multiple file copies

Before I buy Lightroom, I want to know if it will help me fix an issue I have.



I've copied my Nikon D70 and D200 RAW files to multiple locations (C:\folder, C:\other folder, C;\other folder\subfolder, E:\yet another location, E:\this is dumb Fred) on one server while trying to consolidate hard drives and not over write files!



This has created multiple duplicates and I don't want to loose any file that may have the same name at the OS level.



I understand that Lightroom uses a data base to keep information about files and you can use this ''off line''

Can I map the server drives to my laptop, import the mapped drives into Lightroom and then go thru them disconnected?



If I delete a file in Lightroom, does the actual deletion from the drive happen when the drives are ''on line'' again? Can I see ''thumbnails'' for the pictures during the ''Off line''



Thanks for your help, I couldn't find the answer in the FAQ
multiple file copies
Why not use the command to import into a new place, and keep ''Don't import duplicate'' in force? Then when you have brought everything in, you can delete all your copies, and then make a fresh back up.



You can see the thumbs and 1:1 previews when the images are offline. As to deleting files you marked when offline, when you are online again, I am not sure but I think you have to select the photo and then hit Delete. Probably easier to mark with an x when offline.

Wrong colors in Lightroom preview

Hi,

I thought I would give Lightroom a try and downloaded the trial. Then I started to import some Raws (CR2) from my camera (EOS 350D). I noticed that the colors were extremly different when comparing them to DPP which I use so far. Below are links to the pictures. The sky is kind of purple in Lightroom. All my monitors are calibrated using Pantone Huey and I never had a problem like this so far. Any ideas or help would be very much appreciated. After all this is not the best user experience for me with Lightroom so far... :-(



Screenshot in DPP:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=43zxhef



Screenshot in Lightroom Trial:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2mdgb6g
Wrong colors in Lightroom preview
ACR is different from DPP. You can, if you wish, create presets that come close to the DPP defaults if you prefer. There are threads on this and others have done so.
Wrong colors in Lightroom preview
This is not about the differences in processing the picture in DPP or Lightroom. I simply have completely wrong colors in the preview in Lightroom. In a German forum I found some help, another guy has the same problem and it seems that the monitor of my laptop has a very small color space that it can reproduce. This might be the reason why this is happening. But I don't know for sure.

It could be your monitor profile. LR assumes your monitor is profiled and converts to that profile automatically. Since my monitors are not profiled, I had to delete the default profile (from Dell) to prevent LR from converting.

Like I wrote in the first post, all my monitors including the laptop are calibrated. Disabling the profile just changes the colors in both previews a little, the difference remains.

I know you said that, but is the profile generated by the Huey actually the default profile in the OS?

Yes it is.

Then the difference is that ACR uses different profiles and tone curves than DPP. If you don't like the default presets, create your own to match what you prefer.

I think I have a similar problem.

Intel iMac 20, Canon 20D shooting in Raw.



In the Aperture program, there is a ''soft proof'' setting that changes the display to the colors that your print will show, and the prints do agree closely with the monitor. Monitor calibrated frequently with a Spyder2 Pro.



There is no such setting, that I can find, in Lightroom--which otherwise seems to be a great program.



If I just import using the Lightroom defaults for my camera, do no editing, and print (HP7160,) the color of the prints is very close to that of the objects photographed. The monitor shows a different color scheme. Makes it difficult to do any editing...

I'm glad that I'm not the only one experiencing such things. If I export pictures or print them the colors are fine here too. But previews are way different.

I found some additional info, seems like the display panel is the problem: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KIfk

Rishi, the author of those pages, is a regular here, although I haven't seen any posts in the last few days.



FWIW, the sky doesn't appear ''too purple'' - but that's me, my eyes, and my monitor. The overall color temp looks diff. between the two, and the LR one doesn't look like a default setting on import- is it? Or conversely, the first one looks under saturated, the second one possibly over-sat.



I'll take another look when I am on my laptop. What monitor are you using? I'm looking via a LaCie ebIV and a Samsung LCD SyncMaster 191t.

bridal make up

Preferences & ID template gone while...

Hello, all



I have Lightroom installed on 2 computers and I use 2 different libraries as follows :

- Private computer with my private library located on the C drive and backed up in the documents %26amp; settings / user / blabla... as required.

- Workstation with my professional work + relevant library stored on an external drive.



When I use Lightroom on my private computer, I connect the external drive as well so I can work on both libraries as needed.



