality of my pictures.
Chris
Installation with two users
I've installed Lightroom under one user account on the only desktop computer in my house, but when I try to use it in the other user account, I get a ''Runtime Error'' message. Both accounts have administrator privileges. Anyone have any ideas?
Installation with two users
OS? Where is library installed?
Installation with two users
Vista Premium. I don't even get to the point where I can choose where the library is located.
Here's what I get when I try to run Lightroom:
A window with the following - Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library
In the window, the following - Runtime Error! This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way. Please contact the application's support team for more information.
Anything? Anyone?
Installation with two users
OS? Where is library installed?
Installation with two users
Vista Premium. I don't even get to the point where I can choose where the library is located.
Here's what I get when I try to run Lightroom:
A window with the following - Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library
In the window, the following - Runtime Error! This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way. Please contact the application's support team for more information.
Anything? Anyone?
DPI or PPI during cropping?
Is there a way to get a readout of the PPI or DPI in real time during cropping?
Regards,
David
DPI or PPI during cropping?
There is no ppi or dpi until export (well, until print, actually) because there is no ''i'' (inches).
DPI or PPI during cropping?
I meant that during cropping, Lightroom would know the dimensions of the crop and the number of pixels within the crop and should be able to calculate the PPI or DPI. i use this while working in bibble to be sure that i do not crop too much and end up with a lower resolution. Is this measurement possible in Lightroom?
LR does not know the dimensions of the crop, only the aspect ratio.
You can get the pixel dimensions during the cropping operation via the info display, if you set it up for that.
via the info display?
Yes. Hit ''I'' and it'll cycle through the options. You can set them up through the view, view options, loupe view preferences panel. Set one of them that you prefer to either cropped dimensions or megapixels.
That leaves me with the division in my head but would do the trick, thank you.
''Set one of them that you prefer to either cropped dimensions or megapixels.''
Yes, that shows the info I often need to see when cropping, but shouldn't there be something approaching instant feedback showing latest cropped dimensions (as in Photoshop)? On my Mac G4 1.47GHz (dual processor with 2 Gb RAM), LR seems to require approx 10 seconds before updating the info display to show current cropped dimensions. Is this typical? That's painfully slow feedback and makes cropping to a fixed pixel dimension a very tedious process.
Phil
No, that's not typical, it's a bug. I *think* the team is aware of that one. There are mac/PC differences with updating the info display as well.
Regards,
David
DPI or PPI during cropping?
There is no ppi or dpi until export (well, until print, actually) because there is no ''i'' (inches).
DPI or PPI during cropping?
I meant that during cropping, Lightroom would know the dimensions of the crop and the number of pixels within the crop and should be able to calculate the PPI or DPI. i use this while working in bibble to be sure that i do not crop too much and end up with a lower resolution. Is this measurement possible in Lightroom?
LR does not know the dimensions of the crop, only the aspect ratio.
You can get the pixel dimensions during the cropping operation via the info display, if you set it up for that.
via the info display?
Yes. Hit ''I'' and it'll cycle through the options. You can set them up through the view, view options, loupe view preferences panel. Set one of them that you prefer to either cropped dimensions or megapixels.
That leaves me with the division in my head but would do the trick, thank you.
''Set one of them that you prefer to either cropped dimensions or megapixels.''
Yes, that shows the info I often need to see when cropping, but shouldn't there be something approaching instant feedback showing latest cropped dimensions (as in Photoshop)? On my Mac G4 1.47GHz (dual processor with 2 Gb RAM), LR seems to require approx 10 seconds before updating the info display to show current cropped dimensions. Is this typical? That's painfully slow feedback and makes cropping to a fixed pixel dimension a very tedious process.
Phil
No, that's not typical, it's a bug. I *think* the team is aware of that one. There are mac/PC differences with updating the info display as well.
Search on EXIF data
I am trying to find, for example, all of my ISO 1600 images taken with a certain camera. So I click on the camera in the Metadata Browser and all the images taken with that camera pop up in the Grid. Then I go into the Find tab, choose EXIF in the drop down box on the left, then type ISO 1600 in the text field - I first checked Containing in the right drop down box. Nothing happens, no images appear even though I have plenty of ISO 1600 images taken with that camera as shown in the actual EXIF fields on right side panel in LR. I have tried typing the info from every EXIF field in the Find text box and nothing works except the camera serial number.
I would really like to search on several other EXIF fields as well.
I suppose I am doing something wrong. Can anybody help?
Thanks
Bill Wood
Search on EXIF data
The ISO field isn't searchable in LR version 1.0. You haven't done anything wrong.
I would really like to search on several other EXIF fields as well.
I suppose I am doing something wrong. Can anybody help?
Thanks
Bill Wood
Search on EXIF data
The ISO field isn't searchable in LR version 1.0. You haven't done anything wrong.
Can't print borderless w/Epson R800 and...
Hi,
I can't seem to get LR Mac to print borderless 4x6 prints on my Epson Stylus Photo R800.
I am selecting ''4x6 (borderless)'' from the paper size drop down menu in Page Setup. However, when the image appears, LR automatically selects minimum margins of 0.13in that it won't let me deselect or reduce to 0. Consequently, all of my 4x6 prints have a small white border all the way around.
Am I missing something? Does anyone know how to fix?
Thanks
Can't print borderless w/Epson R800 and...
What does the preview in LR print show? I haven't had any trouble with borderless 4x6's on my R1800. Did you pick 'Maximum Size' in the presets and 4x6(Borderless)in the Print Set=up from an .icc or the generic?
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Can't print borderless w/Epson R800 and...
Don - thanks. the preview shows a border.
Where is the 'maximum size' setting? I haven't found that.
I selected 4x6 (borderless) from the 'paper size' drop down menu in Page Setup. I also have the Page Setup menu selected to ''Format For' the Epson R800, so I assume it's not the generic. However, I am using an Epson custom color profile.
Any further thoughts? What am I doing wrong?
Jordan, 'maximum size' is in the templates on the left hand panel in the print module.
Also check the slider in layout%26gt;cell size in the right hand panel are set to the end right side.
To get borderless 4x6 prints, what are the correct 'paper size'(in page setup menu) and 'paper handling' (in print settings menu) settings?
My settings are as follows:
paper size: 4x6in (Borderless) (sheet feeder-borderless)
paper handling: use documents paper size: 4x6 in (borderless) (sheet feeder-borderless)
When I use these settings with Epson 4x6 paper, I do get borderless prints, but a small portion of the image is cropped off on all 4 sides?
Thanks!
What are the originals?
Are you using 'maximum size' in the preset panel?
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Thanks Don. I am using 'maximum size' preset, but have to modify it for a few things like paper type, no color management etc.
When I select 4x6 (Borderless), there is no way I can eliminate a .13in border all the way around. I need to select 4x6in (Borderless) (sheet feeder-borderless) in order to get borderless prints - but then a small portion of the image is cropped on all 4 sides
I am beginning to think there's a software defect here.
I should add that when I select 4x6in (Borderless) (sheet feeder-borderless) and am about to make a borderless print on Espon 4x6 paper, everything looks fine in the print preview.
But when the actual print is made, it is slightly cropped on all 4 sides...
The ''slight cropping'' is inherent in Epson's borderless printing. The driver enlarges the image to be slightly larger than the paper size so there are no borders left due to paper misalignment. This is the equivalent of ''bleed'' in sending an image to a print house.
Thanks for that Bit of info Michael. Makes sense and something that often would not be noticed.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Thanks All.
The effects of that slight cropping can be minimized by dragging the slider in the 'Expansion' setting (in the print menu) all the way to the left. This minimizes the amount by which the drivder enlarges the image.
I must be missing something, I don't find the option for 4x6 (borderles)(sheet feed borderless). It does not show up in my selections where I find 4x6 (borderless)
What am I doing wrong or different?
Carl,
In the 'print' module of lightroom. In the lower right corner, click the 'page setup' button. In there, under 'paper size' you should see the various paper size options, including the different 4x6 papers. (You might need to go into a sub-menu to get the 4x6 (borderless)(sheet feed borderless) option.
Interestingly, I don't have a 4x6 non-borderless (i.e., with border) option..
I'm having a similar problem with my wife's computer and R800. We want a border but a small white one. The problem is all our prints come out lopsided. Even though lightroom shows an even border on all sides we still get one side with a bigger border than the other.
After some mucking around I installed the borderless driver. However now when I print it comes out totally blank. I'm not sure what to do.
Any ideas?
Thanks
oil companies
I can't seem to get LR Mac to print borderless 4x6 prints on my Epson Stylus Photo R800.
I am selecting ''4x6 (borderless)'' from the paper size drop down menu in Page Setup. However, when the image appears, LR automatically selects minimum margins of 0.13in that it won't let me deselect or reduce to 0. Consequently, all of my 4x6 prints have a small white border all the way around.
Am I missing something? Does anyone know how to fix?
Thanks
Can't print borderless w/Epson R800 and...
What does the preview in LR print show? I haven't had any trouble with borderless 4x6's on my R1800. Did you pick 'Maximum Size' in the presets and 4x6(Borderless)in the Print Set=up from an .icc or the generic?
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Can't print borderless w/Epson R800 and...
Don - thanks. the preview shows a border.
Where is the 'maximum size' setting? I haven't found that.
I selected 4x6 (borderless) from the 'paper size' drop down menu in Page Setup. I also have the Page Setup menu selected to ''Format For' the Epson R800, so I assume it's not the generic. However, I am using an Epson custom color profile.
Any further thoughts? What am I doing wrong?
Jordan, 'maximum size' is in the templates on the left hand panel in the print module.
Also check the slider in layout%26gt;cell size in the right hand panel are set to the end right side.
To get borderless 4x6 prints, what are the correct 'paper size'(in page setup menu) and 'paper handling' (in print settings menu) settings?
My settings are as follows:
paper size: 4x6in (Borderless) (sheet feeder-borderless)
paper handling: use documents paper size: 4x6 in (borderless) (sheet feeder-borderless)
When I use these settings with Epson 4x6 paper, I do get borderless prints, but a small portion of the image is cropped off on all 4 sides?
Thanks!
What are the originals?
Are you using 'maximum size' in the preset panel?
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Thanks Don. I am using 'maximum size' preset, but have to modify it for a few things like paper type, no color management etc.
When I select 4x6 (Borderless), there is no way I can eliminate a .13in border all the way around. I need to select 4x6in (Borderless) (sheet feeder-borderless) in order to get borderless prints - but then a small portion of the image is cropped on all 4 sides
I am beginning to think there's a software defect here.
I should add that when I select 4x6in (Borderless) (sheet feeder-borderless) and am about to make a borderless print on Espon 4x6 paper, everything looks fine in the print preview.
But when the actual print is made, it is slightly cropped on all 4 sides...
The ''slight cropping'' is inherent in Epson's borderless printing. The driver enlarges the image to be slightly larger than the paper size so there are no borders left due to paper misalignment. This is the equivalent of ''bleed'' in sending an image to a print house.
Thanks for that Bit of info Michael. Makes sense and something that often would not be noticed.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Thanks All.
The effects of that slight cropping can be minimized by dragging the slider in the 'Expansion' setting (in the print menu) all the way to the left. This minimizes the amount by which the drivder enlarges the image.
I must be missing something, I don't find the option for 4x6 (borderles)(sheet feed borderless). It does not show up in my selections where I find 4x6 (borderless)
What am I doing wrong or different?
Carl,
In the 'print' module of lightroom. In the lower right corner, click the 'page setup' button. In there, under 'paper size' you should see the various paper size options, including the different 4x6 papers. (You might need to go into a sub-menu to get the 4x6 (borderless)(sheet feed borderless) option.
Interestingly, I don't have a 4x6 non-borderless (i.e., with border) option..
I'm having a similar problem with my wife's computer and R800. We want a border but a small white one. The problem is all our prints come out lopsided. Even though lightroom shows an even border on all sides we still get one side with a bigger border than the other.
After some mucking around I installed the borderless driver. However now when I print it comes out totally blank. I'm not sure what to do.
Any ideas?
Thanks
Hybrid Crop...
Hello,
I am doing shoot where I give the clients CDs and do not know how they are going to print the final image.
Since my 5D is 8x12, the 8x10 crop does the most damage.
Does anybody know if I can overlay an 8x10 area while I am cropping for 8x12?
This would be a shadow type border inside the 8x12 crop area to see if I was still safe for 8x10 printout.
The CD thing is very popular and is the future of distribution for a lot of photography.
It would be nice to see Lightroom address this trend.
Thanks
I am doing shoot where I give the clients CDs and do not know how they are going to print the final image.
Since my 5D is 8x12, the 8x10 crop does the most damage.
Does anybody know if I can overlay an 8x10 area while I am cropping for 8x12?
This would be a shadow type border inside the 8x12 crop area to see if I was still safe for 8x10 printout.
The CD thing is very popular and is the future of distribution for a lot of photography.
It would be nice to see Lightroom address this trend.
Thanks
Photoshop Image Processor?
I have become accustomed to running some Sharpening Actions from Bridge using the Photoshop Image Processor feature. Is anything like this possible through Lightroom?
Thanks,
Nick
Photoshop Image Processor?
You can create an Action in PS, convert to a droplet, and put that in Export Actions in LR.
Photoshop Image Processor?
John,
Thanks for the pointer. Some quick followup questions if I may:
My workflow is to shoot RAW, color correct in ACR, and then from Bridge, use Image Processor. I have always assumed that when Image Processor runs my sharpening actions, Photoshop processes a temporary PSD format file (in its original size) before it converts it to a JPG.
The way the Lightroom/Droplet approach sounds is that the actions/droplets are run after the JPEG conversion process (and resizing) is complete.
My questions: Is my understanding of the different sequences correct? And, does it impact the final quality in any way?
Thanks.
Nick
Nick,
When you launch your actions from Bridge, there is no temporary file: the image is loaded in memory , processed, and saved only at the end.
In my understanding of Lightroom (I am learning ;-)), you will need a temporary file to run the droplet on. But to ensure there is no loss of quality, you should export in TIFF or PSD in original size. Your action should take care of resizing and saving as JPEG. Then as far as I know you will be left with those temporary files to delete.
David.
Nick_Pudar@adobeforums.com wrote:
%26gt; John,
%26gt; Thanks for the pointer. Some quick followup questions if I may:
%26gt;
%26gt; My workflow is to shoot RAW, color correct in ACR, and then from Bridge, use Image Processor. I have always assumed that when Image Processor runs my sharpening actions, Photoshop processes a temporary PSD format file (in its original size) before it converts it to a JPG.
%26gt;
%26gt; The way the Lightroom/Droplet approach sounds is that the actions/droplets are run after the JPEG conversion process (and resizing) is complete.
%26gt;
%26gt; My questions: Is my understanding of the different sequences correct? And, does it impact the final quality in any way?
%26gt;
%26gt; Thanks.
%26gt; Nick
2 alternatives for you...
1. Allow Lightroom to export, and then run the sharpening on the
resulting files. There's a quick tutorial here
http://www.photoshopservices.co.uk/lightroom/droplets.htm. Whilst you
could export to psd and then let your droplet convert to jpeg after
sharpening, that will take a lot more processing power than going
straight to jpeg, and it's probably not worth it in a real world
environment. Saving as top quality jpeg twice is not going to kill your
file. (Test it!)
2. Alternatively, do all your colour correction in LR, save the changes
to XMP sidecar files, and then find them in Bridge with either CS2/ACR
3.7 or CS3/ACR4 and run Image Processor as you usually would. This
would just open and save each file once, as it does in your current
workflow.
Victoria
www.photoshopservices.co.uk
Victroia and David,
Thanks for your suggestions. I think I will be using Victoria's alternative 2. It seems the safe path for now.
Nick
Thanks,
Nick
Photoshop Image Processor?
You can create an Action in PS, convert to a droplet, and put that in Export Actions in LR.
Photoshop Image Processor?
John,
Thanks for the pointer. Some quick followup questions if I may:
My workflow is to shoot RAW, color correct in ACR, and then from Bridge, use Image Processor. I have always assumed that when Image Processor runs my sharpening actions, Photoshop processes a temporary PSD format file (in its original size) before it converts it to a JPG.
The way the Lightroom/Droplet approach sounds is that the actions/droplets are run after the JPEG conversion process (and resizing) is complete.
My questions: Is my understanding of the different sequences correct? And, does it impact the final quality in any way?
Thanks.
Nick
Nick,
When you launch your actions from Bridge, there is no temporary file: the image is loaded in memory , processed, and saved only at the end.
In my understanding of Lightroom (I am learning ;-)), you will need a temporary file to run the droplet on. But to ensure there is no loss of quality, you should export in TIFF or PSD in original size. Your action should take care of resizing and saving as JPEG. Then as far as I know you will be left with those temporary files to delete.
David.
Nick_Pudar@adobeforums.com wrote:
%26gt; John,
%26gt; Thanks for the pointer. Some quick followup questions if I may:
%26gt;
%26gt; My workflow is to shoot RAW, color correct in ACR, and then from Bridge, use Image Processor. I have always assumed that when Image Processor runs my sharpening actions, Photoshop processes a temporary PSD format file (in its original size) before it converts it to a JPG.
%26gt;
%26gt; The way the Lightroom/Droplet approach sounds is that the actions/droplets are run after the JPEG conversion process (and resizing) is complete.
%26gt;
%26gt; My questions: Is my understanding of the different sequences correct? And, does it impact the final quality in any way?
%26gt;
%26gt; Thanks.
%26gt; Nick
2 alternatives for you...
1. Allow Lightroom to export, and then run the sharpening on the
resulting files. There's a quick tutorial here
http://www.photoshopservices.co.uk/lightroom/droplets.htm. Whilst you
could export to psd and then let your droplet convert to jpeg after
sharpening, that will take a lot more processing power than going
straight to jpeg, and it's probably not worth it in a real world
environment. Saving as top quality jpeg twice is not going to kill your
file. (Test it!)
2. Alternatively, do all your colour correction in LR, save the changes
to XMP sidecar files, and then find them in Bridge with either CS2/ACR
3.7 or CS3/ACR4 and run Image Processor as you usually would. This
would just open and save each file once, as it does in your current
workflow.
Victoria
www.photoshopservices.co.uk
Victroia and David,
Thanks for your suggestions. I think I will be using Victoria's alternative 2. It seems the safe path for now.
Nick
confused about search results
I have noticed that when I do a search by keyword, either by clicking on the keyword, or by typing it in the search box, the results do not always show the images. In fact sometimes it will show NO images, and other times it will say 23/1176, but in the grid there are only 10 images shown. What am I not understanding here? I am running windows XP PRO and Windows XP Media on the laptop.
confused about search results
I get the same thing with find function. No images are displayed (filters off, grid mode) I have to still scroll thru the keywords to find them, click on it and then they appear.
Is this a bug?
confused about search results
You may have some filters set.
no
So, you just go to the find box, type in a keyword, select an appropriate find set like ''keywords'' and nothing shows up at all ever, but you know that keyword is in there and that you've typed it correctly? And you're sure that the filters are off. Do I have this right?
Spot on.
When i then go into the keywrod metadata section, all of the keywords that are not related to the search grey out with 0 images, and only the related keywords are highlighted with the number of images in each, BUT no images are displayed until i click on one of the keywords. (wish i could copy and paste LR for you to see but have no clue how to!)
If it's not a filter, I'm afraid I don't know. This works for me every time. This question is frequently asked, and all the ones I remember were solved by turning off a filter.
I have had the same problems. As a matter of fact, I had LR open while I was reading your post and no matter what I typed in the find box, nothing changed in the grid. I went to the Library and selected ''all photographs''. They would all come up in the grid but I couldn't get the find box to narrow them down to the keyword I typed. Went to a folder, same thing. Double checked to make sure I didn't have any filters on.
Finally restarted the program and everything works as it should with the search of keywords.
I have found a number of other bugs in LR which I will post as separate threads if I can't find anything on them already posted.
Try restarting your LR and see if that cures you problem temporarily. I think it is a R1 bug....
I am using the MAC version.
Bradley,
Is yours on mac as well?
PC
And.....low and behold restarting LR corrects the issue.......@!#*
I had this other day though, as well.
What is up with this program...?
confused about search results
I get the same thing with find function. No images are displayed (filters off, grid mode) I have to still scroll thru the keywords to find them, click on it and then they appear.
Is this a bug?
confused about search results
You may have some filters set.
no
So, you just go to the find box, type in a keyword, select an appropriate find set like ''keywords'' and nothing shows up at all ever, but you know that keyword is in there and that you've typed it correctly? And you're sure that the filters are off. Do I have this right?
Spot on.
When i then go into the keywrod metadata section, all of the keywords that are not related to the search grey out with 0 images, and only the related keywords are highlighted with the number of images in each, BUT no images are displayed until i click on one of the keywords. (wish i could copy and paste LR for you to see but have no clue how to!)
If it's not a filter, I'm afraid I don't know. This works for me every time. This question is frequently asked, and all the ones I remember were solved by turning off a filter.
I have had the same problems. As a matter of fact, I had LR open while I was reading your post and no matter what I typed in the find box, nothing changed in the grid. I went to the Library and selected ''all photographs''. They would all come up in the grid but I couldn't get the find box to narrow them down to the keyword I typed. Went to a folder, same thing. Double checked to make sure I didn't have any filters on.
Finally restarted the program and everything works as it should with the search of keywords.
I have found a number of other bugs in LR which I will post as separate threads if I can't find anything on them already posted.
Try restarting your LR and see if that cures you problem temporarily. I think it is a R1 bug....
I am using the MAC version.
Bradley,
Is yours on mac as well?
PC
And.....low and behold restarting LR corrects the issue.......@!#*
I had this other day though, as well.
What is up with this program...?
Mac: Upgrading PS CS2 to PS CS3; LR...
After reading several threads asking about upgrading from CS2 to CS3 and how that impacts LR, I decided to bite the bullet and did things the way I wanted. Here are my results for a MacBookPro 2 GB ram, core duo:
* I first deactived CS2, since I didn't want to keep it. Might use it on another mac.
* I then used App Zapper to uninstall CS2. This deletes the app's folder along with folders in the library or other files related to CS2.
* Installed PSCS3 extended and activated.
Finally invoked LR and chose an image. When I clicked on the Photo menu item, a submenu item was ''edit in Adobe Photoshop CS3'' (no reference to CS2). I tested it and sure enough, it all worked.
- Pierre
* I first deactived CS2, since I didn't want to keep it. Might use it on another mac.
* I then used App Zapper to uninstall CS2. This deletes the app's folder along with folders in the library or other files related to CS2.
* Installed PSCS3 extended and activated.
Finally invoked LR and chose an image. When I clicked on the Photo menu item, a submenu item was ''edit in Adobe Photoshop CS3'' (no reference to CS2). I tested it and sure enough, it all worked.
- Pierre
Trouble with Collections
I recently installed Lightroom, and am having trouble adding images to an existing collection. The documentation says to select the images in the grid mode then drag them to the collection in the panel. I have tried and tried, this is not working for me. I have tried on both my laptop running XP Media edition and the desktop running XP PRO. I have highlighted the images and tried control click drag, AlT click drag, right click, left click, it does not let me drag them into a collection. Any suggestions?
Trouble with Collections
Make sure you have the curser on the image itself and not the frame.
Trouble with Collections
Ahhhhh, thank you, that was the problem.
Trouble with Collections
Make sure you have the curser on the image itself and not the frame.
Trouble with Collections
Ahhhhh, thank you, that was the problem.
apdproxy
What is apdproxy? Why was it added to my startup menu?
apdproxy
It is the import tool i.e. from card reader. I disabled it in msconfig (XP), as it collided with some stuff (after installing 1.0, all my USB config went downhill, had to re-install my printer drivers...). Not sure if that was related to this.
B/
apdproxy
Thanks Bernd. SO why can't it run when I start Lightroom? It's a pet peeve of mine that programmers like to add processes to the startup menu taking up my resources. I want it running when I need it running and not before.
It's all about importing when you want to and how your system operates.
You can check the autoimport off in preferences.I appreciate this doesn't answer your complaint but that is the way software works when integrating two systems such as apllications and operating systems.
Enjoy!!
''I disabled it in msconfig (XP), as it collided with some stuff (after installing 1.0, all my USB config went downhill, had to re-install my printer drivers...).''
No doubt this is an irritating comment, but frankly, this is exactly why many people including myself will always be Mac users. Why would you put up with nonsense like this?
I wouldn't but then I am on a Mac and do't know much about PC's.
oil companies
apdproxy
It is the import tool i.e. from card reader. I disabled it in msconfig (XP), as it collided with some stuff (after installing 1.0, all my USB config went downhill, had to re-install my printer drivers...). Not sure if that was related to this.
B/
apdproxy
Thanks Bernd. SO why can't it run when I start Lightroom? It's a pet peeve of mine that programmers like to add processes to the startup menu taking up my resources. I want it running when I need it running and not before.
It's all about importing when you want to and how your system operates.
You can check the autoimport off in preferences.I appreciate this doesn't answer your complaint but that is the way software works when integrating two systems such as apllications and operating systems.
Enjoy!!
''I disabled it in msconfig (XP), as it collided with some stuff (after installing 1.0, all my USB config went downhill, had to re-install my printer drivers...).''
No doubt this is an irritating comment, but frankly, this is exactly why many people including myself will always be Mac users. Why would you put up with nonsense like this?
I wouldn't but then I am on a Mac and do't know much about PC's.
How do I tell Lightroom not to boot...
When I load photos from my camera to my computer, Lightroom boots automatically and interferes with my loading. How do I tell Lightroom not to boot automatically under any circumstances? I cannot find that option in any menu.
John Johnson
How do I tell Lightroom not to boot...
There is a FAQ on this issue available in the FAQ subforum, right at the at top of the forum list.
How do I tell Lightroom not to boot...
Do one or more of the following solutions:
Solution 1: Turn off the Adobe Photo Downloader start-up item.
1. Right-click the Adobe Photo Downloader located on the far right of the Windows Task Bar.
2. Choose Exit.
Note: This turns off the Photo Downloader for your current Windows session, only.
Solution 2: Turn off the Adobe Photo Downloader permanently.
1. Choose Start %26gt; Run, and type in msconfig. Click OK.
2. Choose the Startup tab.
3. Uncheck apdproxy. Click Apply, and then click OK. Restart Windows.
John Johnson
How do I tell Lightroom not to boot...
There is a FAQ on this issue available in the FAQ subforum, right at the at top of the forum list.
How do I tell Lightroom not to boot...
Do one or more of the following solutions:
Solution 1: Turn off the Adobe Photo Downloader start-up item.
1. Right-click the Adobe Photo Downloader located on the far right of the Windows Task Bar.
2. Choose Exit.
Note: This turns off the Photo Downloader for your current Windows session, only.
Solution 2: Turn off the Adobe Photo Downloader permanently.
1. Choose Start %26gt; Run, and type in msconfig. Click OK.
2. Choose the Startup tab.
3. Uncheck apdproxy. Click Apply, and then click OK. Restart Windows.
Incremented ''start number''
In beta (Windows) the import ''start number'' would increment whenever I added files. In V 1.0 (also Windows) it doesn't do that. Is there a switch somewhere that I've missed? If not, PLEASE make it so!
HELP! resume slideshow from any...
I'm reposting with HELP! requested with a reworded, clearer question because the issue is driving me mad.
Summary: How do I start the play position of a slideshow in a photo sequence that is *already* correctly ordered to anything other than the first photo. Picking the starting index is needed in order to resume (a large) slideshow after stopping it prematurely (not pausing it).