My problem is that, each time I restart Lightroom into one of the Libraries, preferences and ID templates are resetted.

I tried to fix this by applying the same settings and ID templates in both sessions. It worked but, after switching the computer off and disconnecting the external drive, the preferences and ID template on my private computer were resetted again.



Hope my explanations are clear. Any clue ?



Thanks for any help and hints.



Regards,



Gilles.

SDK

I couldn't find an SDK fro Lightroom ... is one planned, if so, is there an expected release date? If not, why not?



Thanks,

- Ian
SDK
One is planned, no release date yet.
SDK
''If not, why not?''



They're busy...

Oh. I thought ''if not, why not'' applied to ''is one planned'' not ''is there an expected release date''.



I guess that just hit me differently than it hit you Jeff!

Ok. ..ok, I can read it that way too...yes, one is planed, no, no idea when (but not ''soon'').



How's that?



:~)

Well, if SDK release is not going to happen soon, that means we will not get third-party modules before a while.

And as Adobe reminds silent about what's in the pipeline for future releases, it may discourage potential customers to use Lightroom, and competition could take the lead.



I decided to build-up all my workflow and organization around Lightroom and I hope we will not have to wait for years to get improvements and more functionalities...



Gilles.

%26gt; I hope we will not have to wait for years to get improvements and more functionalities...



While I'm still under NDA, I don't think it's letting out a secret that the next version will be released in less time than ''years''!!! I actually don't know when it will be, but ''years'' seems out of the question.

Based on the huge progress between Betas and V 1.0, I have no doubt that next release will be worthwhile :-)



Rgds,



Gilles.

Can't delete images

Even though the database passes the corruption check, I'm having problems importing additional images and deleteing a few that don't preview -- i get an ''error loading module'' when trying to go to the develop module for just those images. When I try to delete the offending images, here's what I get in the Mac OS X console:



2007-04-23 22:46:17.521 Adobe Lightroom[600] entity ID 52961 is a AgVariable, expected AgMetadataSearchIndex

2007-04-23 22:53:35.258 Adobe Lightroom[600] entity ID 52941 is a AgLibraryTag, expected AgLibraryTagImage

2007-04-23 22:54:19.965 Adobe Lightroom[600] entity ID 52958 is a AgLibraryImageFile, expected AgLibraryImageDevelopBeforeSettings



Anh hints? Is the database fubar?
Can't delete images
In the library mode, can you hit Cmd-R to show where the file resides? These don't look like they're image files. Can you delete them in Finder?
Can't delete images
The data base is sQlite.



Don



Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D

http://donricklin.blogspot.com/

No -- show file in finder doesn't work. Now I can't import images at all. It just hangs. It's definitely not a setup issue because I open a new DB and it works just fine. Breathlessly awaiting a LR software update.

Check out the thread containing his post:
Dan Tull, ''export and import ratings etc? Database corrupt but openable'' #19, 26 Apr 2007 7:24 am



Don



Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D

http://donricklin.blogspot.com/

Move file or mark for system move file...

Hello,

I finally bought Lightroom. Searching these posts I saw someone commenting about why a person would want to use LR to move a file. Seriously? Because I Want it to be a full on DAM solution. And the first mess I must de-tangle involves some years of very bad habits, both in iphoto and in my own head.



Therefore, there is something that I don't think Lightroom can do yet but I would love to be found wrong. I don't think LR is much help in marking for the system to find later out side of LR, and then moving the files, right, wrong?



I don't care if it marks the file in a way that the system can later find it and move it, or, if LR moves a selected file set already in LR. Either way what I am trying to do is organize correctly and that must mean moving found sets of files to where they belong.



It seems like overkill to purchase iView just for this one task. Qpict is a lot cheaper than iView ($35 vs $199) and can move files around. I was just wondering though why LR cant yet do this? OR, am I wrong? Does anyone but me think this is important? Any others requesting this (LR is missing applescript support on the Mac side as well)



Thanks



David
Move file or mark for system move file...
Just move them within Lightroom. That's the right way anyway because if you move them outside of Lightroom, they will have to be relocated.
Move file or mark for system move file...
Sorry to be less than clear but, how do I do this? ''How'' was the point of my post. How, do I move files around in Lightroom? I can see that I can delete files within LR but, how do I select files and move them to Folder A instead of residing in Folder B?



If there is a move action or a tool for already doing this then I apologize for being dense, but I have not seen this yet.



Thanks.



David

David-



Select a group of images * in folder view*, click and drag from the center of the photo, not the border. The folder it's going to will have a black line around it when it's selected.

levelbest,



If I understand your question, you've got many images in iPhoto that you want to reorganize and import into Lr. Is that the issue?



If so, there are various ways to tackle it. One easy way is to create the new folders as you go.



On your Desktop, make a new folder (Shift-Cmd-N). Name it ''For Lr Import.''



Now open iPhoto. Scroll back to your first image in iPhoto. Let's say it's from the year 2000. Select that first image plus the photos you want to group with it. Maybe they are all shots of Niagara Falls. Export only those photos (full-size) to that Desktop folder you just made: ''For Lr Import.''



Now switch to Lightroom. Go to File: Import Photos (or Shift-Cmd-I). In the window that opens, navigate to Desktop%26gt;For Lr Import. Select all the photos in that folder (click on the the first and then Cmd-A), and click Choose.



That window will close and the Lr Import dialog will open. Your choices here will depend on what kind of files you're working with - jpeg or raw, and what you want to do with them. The options are easy to figure out. This method works faster if you choose a ''move'' option rather than a ''copy'' option because it will move the images out of the desktop folder and into whatever folder you create for them. ''Copy'' leaves them sitting in that Desktop folder, and you've gotta clear 'em out manually before the next export/import -- an extra step each time.



So here's one way to go (in the Lr Import dialog):



Under File Handling, select ''Move Photos to a new location and import.''



Under Move To, navigate to Pictures. Create a new folder. Name it Photos 2000. Inside that folder, create another new folder. Name it Niagara Falls.



Under Organize, select By Date and pick a date format.



Don't miss taking advantage of the backup option. Check the ''Backup To'' box and create a similar hierarchy on a different drive. You could call the top-level folder Photo Originals.



Now you've created a hierarchy you can continue using with each export from iPhoto. Just keep adding folders to Photos 2000 until you exhaust that year. Then create Photos 2001 the same way. All your photos will eventually be organized by year%26gt;topic%26gt;date (or however you set up the hierarchy).



If you are converting raw to dng during import, the process is the same. You can use the backup function to preserve your raw files.



Good luck,



Jack

OK, I was not understanding the folder tree that LR has. So I can grab any selected photos and drag them to a different folder in the folder view? That is great. Thanks. Just what I was looking for.



I guess I Wont have to keep messing with the Qpict or iView demos then, hooray.



And just to be following up clearly, no, these photos are not in iPhoto anymore. I moved everything out of iPhoto several months ago when I knew things had gotten out of control. I Was using Graphic Converter first to try to organize but that was way too slow.



I did decide then to keep folders for each category, Sunrise, Sunset, Water, Sacred, etc. I am thinking this will make backing up easier in the long run and keep my folder structure used by Lightroom, but independent also. iPhoto left me nervous about trusting total file injcstion for a while.



I sent a test print out to a friend using a bureau, and it came out very nicely. It impressed everyone. SO now, I Need to backtrack a bit and sort through all the files that I have multiple copies of. I have multiple copies of so many files, BECSZSUE, I used iPhoto for so long. And because I was very lax with my backup system, I also have a couple of external drives with everything backed up. It's a headache to sort it all out but with the professional photography looming, and lots of pictures already to sell and to display, it is time to take all this DAM stuff seriously.



So hooray again for lightroom. And thanks.



David

Oh oh, I spoke too soon (perhaps). I still need to look at a files size. I need to select only files for example, with the width larger than 1200.



I also need to select only files with a width smaller than 600. It would also be great if I could look at the files date when I find a suspected duplicate and keep the earliest version.



I have not ingested file locations from my two back up disks yet but if I have read the web correctly, LR will keep track of files on eternal drives. (Yes, the docs support this too)



For that matter, I have not ingested all my files I have on this machine yet. I wanted to make sure I wasn't duplicating my efforts with LR first.



FWIW, I was just reading the help docs and I can't see where LR provides for finding a set based on the file size, file width, etc. It is already great for finding flags, colors and keywords. Also dates, camera, lens, and other criterion. So, is this yet another feature I have overlooked?



Anyone? And, thanks.



David

David-



LR doesn't have a search for files of a certain size esp outside of LR itself. Use the Finder's find file for such....

Well that's too bad. I guess it's back to Qpict after all. I think Lightroom is pretty close to an all in one app. Putting in a search by size for culling out old files would be nice IMHO.