I have a large slideshow (nearly 1000 photos) *already* is the desired viewing order. When I play a slideshow and stop it at some point (not by pausing), for a reason such as needing to make a photo edit perhaps, there is no way I've found to resume the slideshow at the point I last stop it. ''Play'' always plays from the beginning. I have not found any option for resuming at a specified index in slideshow (already ordered as desired) or any way to rapidly advance to the desired starting position other than the right-arrow key. It would be great if the slideshow would start at the ''super-selected'' photo (in lightroom a photo can be more selected than others that are selected).
HELP
HELP! resume slideshow from any...
Sorry, not a solution, but an additional slideshow issue:
In the beta release (Windows) I could select a set of images and do a slide show of just them. In V1.0 (also Windows) the slideshow ignores my selection and starts at the beginning of the folder/collection.
If it would use the selection, mrzizzy could just select the remaining slides.
HELP! resume slideshow from any...
The recommended way is to do that sellection but make a Collection '+' with use selected ticked or Quick Collections 'B'.
From there to start at other than the first one do Shift-Play to use selected image as starting point.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Thanks Don. I have been wondering about starting the slideshow in the middle myself. Not enough to spend too much time on it but the Shift key works great.
I had to check it out to find out. Tried both OSes I work with and voila.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Summary: How do I start the play position of a slideshow in a photo sequence that is *already* correctly ordered to anything other than the first photo. Picking the starting index is needed in order to resume (a large) slideshow after stopping it prematurely (not pausing it).
I have a large slideshow (nearly 1000 photos) *already* is the desired viewing order. When I play a slideshow and stop it at some point (not by pausing), for a reason such as needing to make a photo edit perhaps, there is no way I've found to resume the slideshow at the point I last stop it. ''Play'' always plays from the beginning. I have not found any option for resuming at a specified index in slideshow (already ordered as desired) or any way to rapidly advance to the desired starting position other than the right-arrow key. It would be great if the slideshow would start at the ''super-selected'' photo (in lightroom a photo can be more selected than others that are selected).
HELP
HELP! resume slideshow from any...
Sorry, not a solution, but an additional slideshow issue:
In the beta release (Windows) I could select a set of images and do a slide show of just them. In V1.0 (also Windows) the slideshow ignores my selection and starts at the beginning of the folder/collection.
If it would use the selection, mrzizzy could just select the remaining slides.
HELP! resume slideshow from any...
The recommended way is to do that sellection but make a Collection '+' with use selected ticked or Quick Collections 'B'.
From there to start at other than the first one do Shift-Play to use selected image as starting point.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Thanks Don. I have been wondering about starting the slideshow in the middle myself. Not enough to spend too much time on it but the Shift key works great.
I had to check it out to find out. Tried both OSes I work with and voila.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
XML export action/plugin?
hey folks. i am attempting to work LR into my workflow 100%. this involves my custom data-driven website, which uses XML for as a sort of meta-datbase, stored in memory -- it contains image info, captions, keywords, etc, and allows for speedy searches on the site. i currently have 5,000 images (non LR) and it works very well.
to obtain total LR workflow, when exporting a shoot to web-ready .JPGs, i also need a way to export the images' info into an .XML file in the JPGs directory. then my automated process can pick this folder up, move the jpgs into place, and integrate the shoot's XML into the master website XML file.
im a programmer. can anyone recommend a good place to start for a task like this? im guessing it would likely be a LR plugin? which would then use the LR API or access the SQLite db directly or something...?
thanks!
matt
XML export action/plugin?
You got your answer on another forum. Until Adobe releases the SDK your out
of luck and you could still be out of luck if they don't allow for
import/export plug-in creation with that SDK. That has not been mentioned.
The only thing mentioned in regards to the SDK is that Adobe is still
working on it. I should be out sometime this year. Depending on what Adobe
has planned for the 1.1 update to LR that could push the SDK release back
even futher.
Robert
XML export action/plugin?
You could write something that extracts the XMP information from the exported JPEGs and processes it as needed. All the metadata you want is there; it's just not in a separate file.
You don't mention what language you're working with, but a quick search found this for .NET. Seems pretty simple to get at the XMP in the JPEG.
http://www.shahine.com/omar/ReadingXMPMetadataFromAJPEGUsingC.aspx
wow. i cant imagine that would deny 3rd party developers the ability to write import/export plugins...especially export -- this is an area of weakness in LR and is really is well-suited for customization.
but good to know, thanks. i hope they dont drop the ball w/ a SDK; often its the extensibility of a thing that makes it truly awesome.
matt
''would deny 3rd party developers the ability to write import/export plugins...especially export ''
Don't worry, they won't.
Once the Lightroom engineers get a bit of breathing room making an SDK will be a priority because the whole reason Lightroom is developed as a modular application is to make extensibility easier and more prowerful. But there is the issue of time %26amp; resources as well as flushing out the core engines in Lightroom so that they can commit to maintaining the SDK when developed...
DW - that link is awesome, thanks. i had written an EXIF parser in C#, but i quickly discovered that parsing exif sucks...hit or miss, different per camera, etc.. was discouraged so i didnt bother w/ IPTC, and im glad i didnt -- w/ XMP there is a published map, and since its XML its very easy to work with.
this will provide me w/ a great solution.
tho, i may still write an XML exporter sometime if feasible -- XML is just so damn useful; and if it can come directly form the horses mouth (LR) it removes more margin of error.
thanks!
matt
DW - this worked quite well, done. rock! thanks again.
Glad I could help.
Hi Matt Del Vecchio I have the same problem and am very keen to have a look at the solution you came up with. Could you please share here and/or send me a not on my blog. http://madteckhead.com. Thanks a million.
to obtain total LR workflow, when exporting a shoot to web-ready .JPGs, i also need a way to export the images' info into an .XML file in the JPGs directory. then my automated process can pick this folder up, move the jpgs into place, and integrate the shoot's XML into the master website XML file.
im a programmer. can anyone recommend a good place to start for a task like this? im guessing it would likely be a LR plugin? which would then use the LR API or access the SQLite db directly or something...?
thanks!
matt
XML export action/plugin?
You got your answer on another forum. Until Adobe releases the SDK your out
of luck and you could still be out of luck if they don't allow for
import/export plug-in creation with that SDK. That has not been mentioned.
The only thing mentioned in regards to the SDK is that Adobe is still
working on it. I should be out sometime this year. Depending on what Adobe
has planned for the 1.1 update to LR that could push the SDK release back
even futher.
Robert
XML export action/plugin?
You could write something that extracts the XMP information from the exported JPEGs and processes it as needed. All the metadata you want is there; it's just not in a separate file.
You don't mention what language you're working with, but a quick search found this for .NET. Seems pretty simple to get at the XMP in the JPEG.
http://www.shahine.com/omar/ReadingXMPMetadataFromAJPEGUsingC.aspx
wow. i cant imagine that would deny 3rd party developers the ability to write import/export plugins...especially export -- this is an area of weakness in LR and is really is well-suited for customization.
but good to know, thanks. i hope they dont drop the ball w/ a SDK; often its the extensibility of a thing that makes it truly awesome.
matt
''would deny 3rd party developers the ability to write import/export plugins...especially export ''
Don't worry, they won't.
Once the Lightroom engineers get a bit of breathing room making an SDK will be a priority because the whole reason Lightroom is developed as a modular application is to make extensibility easier and more prowerful. But there is the issue of time %26amp; resources as well as flushing out the core engines in Lightroom so that they can commit to maintaining the SDK when developed...
DW - that link is awesome, thanks. i had written an EXIF parser in C#, but i quickly discovered that parsing exif sucks...hit or miss, different per camera, etc.. was discouraged so i didnt bother w/ IPTC, and im glad i didnt -- w/ XMP there is a published map, and since its XML its very easy to work with.
this will provide me w/ a great solution.
tho, i may still write an XML exporter sometime if feasible -- XML is just so damn useful; and if it can come directly form the horses mouth (LR) it removes more margin of error.
thanks!
matt
DW - this worked quite well, done. rock! thanks again.
Glad I could help.
Hi Matt Del Vecchio I have the same problem and am very keen to have a look at the solution you came up with. Could you please share here and/or send me a not on my blog. http://madteckhead.com. Thanks a million.
Lightroom and ACR - Keeping all files...
Not sure I'm asking the right questions but I'll give it my best shot.
According to what I've read, it appers that the only way to get a job into Lightroom is to choose Import. What if I have a job folder with RAW files that have already been manipulated in ACR? Is there a way to simply point Lightroom to that folder without having to import into LR and have all the files be copied again?
Also, if I open the RAW files in LIghtroom after working on them in ACR, will LR cause the RAW files to first go back to their defaults? If so, is there a way to get them back in ACR as originally worked on?
Lightroom and ACR - Keeping all files...
Added note:
I was hoping to do the bulk of my RAW file corrections in ACR, then use Lightroom to open up these files for the purpose of galleries and/or presentations, without copying them to another folder, and without changing the previous edits, etc.
Then I would like to have Lightroom honor the edits and changes that were made previously using ACR, and proceed to use it as an extension of ACR.
Is this going to work?
Lightroom and ACR - Keeping all files...
It is possible to import into the library without moving the files. You just point to where the files are located. I don't know how compatible the changes will be with ACR. It will depend on the version you are using (it must be 3.7 with CS2 or 4.0 in CS3). Others will be better informed than me.
Thank you for your quick response Martin.
I tried this earlier and it copied the files as DNG within the same folder. I trust I can change those settings to where it will only point to the folder without doing anything.
Linda
As for ACR, I'm using CS3. As for LR I have a demo running of vs. 1. I have purchased LR though and should get it within the next week or two.
Linda,
DNG copies would suggest that you have chosen the wrong option in the Import dialog - see attached screenshot for the option you should have chosen. This will leave the files in their existing location/format. Any settings that you may have already applied within ACR will be honoured by LIghtroom
Ian,
It's so nice to see you. I was thinking about you recently and wondering how your were doing.
Thank you for your help on this. I must have overlooked the drop down menu.
I am relieved to discover that even though LR copied and converted the files to DNG, it didn't seem to affect my previous work. Also come to find out it created a new folder for the DNG within the other folder.
Thank you again!
Linda
Glad to be of help.
According to what I've read, it appers that the only way to get a job into Lightroom is to choose Import. What if I have a job folder with RAW files that have already been manipulated in ACR? Is there a way to simply point Lightroom to that folder without having to import into LR and have all the files be copied again?
Also, if I open the RAW files in LIghtroom after working on them in ACR, will LR cause the RAW files to first go back to their defaults? If so, is there a way to get them back in ACR as originally worked on?
Lightroom and ACR - Keeping all files...
Added note:
I was hoping to do the bulk of my RAW file corrections in ACR, then use Lightroom to open up these files for the purpose of galleries and/or presentations, without copying them to another folder, and without changing the previous edits, etc.
Then I would like to have Lightroom honor the edits and changes that were made previously using ACR, and proceed to use it as an extension of ACR.
Is this going to work?
Lightroom and ACR - Keeping all files...
It is possible to import into the library without moving the files. You just point to where the files are located. I don't know how compatible the changes will be with ACR. It will depend on the version you are using (it must be 3.7 with CS2 or 4.0 in CS3). Others will be better informed than me.
Thank you for your quick response Martin.
I tried this earlier and it copied the files as DNG within the same folder. I trust I can change those settings to where it will only point to the folder without doing anything.
Linda
As for ACR, I'm using CS3. As for LR I have a demo running of vs. 1. I have purchased LR though and should get it within the next week or two.
Linda,
DNG copies would suggest that you have chosen the wrong option in the Import dialog - see attached screenshot for the option you should have chosen. This will leave the files in their existing location/format. Any settings that you may have already applied within ACR will be honoured by LIghtroom
Ian,
It's so nice to see you. I was thinking about you recently and wondering how your were doing.
Thank you for your help on this. I must have overlooked the drop down menu.
I am relieved to discover that even though LR copied and converted the files to DNG, it didn't seem to affect my previous work. Also come to find out it created a new folder for the DNG within the other folder.
Thank you again!
Linda
Glad to be of help.
Stacks in collections
Am I missing something here?
I have stacks set with groups of images, when those stacks are referenced in a collection the stacks are open and can not be closed? These images reside with in the same folder and are already stacked. I can see the possible reason to not allow stacks of images in collections that span multiple folders, but why are my current stacks not allowed to exist in collections?
Make sense?
Stacks in collections
Stacks presently work only in folders.
Stacks in collections
Thanks
oil companies
I have stacks set with groups of images, when those stacks are referenced in a collection the stacks are open and can not be closed? These images reside with in the same folder and are already stacked. I can see the possible reason to not allow stacks of images in collections that span multiple folders, but why are my current stacks not allowed to exist in collections?
Make sense?
Stacks in collections
Stacks presently work only in folders.
Stacks in collections
Thanks
Backup: only 1 file needed (Lightroom...
Am I correct that backing up this one file is all I need to do to backup the database? I ask because LR keeps lots of other files in the same folder (C:\Documents and Settings\Tony\My Documents\My Pictures\Lightroom).
Backup: only 1 file needed (Lightroom...
That one file is the database, yes. The rest of what you are seeing are previews, and they can be regenerated if needed and so don't need to be backed up.
But NOTE: backing up the db does not imply that you have backed up your source images. :-)
Backup: only 1 file needed (Lightroom...
It is assumed that users already a one or more of myriad was to back-up their images already in play.
Ergo, as DW says, You only need LR to back-up its dB.
:)
Backup: only 1 file needed (Lightroom...
That one file is the database, yes. The rest of what you are seeing are previews, and they can be regenerated if needed and so don't need to be backed up.
But NOTE: backing up the db does not imply that you have backed up your source images. :-)
Backup: only 1 file needed (Lightroom...