Yes, I can use the finder outside LR but, using a good DAM app to organize ones files, as well as ones workflow is kind of the point as I see it.



Oh well.



David

It took me a while to figure out that I could just drag and drop in the folder view. The documentation is poor.



Scott

You could use keyword to tag for file size. It might be more trouble than it's worth but you might consider that as a workaround. In the meantime, put that in as a feature request

Is there a way to request a feature? I have not been very impressed with Adobe overall and their lack of interest in my rpre sales questions when I was in demo mode? I might have gotten my forums confused but usually there are several arguments for this feature or that feature, Then some other users chime in and tell you that really isn't needed in their opinion, etc.



Yes, I could tag them when I find them but finding them is what a good cataloging program can help you to do. Apparently Lightroom is unaware of this feature yet. I Must say that it wasn't too hard to sort it out another way, although I would still appreciate it being in a future version. I did set up a smart folder (saved searches for you Windows types). Then I got even smarter, I switched folder views and sorted by file size. Then it was pretty easy to drag the files under 300 to a smaller version folder and to import the larger file folders into LR.



Probably one too many hoops to jump through without a simple way of searching withing lightroom for file size or better, pixel width. But, I got it done anyway.



But, getting the older versions of the same files from the backed up hard drives will again make me wish I had this feature, I want the oldest version of the same file of course because I want to get the least degraded since we are talking JPGs here.



Thanks



David Groover

LR v1.0 missing some very common EXIF...

Just like in the beta, LR v1.0 is missing some of the main EXIF information that I see with other programs. I know about the setting to tell LR which EXIF data to show, and it's set to ''All,'' so this isn't the problem.



My Minolta A2 RAW shots, for example, don't show the 35mm equivalent focal length. I find this data VERY useful in my work flow, so I really miss it. It's just too hard to have to constantly calculate this data since my cameras don't all have the same sensor size. I'm also missing quite a bit of the ''camera specific'' fields such as red-eye mode and some of the metering mode details. All of this info DOES show up in several other programs I've tried.



The EXIF info is clearly there, and it's common enough that other programs ''see'' it, so why is LR giving me such a limited list? It seems very odd to me that such a mainstream company like Adobe would display so much less of this data than software from several other MUCH smaller companies.



Thanks,



Larry
LR v1.0 missing some very common EXIF...
Larry, there will be a custom metadata view creator soon.. As Adobe add tags, you'll be able to view them.
LR v1.0 missing some very common EXIF...
Thanks for the information. Is there any information posted about this that I might be able to read? I've searched around the various LR sites, but I haven't been able to find any specific information about this feature.



Thanks,



Larry

Private bata at present :)

Beta

How is that for a quick release...



There is now a web based Metadata template editor available at:??http://regex.info/Lightroom/Meta/??This has been written by Jeffrey聽Friedl, very good stuff.

I've a blog post up on it too:

http://seanmcfoto.com/lightroom/2007/02/create-your-own-metadata-viewer-preset.h tml

I downloaded that file, but I don't understand how to get it to do what I want. When I choose ''The Whole Works'' in LR, I see less EXIF data than I do with the default ''All'' or ''EXIF'' settings. I assume that I'm supposed to edit the file and add more EXIF fields to it somehow, but I don't have a clue how to do this -- i.e. I have no idea what the fields I want are actually called or how to add them to the file. For example, I don't know what I would put in this file to get it to show me the 35mm Equivalent Focal Length. On top of this, at the moment I don't even know how to get it show me all the fields that the default LR already shows me.



Could somebody please point me to some much more comprehensive instructions on this?



Thanks,



Larry

Never mind, just saw Sean's blog entry.

Okay -- I found the website with instructions on it. I'll have to read over that.



Thanks,



Larry

I just read over the instructions and tried Jeffrey's Metadata Viewer ''Builder'' tool, and it's really nice -- the instruction are clear and the Builder is quite intuitive. A big Thanks to Jeffrey for creating this and to Sid for pointing me to the page.



I was dumb and missed the intruction and creation pages at first, so here are some direct links for other people that may be as slow as I was:



Instruction page: http://regex.info/blog/2007-02-20/386

Preset Builder: http://regex.info/Lightroom/Meta/



One note: Jeffrey points out in the instruction page that the 35m Equiv Focal Length is not displaying in LR at the moment for some reason. He said he submitted this bug to Adobe. I wanted to mention this because this was a specific field I wanted to display, but apparently it's not possible to see it in LR at this time.