It is assumed that users already a one or more of myriad was to back-up their images already in play.
Ergo, as DW says, You only need LR to back-up its dB.
:)
Lightroom minutes of response time for...
We are running LR on XP (Pentium 4 2.8G / 2G RAM) with 7000 photos.
A search in the library takes minutes. Typing in a file name it may take 40 seconds till the first character is echoed and some less time till it disappears after a Backspace.
For 7000 photos there is a small amount of meta data that needs to be managed.
This is in comparison to our ERP System, which manages millions of data rows on MS-SQL with response times in less the 1 second.
What is wrong with the data base in terms of response time?
Lightroom minutes of response time for...
The response time on my comparable LR configuration is very fast, so maybe there is something else causing your major slowness. For example, if I search for a filename in my 8000+ images using the Find panel (you didn't specify, but I assume you are using Find) the found images are displayed virtually immediately (%26lt;1 sec), and updated virtually immediately as more of the filename is entered to narrow the search. Be aware that using the underscore character in Find will result in no images being found (this problem has been reported by many users). Some people have reported issues with anti-virus software. Maybe that is slowing you down. I've also seen general reports of memory issues with the Windows version.
Lightroom minutes of response time for...
There are hundreds of posts about poor LR performance on Windows machines. Apparently there are some memory glitches. I believe Adobe is avare of this problem
I have found that LR performance can vary tremendously; for me the difference seems to be whether the LR database file(s) are fragmented or not on the disk. Defraging the disk has a major performance improvement in LR.
You can use a program like CONTIG.EXE (Windows) or the system defragmenter.
I have ~26K photos so far, and find is near instantaneous.
Defrag did help moderately, but not enough to say the speed was adequate.
Yes, I'm using the Find Panel in my German Version.
I did defrag and I have also switched off Virus Scan. Now Im getting response times in the range of 1 to 15 sec, depending on the name.
Really a good improvement for the moment but I still hope V1.1 will speed up.
Thanks for your input!
I just compacted the LR database following the approach described in
another post. Startup time improved tremendously and the library feels faster, too.
Use it with caution - read Tom Hogarty's caveat first and then backup your database - but this would probably boost your response time quite a bit.
Alexander
A search in the library takes minutes. Typing in a file name it may take 40 seconds till the first character is echoed and some less time till it disappears after a Backspace.
For 7000 photos there is a small amount of meta data that needs to be managed.
This is in comparison to our ERP System, which manages millions of data rows on MS-SQL with response times in less the 1 second.
What is wrong with the data base in terms of response time?
Lightroom minutes of response time for...
The response time on my comparable LR configuration is very fast, so maybe there is something else causing your major slowness. For example, if I search for a filename in my 8000+ images using the Find panel (you didn't specify, but I assume you are using Find) the found images are displayed virtually immediately (%26lt;1 sec), and updated virtually immediately as more of the filename is entered to narrow the search. Be aware that using the underscore character in Find will result in no images being found (this problem has been reported by many users). Some people have reported issues with anti-virus software. Maybe that is slowing you down. I've also seen general reports of memory issues with the Windows version.
Lightroom minutes of response time for...
There are hundreds of posts about poor LR performance on Windows machines. Apparently there are some memory glitches. I believe Adobe is avare of this problem
I have found that LR performance can vary tremendously; for me the difference seems to be whether the LR database file(s) are fragmented or not on the disk. Defraging the disk has a major performance improvement in LR.
You can use a program like CONTIG.EXE (Windows) or the system defragmenter.
I have ~26K photos so far, and find is near instantaneous.
Defrag did help moderately, but not enough to say the speed was adequate.
Yes, I'm using the Find Panel in my German Version.
I did defrag and I have also switched off Virus Scan. Now Im getting response times in the range of 1 to 15 sec, depending on the name.
Really a good improvement for the moment but I still hope V1.1 will speed up.
Thanks for your input!
I just compacted the LR database following the approach described in
another post. Startup time improved tremendously and the library feels faster, too.
Use it with caution - read Tom Hogarty's caveat first and then backup your database - but this would probably boost your response time quite a bit.
Alexander
backing up library
Is there a way to backup the library file when you exit LR instead of when you restart LR?
From what I understand the library holds the info of the changes you made to the image in LR. With this understanding, if I work on my images and then exit LR the changes will not be saved until I go back and reopen LR. If something happened to my drive with the library file on it I would have lost my latest changes. If I save the library upon leaving LR those most recent changes would be saved.
backing up library
Requested often, but not there.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
backing up library
A point I haven't missed. Anytime I spend a few hours making a large number of changes. I manually back up my database just in case.
John
From what I understand the library holds the info of the changes you made to the image in LR. With this understanding, if I work on my images and then exit LR the changes will not be saved until I go back and reopen LR. If something happened to my drive with the library file on it I would have lost my latest changes. If I save the library upon leaving LR those most recent changes would be saved.
backing up library
Requested often, but not there.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
backing up library
A point I haven't missed. Anytime I spend a few hours making a large number of changes. I manually back up my database just in case.
John
Adding backup CD-Rs to Lightroom...
Like many others, I backup every image that comes from the camera to a CD-R or DVD-R. The ''working'' copies of each image are on external hard drives. I have imported these hard drives into Lightroom and have noticed, to my delight, that thumbs and data are available for the drives that are not plugged in at the time. These thumbs take storage space. If I am looking in the right place, it looks like about 2000 images requires about 60MB.
Are the pros including their backups into LR or not? It would make finding backups much easier but would grow very large over years of shooting. Is there a way to maybe save a second database on another drive or some other alternative? What are you doing, and why?
Adding backup CD-Rs to Lightroom...
Yes they are. Easy on a Mac. Some are having troubles with re-identifying Discs later on PC's. There are a couple thread (One anyhow) on this. A search of the forum for'DVD' should bring it/them up.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Adding backup CD-Rs to Lightroom...
Thanks much, Don. I'm new to digital.
As many are, and this forum is only about two mos old.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Are the pros including their backups into LR or not? It would make finding backups much easier but would grow very large over years of shooting. Is there a way to maybe save a second database on another drive or some other alternative? What are you doing, and why?
Adding backup CD-Rs to Lightroom...
Yes they are. Easy on a Mac. Some are having troubles with re-identifying Discs later on PC's. There are a couple thread (One anyhow) on this. A search of the forum for'DVD' should bring it/them up.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Adding backup CD-Rs to Lightroom...
Thanks much, Don. I'm new to digital.
As many are, and this forum is only about two mos old.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Folder structure after upgrading from...
Hi,
after upgrading from beta 4.1 to 1.0 my folder structure does not represent my disk structure. I have a Repository folder under My Pictures equivalent in German. With entries like 2007-02 plus camera specific subfolders, 1.0 though makes it
100EOS1D at d:\Eigene Dateien\Eigene Bilder\Repository\2005-07-Urlaub\20050709\20050709.001\DCIM
and subfolders of that directory are placed as individual folders in the list.
Is that fixable somehow?
Thanks,
Bernd
Folder structure after upgrading from...
Please read the FAQ www.lightroomextra.com
Folder structure after upgrading from...
Hit + beside folders, navigate to the parent folder and choose it. Lr will put things in the correct order then.
It will add all files in the Parent folder so you may prefer to pick a selection of subfolders instead (one at a time)
Sid,
great, works for me. Thanks for pointing that out.
I was close to re-importing my 29000 images...
Best regards,
Bernd
Whaaaaooooo !
LOL
after upgrading from beta 4.1 to 1.0 my folder structure does not represent my disk structure. I have a Repository folder under My Pictures equivalent in German. With entries like 2007-02 plus camera specific subfolders, 1.0 though makes it
100EOS1D at d:\Eigene Dateien\Eigene Bilder\Repository\2005-07-Urlaub\20050709\20050709.001\DCIM
and subfolders of that directory are placed as individual folders in the list.
Is that fixable somehow?
Thanks,
Bernd
Folder structure after upgrading from...
Please read the FAQ www.lightroomextra.com
Folder structure after upgrading from...
Hit + beside folders, navigate to the parent folder and choose it. Lr will put things in the correct order then.
It will add all files in the Parent folder so you may prefer to pick a selection of subfolders instead (one at a time)
Sid,
great, works for me. Thanks for pointing that out.
I was close to re-importing my 29000 images...
Best regards,
Bernd
Whaaaaooooo !
LOL
How are you bringing files you edited...
I suppose there are a number of ways to do this, the most obvious would be to have the laptop files on an external usb disk and then plugging that disk in to the home base and doing an import every now and then, but I'm curious what folks are actually doing in practice.
Sam
How are you bringing files you edited...
Using the xmp data and importing, currently.
How are you bringing files you edited...
I export the metadata to the images, and then copy the folder over via LAN to the DT and Import.
Lee Jay are you using folder sharing or physically detaching drives and reattaching them where needed?
I use a little utility called ''filesync'' to synchronize the root folders between the machines over the wireless network.
oil companies
Sam
How are you bringing files you edited...
Using the xmp data and importing, currently.
How are you bringing files you edited...
I export the metadata to the images, and then copy the folder over via LAN to the DT and Import.
Lee Jay are you using folder sharing or physically detaching drives and reattaching them where needed?
I use a little utility called ''filesync'' to synchronize the root folders between the machines over the wireless network.
Want to RE-install LR trial on Vista...
Just wondering if this is possible. I had LR on my laptop, and plan to buy V1 this weekend, but want to use it with Vista personally before I buy. I got the Vista upgrade this week and installed it. I did not do a clean disk install, so I imagine it's still in the registry somewhere. Can I do this? Can someone help out with a possible workaround if there is a ''trick'' to it?
Thanks,
Vince
Want to RE-install LR trial on Vista...
Vince, if such a trick existed (and I have no personal knowledge), posting it would be to give you instructions to continue using LR for free in perpetuity. In other words, you are de-facto asking for instructions on how to pirate Lightroom.
That may not be your intent, but it's the effect and so I doubt you will get an answer here from anyone.
Note that LR is not officially supported on Vista yet, so you may want to hold off for a new release that includes Vista support. You would likely be able to install a new 30 day trial for that new version as well, so you could then evaluate before buying.
Want to RE-install LR trial on Vista...
I knew that would be one thought, that's why I wanted to ask in the ''official'' forum. Since I will be using LR on that particular computer, and obviously want the pre-May discount, I wanted to try it out before plunking down $200 on software to use on a fairly new OS - not gain the ability to use it free indefinitely. I can see that as a valid concern, however.
Any ideas? Anyone want to comment on Vista (32 bit) compatibility?
One thing I didn't realize earlier is that you didn't mention how long ago your original evaluation was. If it was less than 30 days ago, the 30 day clock may still be ticking, and you would just be able to reinstall the trial version to get the remainder of your trial window.
As for Vista, there are multiple threads in this forum covering it, so if you search for Vista you should find some useful information. IIRC, it ''mostly works'' but there are some issues in importing from memory cards, and I believe that the integrated CD/DVD burning on export does not work.
No, unfortunately, the clock ran out for me on Monday. I didn't get the Vista upgrade until Wednesday - though I should have been able to get it sooner :-(
But that's a whole other story of frustration...
I'm going to get LR anyway, but I would feel much better about it if I could actually use it on MY computer with Vista first.
The issues you mention regarding card import and CD burn are of particular concern. Is this a likely area of attention in a (hopefully soon) version update?
''I'm going to get LR anyway, but I would feel much better about it if I could actually use it on MY computer with Vista first. ''
Adobe has a 30 day return policy...also note that Lightroom 1.0 is not certified for Vista...it works as reported by people with a few issue...which will be addressed by an update for compatibility.
Thanks,
Vince
Want to RE-install LR trial on Vista...
Vince, if such a trick existed (and I have no personal knowledge), posting it would be to give you instructions to continue using LR for free in perpetuity. In other words, you are de-facto asking for instructions on how to pirate Lightroom.
That may not be your intent, but it's the effect and so I doubt you will get an answer here from anyone.
Note that LR is not officially supported on Vista yet, so you may want to hold off for a new release that includes Vista support. You would likely be able to install a new 30 day trial for that new version as well, so you could then evaluate before buying.
Want to RE-install LR trial on Vista...
I knew that would be one thought, that's why I wanted to ask in the ''official'' forum. Since I will be using LR on that particular computer, and obviously want the pre-May discount, I wanted to try it out before plunking down $200 on software to use on a fairly new OS - not gain the ability to use it free indefinitely. I can see that as a valid concern, however.
Any ideas? Anyone want to comment on Vista (32 bit) compatibility?
One thing I didn't realize earlier is that you didn't mention how long ago your original evaluation was. If it was less than 30 days ago, the 30 day clock may still be ticking, and you would just be able to reinstall the trial version to get the remainder of your trial window.
As for Vista, there are multiple threads in this forum covering it, so if you search for Vista you should find some useful information. IIRC, it ''mostly works'' but there are some issues in importing from memory cards, and I believe that the integrated CD/DVD burning on export does not work.
No, unfortunately, the clock ran out for me on Monday. I didn't get the Vista upgrade until Wednesday - though I should have been able to get it sooner :-(
But that's a whole other story of frustration...
I'm going to get LR anyway, but I would feel much better about it if I could actually use it on MY computer with Vista first.
The issues you mention regarding card import and CD burn are of particular concern. Is this a likely area of attention in a (hopefully soon) version update?
''I'm going to get LR anyway, but I would feel much better about it if I could actually use it on MY computer with Vista first. ''
Adobe has a 30 day return policy...also note that Lightroom 1.0 is not certified for Vista...it works as reported by people with a few issue...which will be addressed by an update for compatibility.
Rendering standard previews
If I import a few thousand nefs (or jpgs or psds), with 'render standard previews checked' on a PC, it does not render ALL the standard previews. If I then run 'select all' and 'render standard previews', it checks for existing standard previews and starts rendering the ones it missed on import. Even then it still misses some, and I have to repeat this about three times before it finally finds it has rendered them all.
Something not quite right?
[Standard previews set to 1640 and high quality, and imports referenced to original location]
Rendering standard previews
How long are you letting LR work on the previews before deciding it is done? What makes you think it is done when you say it has not doen them all?
Preview building can take a long time on 'thousands' of images. Where are the originals?
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Rendering standard previews
I leave it until the bar at the top left of the screen which says 'rendering previews' has finished and disappeared, and I've also taken to using Task Manager to watch and wait until the cpu activity has reduced to zero. As you say, this can take some time.
If I then scroll through the grid of imported images, I find some that still have three dots, and which slowly disappear one by one as they are rendered. That is very tedious, so I go back to select all, wait for the metadata to be collected as shown by the bar, select 'render standard previews' - a new bar appears saying 'scanning existing previews', and when that has finished it puts up the rendering previews and starts rendering the ones that still had three dots on them. It then eventually finishes and the bar closes, but with the last lot, I had to repeat this three times before it scanned existing previews and then stopped instead of starting the 'rendering previews' bar again. Each time it added some more previews, until they had eventually been done, and there were no images in the grid view with three dots (other than the brief flash of dots as I scroll normally).
I've also got in the habit of clicking on 'all photographs' after opening LightRoom and waiting until Task Manager shows it has finished it's 'housekeeping', before starting any work. This seems to minimise 'Out of Memory' dialogs or 'Not Responding' situations.
Something not quite right?
[Standard previews set to 1640 and high quality, and imports referenced to original location]
Rendering standard previews
How long are you letting LR work on the previews before deciding it is done? What makes you think it is done when you say it has not doen them all?
Preview building can take a long time on 'thousands' of images. Where are the originals?
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Rendering standard previews
I leave it until the bar at the top left of the screen which says 'rendering previews' has finished and disappeared, and I've also taken to using Task Manager to watch and wait until the cpu activity has reduced to zero. As you say, this can take some time.
If I then scroll through the grid of imported images, I find some that still have three dots, and which slowly disappear one by one as they are rendered. That is very tedious, so I go back to select all, wait for the metadata to be collected as shown by the bar, select 'render standard previews' - a new bar appears saying 'scanning existing previews', and when that has finished it puts up the rendering previews and starts rendering the ones that still had three dots on them. It then eventually finishes and the bar closes, but with the last lot, I had to repeat this three times before it scanned existing previews and then stopped instead of starting the 'rendering previews' bar again. Each time it added some more previews, until they had eventually been done, and there were no images in the grid view with three dots (other than the brief flash of dots as I scroll normally).
I've also got in the habit of clicking on 'all photographs' after opening LightRoom and waiting until Task Manager shows it has finished it's 'housekeeping', before starting any work. This seems to minimise 'Out of Memory' dialogs or 'Not Responding' situations.
Slideshow on external Screen should not...
Slideshow on external Screen should not BLACKOUT the Internal so i can continue to use the MacBook while a Slideshow is running ....
at Present the LCD ''turns off'' when a Slideshow runs on the external Screen ...
Slideshow on external Screen should not...
I actually love that feature... It allows to watch the slideshow without being distracted by the light from the main screen ;-)
David.
Slideshow on external Screen should not...
But if you are remotely showing a slideshow from a large projector and need to watch the slides on the laptop, then this ain't so good.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
External screen or not, my screen blacks out. When exported, slideshows work fine. When the Play button is hit, the screen blacks out every time.
That is a different bug. I believe it has been previously reported. Seems there was something one could do, but don't recall.
Check teh Forum FAQ and the one at
LR Extras FAQ or search for 'blank screens slideshow' on the forum.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
at Present the LCD ''turns off'' when a Slideshow runs on the external Screen ...
Slideshow on external Screen should not...
I actually love that feature... It allows to watch the slideshow without being distracted by the light from the main screen ;-)
David.
Slideshow on external Screen should not...
But if you are remotely showing a slideshow from a large projector and need to watch the slides on the laptop, then this ain't so good.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
External screen or not, my screen blacks out. When exported, slideshows work fine. When the Play button is hit, the screen blacks out every time.
That is a different bug. I believe it has been previously reported. Seems there was something one could do, but don't recall.
Check teh Forum FAQ and the one at
LR Extras FAQ or search for 'blank screens slideshow' on the forum.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Is there a way to convert an Aperture...
I wonder if this is possible at all... Is ther any tool that will take an Aperture library and convert everything for Lightroom? Is it doable at all? I imagine that since the parameters are different, the answer must be no, but I wanted to ask before reaching that conclusion...
Is there a way to convert an Aperture...
Adjustments, not easily, but the metadata and images aren't too hard to bring over. Search this forum for a recent thread on the subject.
John
Is there a way to convert an Aperture...
Adjustments, not easily, but the metadata and images aren't too hard to bring over. Search this forum for a recent thread on the subject.
John
JPGs created, what's going on?
I usually shoot JPG although I have a few RAW photos. My camera when it saves RAW saves only RAW, not RAW and JPG. I was looking at a directory today and noticed that the RAW files all have associated JPG files with a recent creation date (not the same as the raw).
Looking more closely I see that these apparently rather low quality JPG files (from their file size) were created on the day we were having the discussion of the missing metadata in JPGs. I had turned on ''Automatically write changes to XMP'' in Preferences, which precipitated Lightroom writing out every single file in my catalog.
Apparently it also, in its wisdom, created JPG files of each of the RAW files. Does anyone know what this is? I won't set that option again but I am curious about this ''feature.''
Of course, they don't show up in Lightroom itself because they have the same name as the RAW file.
JPGs created, what's going on?
Judith-
Could these have passed through another application? Could you have inadvertantly turned on RAW+small JPEG for a shoot or two?
JPGs created, what's going on?
I forgot to mention the date/time is exactly the same as the rewrites of all the files when I set the option ''Automatically write changes to XMP''. Hum. Does that prove it? Maybe Lightroom could rewrite a file that it didn't have in its database?
I thought my camera couldn't write both a RAW and a jpg but this seems to be a low quality JPG. I'll check that tomorrow.
Judith-
I thought of another thing about an hour after I went to bed, and that's that possibly you ran Export jpegs and had the results put in the original folder?
In any event, if this is a one off phenom, you'd like to know; I'd like to know, but we may never know. Now, if it happens again unexpectedly, and esp. if you can reproduce it, then the stakes climb.
It might help to state your camera, settings, and platform.
Best wishes,
I'm sorry for the confusion. My camera is making these files. However, there is a Lightroom issue related to it.
I thought I read that the camera didn't create both a JPG and a RAW but it does. It creates a low (''standard'') quality JPG. Here's the problem with Lightroom. It imports both files but registers only one (as we know, since they have the same name).
Even worse, if you delete the cataloged one (RAW), it does NOT delete the low quality JPG. This is not good because I don't know how to keep my directories clean if Lightroom imports but will not delete files.
It is also curious that the date on the file was the date and time of when I set Preferences to Automatically Write Changes to XMP. That means it doesn't only write to cataloged files? I checked the metadata in one of these files and it does contain information that I entered for the corresponding RAW file in Lightroom.
Lesson to be learned here. Some of us are getting our directories cluttered with stuff that is not cataloged in Lightroom. How do we keep them clean?
For many threads over covering this topic do a Forum Search of 'RAW + JPEG'.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Looking more closely I see that these apparently rather low quality JPG files (from their file size) were created on the day we were having the discussion of the missing metadata in JPGs. I had turned on ''Automatically write changes to XMP'' in Preferences, which precipitated Lightroom writing out every single file in my catalog.
Apparently it also, in its wisdom, created JPG files of each of the RAW files. Does anyone know what this is? I won't set that option again but I am curious about this ''feature.''
Of course, they don't show up in Lightroom itself because they have the same name as the RAW file.
JPGs created, what's going on?
Judith-
Could these have passed through another application? Could you have inadvertantly turned on RAW+small JPEG for a shoot or two?
JPGs created, what's going on?
I forgot to mention the date/time is exactly the same as the rewrites of all the files when I set the option ''Automatically write changes to XMP''. Hum. Does that prove it? Maybe Lightroom could rewrite a file that it didn't have in its database?
I thought my camera couldn't write both a RAW and a jpg but this seems to be a low quality JPG. I'll check that tomorrow.
Judith-
I thought of another thing about an hour after I went to bed, and that's that possibly you ran Export jpegs and had the results put in the original folder?
In any event, if this is a one off phenom, you'd like to know; I'd like to know, but we may never know. Now, if it happens again unexpectedly, and esp. if you can reproduce it, then the stakes climb.
It might help to state your camera, settings, and platform.
Best wishes,
I'm sorry for the confusion. My camera is making these files. However, there is a Lightroom issue related to it.
I thought I read that the camera didn't create both a JPG and a RAW but it does. It creates a low (''standard'') quality JPG. Here's the problem with Lightroom. It imports both files but registers only one (as we know, since they have the same name).
Even worse, if you delete the cataloged one (RAW), it does NOT delete the low quality JPG. This is not good because I don't know how to keep my directories clean if Lightroom imports but will not delete files.
It is also curious that the date on the file was the date and time of when I set Preferences to Automatically Write Changes to XMP. That means it doesn't only write to cataloged files? I checked the metadata in one of these files and it does contain information that I entered for the corresponding RAW file in Lightroom.
Lesson to be learned here. Some of us are getting our directories cluttered with stuff that is not cataloged in Lightroom. How do we keep them clean?
For many threads over covering this topic do a Forum Search of 'RAW + JPEG'.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Importing Canon EXIF data into Lightroom
Hi,
sorry if this is a stupid question...
I noticed that when using Canon Image Browser software, that the amount of image information is much more extensive than what I can see in both LR and in Bridge. As an example: In Canon Image Browser I get data for flash exposure compensation, in Bridge and LR I do not have detailed flash information.
Any suggestions?
Also, does anybody know if it is planned to add the feature where you can see the AF point(s) (again, I see it in Image Browser, but not in Bridge or LR)
Thanks,
VR
Importing Canon EXIF data into Lightroom
Such proprietary info as this is unlikely to be added. Possibly camera specific third party modules may do this for you, once the SDK is released and someone gets around to developing such a thing.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Importing Canon EXIF data into Lightroom
Most Canon's MakerNotes tags are ''public secret'', which means: there's no official documentation, but everybody knows them :-)
As FEC info resides in the same (MakerNotes) section as some other info (which is recognised by LR), it shouldn't be difficult for LR to show FEC value too. I believe there could be other problem...
LR should deliver same infos for all camera brands and maybe FEC value of some other brand isn't so easy to ''decode''. So, it wouldn't be ''fair'' if LR would show particular values only for some brand. There's no other reason I can think of.
In regard of focus points.. I don't miss that info at all -and even Canon's DPP doesn't show them up.
Bogdan
While all that is true, one thing I think the team should add is the ability to read the ISO data out of the Canon P%26amp;S JPEGs. The last couple of years worth of Canon JPEGs don't put ISO in the right place but I know where it is and how to decode it (as do many others). Thankfully, Canon seems to be putting ISO back where it belongs in their new P%26amp;S cameras.
oil companies
sorry if this is a stupid question...
I noticed that when using Canon Image Browser software, that the amount of image information is much more extensive than what I can see in both LR and in Bridge. As an example: In Canon Image Browser I get data for flash exposure compensation, in Bridge and LR I do not have detailed flash information.
Any suggestions?
Also, does anybody know if it is planned to add the feature where you can see the AF point(s) (again, I see it in Image Browser, but not in Bridge or LR)
Thanks,
VR
Importing Canon EXIF data into Lightroom
Such proprietary info as this is unlikely to be added. Possibly camera specific third party modules may do this for you, once the SDK is released and someone gets around to developing such a thing.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Importing Canon EXIF data into Lightroom
Most Canon's MakerNotes tags are ''public secret'', which means: there's no official documentation, but everybody knows them :-)
As FEC info resides in the same (MakerNotes) section as some other info (which is recognised by LR), it shouldn't be difficult for LR to show FEC value too. I believe there could be other problem...
LR should deliver same infos for all camera brands and maybe FEC value of some other brand isn't so easy to ''decode''. So, it wouldn't be ''fair'' if LR would show particular values only for some brand. There's no other reason I can think of.
In regard of focus points.. I don't miss that info at all -and even Canon's DPP doesn't show them up.
Bogdan
While all that is true, one thing I think the team should add is the ability to read the ISO data out of the Canon P%26amp;S JPEGs. The last couple of years worth of Canon JPEGs don't put ISO in the right place but I know where it is and how to decode it (as do many others). Thankfully, Canon seems to be putting ISO back where it belongs in their new P%26amp;S cameras.
Spot removal workflow
Hi
Just found out the hard way that if you have spot removal to be done, best its done sooner rather than later, specifically when creating snapshots.
I failed to spot remove on one image about 10 spots at the beginning. And thus, upon doing so to one snapshot realised this was not applied to all snapshots.
I had the choice of individually spot removing for all 7 snapshots or copying and pasting that setting to each. Obviously, the later was easier but still a little frustrating to do for 7 snapshots.
Might be nice if, no matter where in your workflow you are, if spot removal is done then this is automatically applied to all snapshots of that image.
Cheers
brad
Spot removal workflow
The idea of snap shots is that you can go back in time to a previous stage that you know is ok. As you are now editing teh image it can only create a new snap shot.
Just found out the hard way that if you have spot removal to be done, best its done sooner rather than later, specifically when creating snapshots.
I failed to spot remove on one image about 10 spots at the beginning. And thus, upon doing so to one snapshot realised this was not applied to all snapshots.
I had the choice of individually spot removing for all 7 snapshots or copying and pasting that setting to each. Obviously, the later was easier but still a little frustrating to do for 7 snapshots.
Might be nice if, no matter where in your workflow you are, if spot removal is done then this is automatically applied to all snapshots of that image.