Thanks again,



Larry

Offline Images (.tif, .jpeg)

A good friend of mine has started a vast archiving project and has recently ran into a problem When he goes to import the photos everything imports just fine, but as soon as the .tif's and jpegs go offline the previews in lightroom go blank. You can still see the file name, but there is no preview to see.



He called adobe and they simply stated that because LR cannot right an XMP file to the .tif's and .jpeg's they cannon be seen unless the drive is brought online.



Has anyone else run into this problem? Anyone come up with a solution for this problem?
Offline Images (.tif, .jpeg)
My offline photos show up fine. Has he created Previews of such? Where is his library and preveiws files located?
Offline Images (.tif, .jpeg)
You know I'm not sure. This just came up and I tried to get LR to do the same on my computer and I couldn't. I'm not exactly sure whats going on. I tried turning features on and off, preview resolution high to low, etc, and nothing would replicate his problem. I'm going to have to do a little investigating for myself.

bridal make up

Photos have a dull grayish cast after I...

After I view or work on my photos in Lightroom and export them back to my hard drive, they taks on a dull grey cast with dark pale like colors. Strangely enough, they look very good in Lightroom and with the Windows viewer. However they look greyish with Picassa, Bridge, Gimp, and if sent with Outlook. I take my pictures with JPEG fine, large. I have a Nikon DSLR. Thanks
Photos have a dull grayish cast after I...
What color space are you exporting to?
Photos have a dull grayish cast after I...
Thanks, I tried them all and found that sRPG works fine.

Radiozapper:



I think you have some color management 'issues' if they only look correct when exported in sRGB.

I am having the same problem!!!



Looks fine in my mac preview, but DULL in Photohop!!

miv

Check your ''Color Settings...'' in Photoshop. Are you preserving embedded profiles? Are all profile-mismatch dialogs enabled?

thanks for your comments BOB!



thinking it is an icc profile problem. A few days ago, I ran the 'Profile First Aid in Color Sync'.



Did a verify and repair. (was trying to get another problem fixed).



Think that may have buggered up everything!



Wondering if I should grab icc's from library on other mac and throw them on to MacPro.



I have all running fine in same exact senario on my MacBookPro, but not with MacPro. All same settings...must be a profile icc thing...???

ok so that didn't work.



doing an archive and install on the os....



miv

Found the error!



Was the way I was profiling my monitor. I use ColorEyes Display Pro. The blackpoint was set to 'relative' instead of 'absolute' when I was runnig the calibration.



Miv Photography

www.mivphotogrpahy.com

I am having the same problem with the ''dull grayish cast''. Blacks look great in Lightroom, perfect contrast, ect. I export the file using 8 bit, Adobe 98. When the image opens in PS3, it looks flat compared with the lightroom version. My monitor is calibrated and profiled with pro software and hardware, and all of my PS3 color settings are set correctly. Any advise?

Sabin.



which software are you calibrating monitor with?



miv

www.mivphotography.com

Sabin, I assume you mean PsCS3, not Photoshop 3. Otherwise, I'd advise you to upgrade, since you would be about a decade out of date.

Lightroom performance MacIntel OS X vs...

Anyone running Lightroom on both a MacIntel OS X machine and Intel WinXP machine with similar hardware configurations? I've tried searching but haven't found any comparisons on similar hardware configurations.



I'm using a Dell Inspiron 9400 laptop, 2GHz Centrino Duo, 2GB RAM, 128MB ATI X1400 with 17'' widescreen at 1920x1200 resolution. Under WinXP SP2, my 8000 RAW/JPG collection performance is useable but slow as others have posted. Not knowing when the next Lightroom update is going to be and among other reasons I'm considering migrating to MacIntel.



I'm looking at a MacBook Pro 15'', 2.16GHz Centrino 2, 2GB RAM, 256MB ATI X1600.



I know these are not exact hardware configurations but close based on what I'm interested in purchasing. The 17'' MB Pro is a bit too expensive and not on sale where I live right now.



Specifically I'm curious (without stirring the Mac vs WinXP debate too much) whether anyone who runs dual platform config has found better performance under Mac Lightroom. Better yet, anyone with MacBook Pro who runs Boot Camp and can offer their insights on WinXp vs OS X performance.