Cheers
brad
Spot removal workflow
The idea of snap shots is that you can go back in time to a previous stage that you know is ok. As you are now editing teh image it can only create a new snap shot.
resume slideshow from any starting...
I've got all the my photos in the order I want then to appear in the slideshow. It seems that when that if I stop the slideshow (escape key) and then play again, it always starts at the first photo. Is there any option to start the slideshow at some selected photo in the filmstrip? Or is there an option to quickly advance. I've got 1000 photos???
resume slideshow from any starting...
Best way to do a slideshow is with a Collection. Can be the Quick Collection. Select all the images you want in the slidehow by whatever criteria you want, Previous Import or a Folder or se of keywords or ratings or color labels and make a collection. YOu can then manual sort them and then go to SLideshow.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
resume slideshow from any starting...
That not what I was asking.
- I have a huge slideshow in the order I already want.
- I stop the slideshow (not pause) in order to make an edit to photo, for example,
- I want to restart the slideshow where I left off, or for that matter from any point in the current sorting order
There seems to be no option or memory in the slideshow module to start from a selected photo *within* the slideshow (already in the desired order).
I guess I was unsure because why woud you do a slide show of 1000 images and not a segment to begin with.
Seems one can only start at a selected image from the toolbar in Slideshow, where the tool bar remains visible. Full slideshow 'Play' starts from the beginning.
But then I tried Option-Play (the button bottom right) and it switched to preview. Wish is the same as starting from the beginning on the toolbar. However, Shift-Play starts from a selected, not first, image.
Give it a try.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
resume slideshow from any starting...
Best way to do a slideshow is with a Collection. Can be the Quick Collection. Select all the images you want in the slidehow by whatever criteria you want, Previous Import or a Folder or se of keywords or ratings or color labels and make a collection. YOu can then manual sort them and then go to SLideshow.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
resume slideshow from any starting...
That not what I was asking.
- I have a huge slideshow in the order I already want.
- I stop the slideshow (not pause) in order to make an edit to photo, for example,
- I want to restart the slideshow where I left off, or for that matter from any point in the current sorting order
There seems to be no option or memory in the slideshow module to start from a selected photo *within* the slideshow (already in the desired order).
I guess I was unsure because why woud you do a slide show of 1000 images and not a segment to begin with.
Seems one can only start at a selected image from the toolbar in Slideshow, where the tool bar remains visible. Full slideshow 'Play' starts from the beginning.
But then I tried Option-Play (the button bottom right) and it switched to preview. Wish is the same as starting from the beginning on the toolbar. However, Shift-Play starts from a selected, not first, image.
Give it a try.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Unable to install V1.0 demo on...
I have had B4 installed on my PC for a while now. I never used it a great deal as it ran very badly on my pc (very slow) but have been waiting for v1.0 to see if there have been any improvements.%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;Prior to installing V1.0 demo I uninstalled B4 via the Control Panel, Add Remove Programs. All went fine and B4 was removed.%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;When I go to install v1.0 demo I get the error message:%26lt;br /%26gt;''Another version of this product is already installed. Installation of this version cannot continue. To configure or remove the existing version of this product, use Add/Remove Programs on the Control Panel''%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;I have also removed:%26lt;br /%26gt;\\Program Files\Adobe\Lightroom directory as well as the hidden directory under c:\users\%26lt;your name%26gt;\Application Data\Adobe\Lightroom%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;I have also cleaned the registry of anything linked to Lightroom. %26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;I am currently stumped as where to go from here and would greatly appreciate any advice that anyone on these forums may have.%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;I also had a demo verson of RawShooter on my PC, which has also been removed. Not sure if this has any bearing on the problem.%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;I would love for Lightroom V1.0 to work as I feel it is just the app that I need. %26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;Thank you for taking the time to read this post. Any suggestions that you could give at this stage would be a help...Unable to install V1.0 demo on...
Have you read the FAQ yet?
www.lightroomextra.com
Unable to install V1.0 demo on...
Hi Sid.....
I have but I'm heading of there again as I type to see if I missed anything
Cheers
OK I've just re-read the faq at www.lightroomextra.com
Nothing stands out that I haven't already tried.... ho hum!
If you're still having problems with the install or uninstall, you may want to check out the
Windows Install Cleanup Utility. I've used it a time or two with other programs and it works quite well. After you install it, run it to get a list of programs installed. Select the one you want to remove and click Remove. I don't remember if you need to reboot or not, but that's probably a good idea anyway.
Brian
Humbug.......
funny you should mention that.... I'd just finished installing it!
But unfortunately to no avail..... There is nothing in there that remotely looks as though it is Lightroom.
Still.... thanks for the help :)
There is obviously something somewhere in my registry that has been left behind...... I just need to find it...
This is becoming a tad annoying
Finally........ fixed it.... or at least skipped around it :)
Created a new user in XP
logged on to this new user
Installed V1.0 ..... drum roll ..... it worked !!
Removed new user
Logged back in as myself
Started Lightroom
It's stuff like the above that keeps me awake at night !!
Have you read the FAQ yet?
www.lightroomextra.com
Unable to install V1.0 demo on...
Hi Sid.....
I have but I'm heading of there again as I type to see if I missed anything
Cheers
OK I've just re-read the faq at www.lightroomextra.com
Nothing stands out that I haven't already tried.... ho hum!
If you're still having problems with the install or uninstall, you may want to check out the
Windows Install Cleanup Utility. I've used it a time or two with other programs and it works quite well. After you install it, run it to get a list of programs installed. Select the one you want to remove and click Remove. I don't remember if you need to reboot or not, but that's probably a good idea anyway.
Brian
Humbug.......
funny you should mention that.... I'd just finished installing it!
But unfortunately to no avail..... There is nothing in there that remotely looks as though it is Lightroom.
Still.... thanks for the help :)
There is obviously something somewhere in my registry that has been left behind...... I just need to find it...
This is becoming a tad annoying
Finally........ fixed it.... or at least skipped around it :)
Created a new user in XP
logged on to this new user
Installed V1.0 ..... drum roll ..... it worked !!
Removed new user
Logged back in as myself
Started Lightroom
It's stuff like the above that keeps me awake at night !!
DAm that is a god idea. Will try that for the error 1603 problem. nice one.
LR won't allow me to delete files from...
Hi. In using Betas 2, 3, 4 and now LR 1.0, I managed to reimport many pix, winding up with too many duplicates. But when I try to delete them, LR tells me I cannot do so. I can remove them with no trouble, but not delete. HELP.
I am on MacBook Pro 15in running OS 10.4.9. Anyone have ideas, help, magic spells?
LR won't allow me to delete files from...
Exactly where are you in Library? All Photographs, Folders, Keywords?
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
LR won't allow me to delete files from...
Don, I am looking at thumbnails on the Library module. When I select the pix I want to delete -- the same way I have done since Beta 2 -- I get the ''no can do'' message. This is the first time I have seen this message and I know I deleted pix in the Trial version. This is my first time using the program since loading it from my newly purchased program disk.
But where are you in the left panel of Library, is what I am asking. Not Collections, not Keywords. All Photos, Folders, Previous Import. Got to be somewhere in Library. Grid or Filmstrip?
By the way, no such thing as 'the trial version', just LR without a serial number.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
I am on MacBook Pro 15in running OS 10.4.9. Anyone have ideas, help, magic spells?
LR won't allow me to delete files from...
Exactly where are you in Library? All Photographs, Folders, Keywords?
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
LR won't allow me to delete files from...
Don, I am looking at thumbnails on the Library module. When I select the pix I want to delete -- the same way I have done since Beta 2 -- I get the ''no can do'' message. This is the first time I have seen this message and I know I deleted pix in the Trial version. This is my first time using the program since loading it from my newly purchased program disk.
But where are you in the left panel of Library, is what I am asking. Not Collections, not Keywords. All Photos, Folders, Previous Import. Got to be somewhere in Library. Grid or Filmstrip?
By the way, no such thing as 'the trial version', just LR without a serial number.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Is it possible to add other templates...
If so, how? And is it possible to make a ''package.'' In other words a template with multiple pages.
For instance drop in one image and have it auto populate say 1 8x10 2 5x7 4 4x6 and 16 wallets on 81/2'' x 11'' sheets.
Would be really great if you didn't have to leave Lightroom to print basic school packages.
Thanks,
Drew
Is it possible to add other templates...
I don't believe so at this point, I have requested this..
Is it possible to add other templates...
You can certainly add templates by setting up things the way you want them and then clicking ''Add''. You can also have multiple pictures on one page (e.g. 2 5x7s on an 8.5x11). What you can't do is mix multiple sizes of picture on one page.
That's what I am after DW......
Thanks for the info. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
It would work for me if it didn't mix and match on a page. But, it would need to be able to have a ''package'' of multiple pages. Just something basic. Not looking for a full fledged program or rip.
Same here, Geoff. I love LR's overall approach to printing, but a built-in ''picture package'' capability plus the ability to print to a file and convert to a profile are really needed to ''complete'' it for me.
For instance drop in one image and have it auto populate say 1 8x10 2 5x7 4 4x6 and 16 wallets on 81/2'' x 11'' sheets.
Would be really great if you didn't have to leave Lightroom to print basic school packages.
Thanks,
Drew
Is it possible to add other templates...
I don't believe so at this point, I have requested this..
Is it possible to add other templates...
You can certainly add templates by setting up things the way you want them and then clicking ''Add''. You can also have multiple pictures on one page (e.g. 2 5x7s on an 8.5x11). What you can't do is mix multiple sizes of picture on one page.
That's what I am after DW......
Thanks for the info. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
It would work for me if it didn't mix and match on a page. But, it would need to be able to have a ''package'' of multiple pages. Just something basic. Not looking for a full fledged program or rip.
Same here, Geoff. I love LR's overall approach to printing, but a built-in ''picture package'' capability plus the ability to print to a file and convert to a profile are really needed to ''complete'' it for me.
Copyright Metadata Information Question
Dear Friends
In Lightroom where is the trigger that will make the image appear as copyrighted in Photoshop?
I've filled out all of the copyright information in Lightroom's metadata panel, but when I look at File Info in Photoshop CS2, the copyright status appears as ''Unknown.'' I want the copyright status to appear as ''Copyrighted.''
I'm running Lightroom 1 (308266) under OS X 10.4.9.
Thank you for any help you may be able to offer.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Copyright Metadata Information Question
There isn't, AFAIK. Only a ciopyright field that can be triggered for a sort of watermark on export other than direct to PSCS.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Copyright Metadata Information Question
Jaddie-
You have to export the metadata to the image file; then it'll show up in Info viewable in PS. AT least PS CS3!
John I believe she is looking for what turns on the 漏 before the filename in PSCS. I don't think just including a copyright field info does that. though I may be wrong.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
This is controlled by the ''copyright status'' field in the XMP file info panel (in Photoshop or Bridge). At this point, there isn't an equivalent in Lightroom but it has been asked for since the beginning of the beta.
I currently use Bridge as a workaround to bulk-apply this tag (from a template) and then import into LR.
In PSCS applying a Digimarc Watermark will also incur this.
:)
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Dear Don, John, %26amp; Greg
Thank you for your responses.
Greg, I guess I'll have to follow your workaround until Lightroom enables the copyright symbol.
Don, ''she'' is a he.
Thanks again for your responses.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Sorry, my bad.
Not a name I'm familiar with.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
In Lightroom where is the trigger that will make the image appear as copyrighted in Photoshop?
I've filled out all of the copyright information in Lightroom's metadata panel, but when I look at File Info in Photoshop CS2, the copyright status appears as ''Unknown.'' I want the copyright status to appear as ''Copyrighted.''
I'm running Lightroom 1 (308266) under OS X 10.4.9.
Thank you for any help you may be able to offer.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Copyright Metadata Information Question
There isn't, AFAIK. Only a ciopyright field that can be triggered for a sort of watermark on export other than direct to PSCS.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Copyright Metadata Information Question
Jaddie-
You have to export the metadata to the image file; then it'll show up in Info viewable in PS. AT least PS CS3!
John I believe she is looking for what turns on the 漏 before the filename in PSCS. I don't think just including a copyright field info does that. though I may be wrong.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
This is controlled by the ''copyright status'' field in the XMP file info panel (in Photoshop or Bridge). At this point, there isn't an equivalent in Lightroom but it has been asked for since the beginning of the beta.
I currently use Bridge as a workaround to bulk-apply this tag (from a template) and then import into LR.
In PSCS applying a Digimarc Watermark will also incur this.
:)
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Dear Don, John, %26amp; Greg
Thank you for your responses.
Greg, I guess I'll have to follow your workaround until Lightroom enables the copyright symbol.
Don, ''she'' is a he.
Thanks again for your responses.
Sincerely,
Jaddie
Sorry, my bad.
Not a name I'm familiar with.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Lightroom does not recognize Photoshop...
I installed on my notebook and all is well.
However, I installed on my desktop and Lightroom does not see that Photoshop CS2 is installed.
I'm sure a full re-install of CS2 then Lightroom would fix it...but I'm hoping for a less painful way of fixing this?
Thanks!
Greg
Lightroom does not recognize Photoshop...
Ok - right after posting the message, I found my own answer back on the beta messageboard.
Here's how to fix it:
1) Run regedit.exe from start menu-%26gt;run
2) Look for this folder:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\photoshop.exe
In that folder, there should be a key ''Path'' and its value should be the folder where Photoshop CS2 (or any other Photoshop version) is installed.''
My registry didn't have that folder, so I created it and added a ''Path'' key with the value being the path to Photoshop CS2: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS2\
Lightroom does not recognize Photoshop...
Good for you Greg, makes me happy to be a Mac user, I have no idea about that sort of thing.
Greg
thanks for the tip.
I have Photoshop Elements 5.0 installed as well as CS2. When LR installed, it found PSE and made it the default editor. By adding the registry settings for PS2 as you described, this has been corrected. The next time I opened LR, CS2 became the default editor.
Thanks
Dave
However, I installed on my desktop and Lightroom does not see that Photoshop CS2 is installed.
I'm sure a full re-install of CS2 then Lightroom would fix it...but I'm hoping for a less painful way of fixing this?
Thanks!
Greg
Lightroom does not recognize Photoshop...
Ok - right after posting the message, I found my own answer back on the beta messageboard.
Here's how to fix it:
1) Run regedit.exe from start menu-%26gt;run
2) Look for this folder:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\photoshop.exe
In that folder, there should be a key ''Path'' and its value should be the folder where Photoshop CS2 (or any other Photoshop version) is installed.''
My registry didn't have that folder, so I created it and added a ''Path'' key with the value being the path to Photoshop CS2: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS2\
Lightroom does not recognize Photoshop...
Good for you Greg, makes me happy to be a Mac user, I have no idea about that sort of thing.
Greg
thanks for the tip.
I have Photoshop Elements 5.0 installed as well as CS2. When LR installed, it found PSE and made it the default editor. By adding the registry settings for PS2 as you described, this has been corrected. The next time I opened LR, CS2 became the default editor.
Thanks
Dave
oversize flash gallery
I have put together 125 small jpegs for a web gallery, yet the file to uploadto my website is 90+ megs. Within the folder are four folders:thunbs,small medium, and large. Seems like a lot for just a flash gallery. Any suggestions?
Stacks and Keywords
The docs say that keywords applied to the top image of a stack will be applied to the images in the stack. This morning I was keywording a lot (2200) images I had previously grouped into stacks. After working through a number of stacks I saw that the keywords were only applying to the top image.
The workaround is to select the stack, press S to expand the stack, set the keyword(s), press S again to collapse the stack.
Is there a formal bug list for LR?
Stacks and Keywords
Where do the docs say that?
Stacks and Keywords
In the on-line Help docs.
Well the docs are wrong, as I am sure Lee Jay will come back and tell you, and why.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
LOL!
The whole point of a stack is to hide the images beneath the top one from operations. If you select a stack, then expand it, you'll see that the images in the stack beneath the top one are not selected. This isn't a bug in LR, it's a bug in the docs if you are indeed right about that.
Now, in pod cast 29 there was some discussion about changing this behavior. I'm not in favor of that. To me, consistency is a good thing and a stack should hide the images beneath the top one from all operations except moving the entire stack around. As you correctly pointed out, there is a very simple alternative way to apply operations to all images in stacks if that's what you want to do - just expand the stacks, apply your operations, and re-collapse them.
That's too bad. Grouping images into stacks is extremely handy for working with large numbers and being able to tap the stack to set keywords would be a neat workflow.
Lee,
I am, indeed, correct about the docs. See for yourself:
''Collapsed stack (top) and expanded stack (below)
Here are a few tips for working with stacks:
*
Any develop adjustments, ratings, flags, or color labels applied to a collapsed stack affect only the top photo.
*
Keyword tags applied to a collapsed stack are applied to all photos in the stack.
*
If you select a photo in a stack and add it to a Quick Collection or collection, only the selected photo is added, not the entire stack.
*
When you search for photos, the top photo in a stack appears with the number of photos in the stack in the upper left corner.''
A stack does not just hide frames - it says they all of the same subject. Keywords describe the subject. Therefore, when you apply keywords when they happen to be stacked, LR should be applying that keyword to them all. Lee Jay and I have discussed this ad nauseam in the feature requests forum and he is still wrong. He doesn't need DAM anyway.
John
%26gt; Keyword tags applied to a collapsed stack are applied to all photos in the stack.
Thanks for that. That's just wrong.
Lee,
Another thing - when I select the top image of a stack and expand it, as you describe, all the images within the stack are indeed selected. This is what made the workaround I described - well - work.
Apparently when the stack is collapsed only the top image is selectable and therefore affected.
I agree with the issues of consistency. I would favor the other direction, namely being able to apply edits and changes to a stack of images. But maybe I'm not using stacks the way they were envisioned. If the idea is to group bursts and multiple edits of the same image together then I see your point.
In my case I was using stacks to group participants in a sporting event. Once I had each participant in their own stack I went back to keyword them. This also make the whole shoot more manageable in the Grid view.
And I think Thomas Knoll (trying to remember who was talking during the pod cast) has the same opinion as John's and his opinion might count just a teeny bit more than mine does.
%26gt; Another thing - when I select the top image of a stack and expand it, as you describe, all the images within the stack are indeed selected.
They are? I definitely tried this and they are not. What I mean is, select all (or a whole bunch of images with some stacks) and then hit ''expand stacks''. The images below the stack are not selected, at least for me.
Lee,
You are correct about selecting multiple stacks.
But if you select a single stack and expand it all images in the stack become the selection. I may not have made that clear.
This would be a good distinction in the way keywords, for example, are applied.
Ah, I see now. See I was thinking that the workaround if you indeed want to apply keywords to all images in stacks is to hit control-A, expand all the stacks and then go-a-keyword'n. When you're done, control-A, contract all stacks.
It sounds like you are looking at the task as attempting to apply keywords to all images and I'm looking at applying keywords to images within a stack.
So it seems we have determined:
* the docs are wrong
* the process for keywording (or editing) images within a stack is as I described - click on the stack, expand it, perform actions on the selected images and collapse the stack.
No I was just saying you can expand all the stacks and go keywording after that. You can still apply keywords to all the images in a stack by selecting them all or stamping etc. Then, when you are all done, select all and recollapse all the stacks in one shot.
I would like to see keywords applied to all images within ONE stack. this is intuatuve for me.
%26gt; I would like to see keywords applied to all images within ONE stack. this is intuatuve for me.
What about ratings? Probably one at a time.
What about color labels? Hmmm...I use them to categorize types. All together?
What about flags? Just the top one, right?
Comments in metadata? One at a time or all together?
Image corrections? Should a stack act like autosync or one image a time?
What if I use keywords to describe why I didn't choose a particular image (blurry, OOF, DOF too shallow, DOF too deep, eyes closed, whatever)?
Lee,
Take a deep breath. A walk perhaps...
We've got 27mm of rain today, and it's still pouring with the wind above 10 meters per second (22 miles per hour).
I think I'll stay inside.
''What about ratings? Probably one at a time.''
Yes, bc the best is probably at the top, but still from the same place or the same style.
''What about color labels? Hmmm...I use them to categorize types. All together?''
As above
''What about flags? Just the top one, right? ''
All white flagged. If X'ed then not in the stack, just deleted.
''Comments in metadata? One at a time or all together?''
As per ratings
''Image corrections? Should a stack act like autosync or one image a time?''
Depend if the images are a burst or not
''What if I use keywords to describe why I didn't choose a particular image (blurry, OOF, DOF too shallow, DOF too deep, eyes closed, whatever)?''
Then its deleted, why waste space!
Can't beet a walk in the rain.
So, when I take a whole bunch of shots at a wedding, and I categorize them with color labels into categories like ''posed'', ''candids'', ''art shots'', and ''objects'', stacking similar shots together should prevent me from applying color labels and the categories that go with them down through the stack? That doesn't make sense to me if I can apply keywords down through the stack.
A walk in the rain is nice. A walk in the pouring rain at 35掳F and 20mph of wind is nothing but shear misery.
Ah, but then it feels so good to come in out of the rain..... :)
I try to keyword before making stacks, but then I'm not a big stacker. Consistency is a good thing, and I can see why applying keywords to all in an unexpanded stack might not be a good idea. But then, on the other hand.....
I'm getting too wordy. Good night.
After thinking about this a bit more it occurs to me that 'stacks' are being used in two ways:
* to organize sets of versions of the same shot
* to organize sets of images thematically linked
The first case seems to be the predominate one. In this situation it makes sense that the image on top is the preferred shot from the stack and, therefore, the single image any action should be applied to. (Keywords, edits, etc.)
The second case is where stacks are created to group images rapidly and make a large number of images workable. This is the one I happened upon. In this situation it is desirable to have actions apply to all images in the stack.
These two approaches are mutually exclusive yet useful. So I'd like to see it become a Preferences setting. Something like,
[ ] Actions %26amp; keywords applied to stacks affect top image only.
[ ] Actions %26amp; keywords applied to stacks affect all images in stack.
I do mainly events right now so I'd prefer the second. But if I start shooting fashion, for example, I'd like to group the images of a single model into stacks for each pose and put the best on top. Doing this work I'd set the first option.
Stacks are indeed used in different ways as you said:
- to organize sets of versions of the same shot
- to organize sets of images thematically linked
The first one seems to imply that all the images are of the same subject and thus should have the same keywords applied, but not the same ratings or pick flags, but perhaps the same color labels.
The second seems to imply that you are using stacks as collections (all my sunset images from Hawaii, for example). In that case, I'd think you'd want to apply different keywords to each image since you may have taken some sunset shots on Oahu, and some on Maui.
Anyway, I still don't see the need for a preference since you can still do either one (drive keywords to all images in the stack, or not) simply by leaving images in their stacks (you get only the top image, or expanding the stacks (keywords go to all selected).
%26gt; Anyway, I still don't see the need...
That is clear.
It's also why it is a appropriate to be an option. One can set it if it's useful and ignore it if it isn't.
And the fact that it can be done without an 'option' (as Lee jay points out) means it is unlikely to be implimented in the short run with so much else for them to do.
I am sure they have noted the request by now. Maybe it is time to move on.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
People should know the team is very averse to adding preferences unless absolutely necessary to reduce modality.
Lee,
Would you explain how adding stack preferences makes LR more modal? It's modal by design and it works that way. If I had my way, there would be a metadata module instead of cramming that into the Library module...
Jim
If you use LR on your machine with that preference set, and then on my machine with it not set, there's no way to see the difference without going to the preferences screen. That's modal (which ''mode'' the preference is set to). They prefer to keep preferences to a minimum and, where they are used, they are often for things you can either see (grid cell type and layout, for example) or that don't need to be seen (how often to discard 1:1 previews, for example). They'd prefer to minimize the number of ways you can change the behavior of the software through changing preferences. At least, this is my read of the group.
Which is a refrheshing change from PSCS with it five ways to heaven to st something and God forbid you did not unset a pref and go to do something else twith that brush on another pic on another day in a rush...
That's modal.. as apposed to modular ( a type of modality) which LR is in spades.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
I wonder if it might be possible to rig the interface so if (for example) one applied a keyword normally it would only affect the top image in the stack, and applied the keyword while holding down the ALT key (or some other key) it would be applied to the whole stack?
Or that modifier could work the other way round, ie apply keywords correctly.
There are plenty of ways this could be handled which would keep the clearsighted and the muddy thinkers happy. For example, bring on scripting! An OnKeyword event could trigger code - in this case the code might test if the images are stacked and then post the keyword to the other frames (assuming the current behaviour remains uncorrected).
John
%26gt;After thinking about this a bit more it occurs to me that 'stacks' are being used in two ways: (1) to organize sets of versions of the same shot (2) to organize sets of images thematically linked
Exactly, and that is why I think that Lightroom should start making a distinction between 'stacks' (for the second type) and 'versions' (for the first type). The functionality of either can then be optimized for its intended purpose.
Stacks would be purely a visual aid that helps to remove clutter. It can remain tool-agnostic as it is now. In other words, keywords and categories are only assigned to the active image. Versions can be implemented in a similar way to stacks, but would imply a much stronger link between the images.
For versions, the default behavior could be to assign keywords and collections to all versions at the same time, although, ideally, you should be able to every collection or keyword a 'content' or 'version' flag. With a 'content' flag, they are applied to all versions of an image, and with a 'version' flag they are version-specific. Ratings would be version specific as well...
For more details on a possbible implementation of versions, see
Simon Tindemans, ''Basic Version Management'' #6, 22 Apr 2007 2:27 am
Cheers,
Simon
''After thinking about this a bit more it occurs to me that 'stacks' are being used in two ways: (1) to organize sets of versions of the same shot (2) to organize sets of images thematically linked''
Exactly, and that is why stacks are not just a visual convenience. They hide clutter which arises only because of a number of frames of one subject. One subject, so keyword assignment needs to apply to each frame in the stack. For a looser thematic structure, we already have collections, keywords etc.
John
Why do you assume that everyone will use stacks only to group shots of the same subject or set of subjects? That's not how I create stacks of prints when I'm preparing to put them in an album.
Not assuming, but having observed people working, and further shown by the auto stack by capture time feature that you see in LR, Aperture, iView, Bridge.... I've no problem with both keyword assignment methods being available, but the default behaviour needs to follow the most common use.
John
I don't really see why anyone would stack virtually identical images (like from a burst) with the best one on top. It seems to me that that's what the rating stars and filters are for.
Both approaches are currently available, as you mention, but reversing the default behavior would making applying keywords to only the top image harder that it presently is to apply keywords to all the images in a stack. Currently, you just unstack and select all, of if a single stack, just select it and expand. If the default were to apply to all the images, you'd have to unstack and go through and select just the top images by hand which is much harder than either approach to doing what you want to do is currently.
Well, that's what people do - ask the marketing guys who do the fancy stacking video for Aperture. The best of all worlds would be to make it a preference.
Yeah...I saw that video. I guess I just don't think like Apple does. That's probably why I don't own any Apple products - I find them confusing, hard to use, and counter-intuitive.
''I don't really see why anyone would stack virtually identical images (like from a burst) with the best one on top.''
Well, thats not suitable for your workflow. But it is for me and i suspect many others. It is exactly what i do. Or, if i take a series of landscapes from a tripod with only exposure or ISO changes, i will also choose the best on top, not meaning that i will discard the others. Maybe one of those further down the stack is better suited to BW, which i may come to at a later date.
For me though, if i make a virtual copy specifically for a grayscale image, i would like the keyword ''grayscale'' to be automatically applied to the metadata. This makes it handy not to have to return to the library mode to apply this, in my opinion, essential keyword for separating black and white images.
Flexability is the keyword here!
Frankly, I'd like LR to automatically correct the word grayscale to black and white whenever the system encounters this utter obscenity. Who shoots ''grayscale''?
Who shoots black and white? You only need 1 bit per pixel to store it so that's a nice advantage.
Not advocating shooting b%26amp;w on a digital camera, but you never heard old Ansel shooting ''greyscale''. Now I wonder if there's a language file I could hack and erase that horrible word.
Have you looked at Jeffrey's Config Thingy? He'd be the one to know.
Don
![]()
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
I hadn't, instead I'd been opening odd files in text editors, but that's a good idea Don.
John
Ok, then 'black and white'. personally i also prefer this term, but the point was for auto keyword generation within the develop module.
The workaround is to select the stack, press S to expand the stack, set the keyword(s), press S again to collapse the stack.
Is there a formal bug list for LR?
Stacks and Keywords
Where do the docs say that?
Stacks and Keywords
In the on-line Help docs.
Well the docs are wrong, as I am sure Lee Jay will come back and tell you, and why.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
LOL!
The whole point of a stack is to hide the images beneath the top one from operations. If you select a stack, then expand it, you'll see that the images in the stack beneath the top one are not selected. This isn't a bug in LR, it's a bug in the docs if you are indeed right about that.
Now, in pod cast 29 there was some discussion about changing this behavior. I'm not in favor of that. To me, consistency is a good thing and a stack should hide the images beneath the top one from all operations except moving the entire stack around. As you correctly pointed out, there is a very simple alternative way to apply operations to all images in stacks if that's what you want to do - just expand the stacks, apply your operations, and re-collapse them.
That's too bad. Grouping images into stacks is extremely handy for working with large numbers and being able to tap the stack to set keywords would be a neat workflow.
Lee,
I am, indeed, correct about the docs. See for yourself:
''Collapsed stack (top) and expanded stack (below)
Here are a few tips for working with stacks:
*
Any develop adjustments, ratings, flags, or color labels applied to a collapsed stack affect only the top photo.
*
Keyword tags applied to a collapsed stack are applied to all photos in the stack.
*
If you select a photo in a stack and add it to a Quick Collection or collection, only the selected photo is added, not the entire stack.
*
When you search for photos, the top photo in a stack appears with the number of photos in the stack in the upper left corner.''
A stack does not just hide frames - it says they all of the same subject. Keywords describe the subject. Therefore, when you apply keywords when they happen to be stacked, LR should be applying that keyword to them all. Lee Jay and I have discussed this ad nauseam in the feature requests forum and he is still wrong. He doesn't need DAM anyway.
John
%26gt; Keyword tags applied to a collapsed stack are applied to all photos in the stack.
Thanks for that. That's just wrong.
Lee,
Another thing - when I select the top image of a stack and expand it, as you describe, all the images within the stack are indeed selected. This is what made the workaround I described - well - work.
Apparently when the stack is collapsed only the top image is selectable and therefore affected.
I agree with the issues of consistency. I would favor the other direction, namely being able to apply edits and changes to a stack of images. But maybe I'm not using stacks the way they were envisioned. If the idea is to group bursts and multiple edits of the same image together then I see your point.
In my case I was using stacks to group participants in a sporting event. Once I had each participant in their own stack I went back to keyword them. This also make the whole shoot more manageable in the Grid view.
And I think Thomas Knoll (trying to remember who was talking during the pod cast) has the same opinion as John's and his opinion might count just a teeny bit more than mine does.
%26gt; Another thing - when I select the top image of a stack and expand it, as you describe, all the images within the stack are indeed selected.
They are? I definitely tried this and they are not. What I mean is, select all (or a whole bunch of images with some stacks) and then hit ''expand stacks''. The images below the stack are not selected, at least for me.
Lee,
You are correct about selecting multiple stacks.
But if you select a single stack and expand it all images in the stack become the selection. I may not have made that clear.
This would be a good distinction in the way keywords, for example, are applied.
Ah, I see now. See I was thinking that the workaround if you indeed want to apply keywords to all images in stacks is to hit control-A, expand all the stacks and then go-a-keyword'n. When you're done, control-A, contract all stacks.
It sounds like you are looking at the task as attempting to apply keywords to all images and I'm looking at applying keywords to images within a stack.
So it seems we have determined:
* the docs are wrong
* the process for keywording (or editing) images within a stack is as I described - click on the stack, expand it, perform actions on the selected images and collapse the stack.
No I was just saying you can expand all the stacks and go keywording after that. You can still apply keywords to all the images in a stack by selecting them all or stamping etc. Then, when you are all done, select all and recollapse all the stacks in one shot.
I would like to see keywords applied to all images within ONE stack. this is intuatuve for me.
%26gt; I would like to see keywords applied to all images within ONE stack. this is intuatuve for me.
What about ratings? Probably one at a time.
What about color labels? Hmmm...I use them to categorize types. All together?
What about flags? Just the top one, right?
Comments in metadata? One at a time or all together?
Image corrections? Should a stack act like autosync or one image a time?
What if I use keywords to describe why I didn't choose a particular image (blurry, OOF, DOF too shallow, DOF too deep, eyes closed, whatever)?
Lee,
Take a deep breath. A walk perhaps...
We've got 27mm of rain today, and it's still pouring with the wind above 10 meters per second (22 miles per hour).
I think I'll stay inside.
''What about ratings? Probably one at a time.''
Yes, bc the best is probably at the top, but still from the same place or the same style.
''What about color labels? Hmmm...I use them to categorize types. All together?''
As above
''What about flags? Just the top one, right? ''
All white flagged. If X'ed then not in the stack, just deleted.
''Comments in metadata? One at a time or all together?''
As per ratings
''Image corrections? Should a stack act like autosync or one image a time?''
Depend if the images are a burst or not
''What if I use keywords to describe why I didn't choose a particular image (blurry, OOF, DOF too shallow, DOF too deep, eyes closed, whatever)?''
Then its deleted, why waste space!
Can't beet a walk in the rain.
So, when I take a whole bunch of shots at a wedding, and I categorize them with color labels into categories like ''posed'', ''candids'', ''art shots'', and ''objects'', stacking similar shots together should prevent me from applying color labels and the categories that go with them down through the stack? That doesn't make sense to me if I can apply keywords down through the stack.
A walk in the rain is nice. A walk in the pouring rain at 35掳F and 20mph of wind is nothing but shear misery.
Ah, but then it feels so good to come in out of the rain..... :)
I try to keyword before making stacks, but then I'm not a big stacker. Consistency is a good thing, and I can see why applying keywords to all in an unexpanded stack might not be a good idea. But then, on the other hand.....
I'm getting too wordy. Good night.
After thinking about this a bit more it occurs to me that 'stacks' are being used in two ways:
* to organize sets of versions of the same shot
* to organize sets of images thematically linked
The first case seems to be the predominate one. In this situation it makes sense that the image on top is the preferred shot from the stack and, therefore, the single image any action should be applied to. (Keywords, edits, etc.)
The second case is where stacks are created to group images rapidly and make a large number of images workable. This is the one I happened upon. In this situation it is desirable to have actions apply to all images in the stack.
These two approaches are mutually exclusive yet useful. So I'd like to see it become a Preferences setting. Something like,
[ ] Actions %26amp; keywords applied to stacks affect top image only.
[ ] Actions %26amp; keywords applied to stacks affect all images in stack.
I do mainly events right now so I'd prefer the second. But if I start shooting fashion, for example, I'd like to group the images of a single model into stacks for each pose and put the best on top. Doing this work I'd set the first option.
Stacks are indeed used in different ways as you said:
- to organize sets of versions of the same shot
- to organize sets of images thematically linked
The first one seems to imply that all the images are of the same subject and thus should have the same keywords applied, but not the same ratings or pick flags, but perhaps the same color labels.
The second seems to imply that you are using stacks as collections (all my sunset images from Hawaii, for example). In that case, I'd think you'd want to apply different keywords to each image since you may have taken some sunset shots on Oahu, and some on Maui.
Anyway, I still don't see the need for a preference since you can still do either one (drive keywords to all images in the stack, or not) simply by leaving images in their stacks (you get only the top image, or expanding the stacks (keywords go to all selected).
%26gt; Anyway, I still don't see the need...
That is clear.
It's also why it is a appropriate to be an option. One can set it if it's useful and ignore it if it isn't.
And the fact that it can be done without an 'option' (as Lee jay points out) means it is unlikely to be implimented in the short run with so much else for them to do.
I am sure they have noted the request by now. Maybe it is time to move on.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
People should know the team is very averse to adding preferences unless absolutely necessary to reduce modality.
Lee,
Would you explain how adding stack preferences makes LR more modal? It's modal by design and it works that way. If I had my way, there would be a metadata module instead of cramming that into the Library module...
Jim
If you use LR on your machine with that preference set, and then on my machine with it not set, there's no way to see the difference without going to the preferences screen. That's modal (which ''mode'' the preference is set to). They prefer to keep preferences to a minimum and, where they are used, they are often for things you can either see (grid cell type and layout, for example) or that don't need to be seen (how often to discard 1:1 previews, for example). They'd prefer to minimize the number of ways you can change the behavior of the software through changing preferences. At least, this is my read of the group.
Which is a refrheshing change from PSCS with it five ways to heaven to st something and God forbid you did not unset a pref and go to do something else twith that brush on another pic on another day in a rush...
That's modal.. as apposed to modular ( a type of modality) which LR is in spades.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
I wonder if it might be possible to rig the interface so if (for example) one applied a keyword normally it would only affect the top image in the stack, and applied the keyword while holding down the ALT key (or some other key) it would be applied to the whole stack?
Or that modifier could work the other way round, ie apply keywords correctly.
There are plenty of ways this could be handled which would keep the clearsighted and the muddy thinkers happy. For example, bring on scripting! An OnKeyword event could trigger code - in this case the code might test if the images are stacked and then post the keyword to the other frames (assuming the current behaviour remains uncorrected).
John
%26gt;After thinking about this a bit more it occurs to me that 'stacks' are being used in two ways: (1) to organize sets of versions of the same shot (2) to organize sets of images thematically linked
Exactly, and that is why I think that Lightroom should start making a distinction between 'stacks' (for the second type) and 'versions' (for the first type). The functionality of either can then be optimized for its intended purpose.
Stacks would be purely a visual aid that helps to remove clutter. It can remain tool-agnostic as it is now. In other words, keywords and categories are only assigned to the active image. Versions can be implemented in a similar way to stacks, but would imply a much stronger link between the images.
For versions, the default behavior could be to assign keywords and collections to all versions at the same time, although, ideally, you should be able to every collection or keyword a 'content' or 'version' flag. With a 'content' flag, they are applied to all versions of an image, and with a 'version' flag they are version-specific. Ratings would be version specific as well...
For more details on a possbible implementation of versions, see
Simon Tindemans, ''Basic Version Management'' #6, 22 Apr 2007 2:27 am
Cheers,
Simon
''After thinking about this a bit more it occurs to me that 'stacks' are being used in two ways: (1) to organize sets of versions of the same shot (2) to organize sets of images thematically linked''
Exactly, and that is why stacks are not just a visual convenience. They hide clutter which arises only because of a number of frames of one subject. One subject, so keyword assignment needs to apply to each frame in the stack. For a looser thematic structure, we already have collections, keywords etc.
John
Why do you assume that everyone will use stacks only to group shots of the same subject or set of subjects? That's not how I create stacks of prints when I'm preparing to put them in an album.
Not assuming, but having observed people working, and further shown by the auto stack by capture time feature that you see in LR, Aperture, iView, Bridge.... I've no problem with both keyword assignment methods being available, but the default behaviour needs to follow the most common use.
John
I don't really see why anyone would stack virtually identical images (like from a burst) with the best one on top. It seems to me that that's what the rating stars and filters are for.
Both approaches are currently available, as you mention, but reversing the default behavior would making applying keywords to only the top image harder that it presently is to apply keywords to all the images in a stack. Currently, you just unstack and select all, of if a single stack, just select it and expand. If the default were to apply to all the images, you'd have to unstack and go through and select just the top images by hand which is much harder than either approach to doing what you want to do is currently.
Well, that's what people do - ask the marketing guys who do the fancy stacking video for Aperture. The best of all worlds would be to make it a preference.
Yeah...I saw that video. I guess I just don't think like Apple does. That's probably why I don't own any Apple products - I find them confusing, hard to use, and counter-intuitive.
''I don't really see why anyone would stack virtually identical images (like from a burst) with the best one on top.''
Well, thats not suitable for your workflow. But it is for me and i suspect many others. It is exactly what i do. Or, if i take a series of landscapes from a tripod with only exposure or ISO changes, i will also choose the best on top, not meaning that i will discard the others. Maybe one of those further down the stack is better suited to BW, which i may come to at a later date.
For me though, if i make a virtual copy specifically for a grayscale image, i would like the keyword ''grayscale'' to be automatically applied to the metadata. This makes it handy not to have to return to the library mode to apply this, in my opinion, essential keyword for separating black and white images.
Flexability is the keyword here!
Frankly, I'd like LR to automatically correct the word grayscale to black and white whenever the system encounters this utter obscenity. Who shoots ''grayscale''?
Who shoots black and white? You only need 1 bit per pixel to store it so that's a nice advantage.
Not advocating shooting b%26amp;w on a digital camera, but you never heard old Ansel shooting ''greyscale''. Now I wonder if there's a language file I could hack and erase that horrible word.
Have you looked at Jeffrey's Config Thingy? He'd be the one to know.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
I hadn't, instead I'd been opening odd files in text editors, but that's a good idea Don.
John
Ok, then 'black and white'. personally i also prefer this term, but the point was for auto keyword generation within the develop module.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(Atom)