Thank you.
Lightroom performance MacIntel OS X vs...
I had a Pentium D PC with slow performance using Lightroom and ended up with a 24'' iMac. Lightroom performance was better, but still not what I considered ''right.'' I have since gone back to an even more powerful PC and the performance is still sluggish. I came to the conclusion that the Mac version was a better performer than the PC version, although I expect things to even out between the platforms within time.



My roommate still has a 24'' iMac. So, the specs between the two is:



iMac (10.4) - Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz CPU, 1 GB PC-5300 memory, and an nVidia GeForce 7300 GT video card with 128 MB DDR2 memory.



PC (WinXPSP2) - Core 2 Duo 2.40 GHZ CPU, 2 GB PC-6400 memory, and an nVidia GeForce 7950 GT video card with 512 MB DDR3 memory.



While not exactly the same, with the specs above, Lightroom performs better on the Mac. As I said earlier, however, I expect things to even out over time as improvements are made to the PC version.
Lightroom performance MacIntel OS X vs...
Don't go and change the platform you use for the sake of software.



Windows XP is fast with all the imaging programs i run (CS2, RSP)- Except LR.



This is a LR issue that adobe must address for PC users (see other forum entries regarding this issue)



If adobe does not fix current issues with LR/PC compatability, thus alienating PC users, forcing them to make rash decisions you are considering, it wont be long b4 microsoft gets wind of it.



I am too resisting the same temptation.......



PC forever (i have eaten my words b4 though!!!)

Cant print properly from Lightroom

Ive been having this trouble with lightroom since the early beta days.

Now ive purchased V1 i was shocked to see the same problem:



I shoot in Raw with 5D

After importing to light room I go to print.

I use a HP pro b9180 ( which has been developed closely with lightroom (so say HP))

I set printer to manage colour.....

Select my paper and out comes a crap, dark, strange looking print.

SO i took over....



I Balanced my dell with a Gretamacbeth I one display 2

I sent a test print to Permajet and recieved a personal ICC for the paper I use.

I select the paper with the new ICC profile.....

Same result!!



Import into Photoshop - same settings prints fine!



Now I also have an cheapy Epson R300 and thats the same! has to be Lightroom.

I HAVE tried every print combination in lightroom doeas anyone have a clue??



PLEASE can someone help me!

I'm having to print off 300 prints individually when Lightroom could do them whilst i'm down the pub!



Thanks in advance.
Cant print properly from Lightroom
If you do a search you'll find there have been many many threads concerning printing problems from LR (me included). The general concensus seems to be that one should allow the ''Application'' to manage the colour and NOT the printer.
Cant print properly from Lightroom
ok thanks I'll take a further look.



I have tried letting the app manage colours but it dosent seem to clever at determing the right colour profile for the different papers I've tried.

One thing u learn early on with this printer is that the ICC profile for the paper has to be spot on.



I think thats why the print head has a build in densistometer.

You have to set the icc profile yourself in LR. Print Module/Print Job/Color Management/Profile. and select all you use from the drop down. Then select for specific job. You can do Print presest for the different papers and sizes and layouts so you only have to do this once.



Do check ou the other numerous thrreads for even more info and insights.



Don



Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D

http://donricklin.blogspot.com/

Lightroom changes not showing in CS3...

Can someone please tell me why changes made in Lightroom 1 do not show up in thumbnails in CS3 Bridge?



Thanks.
Lightroom changes not showing in CS3...
Choose ''Metadata-%26gt;XMP-%26gt;Export XMP Metadata to File'' and you will see the changes.
Lightroom changes not showing in CS3...
Are you writing changes to xmp files in LR?

Thanks for your reply. Where do I choose Metadata-XMP-Export XMP Metadata to File? Is this in CS3 Bridge or in Lightroom 1?



Thanks.

Yes, I believe it is set up in Lightroom 1 to make changes to xmp sidecar files. (Automatically write changes to XMP is checked in Preferences.



Thanks

I found where you export the metadata to the file. I exported it from Lightroom, but the thumbnail does not reflect Lightroom changes in CS3 Bridge. When I open the file in Raw in Photoshop CS3, however, the changes made in Lightroom are reflected. Is there a way to make the thumbnails in Bridge also reflect these changes?



Thanks.

Bridge has its own thumbnails, so probably rebuilding cache would do it.

Well, I finally found out what was wrong. I had to build high quality thumbnails in CS3 Bridge rather than the quick thumbnails. Unfortunately, this is very time consuming when you have about 70,000 images.



Thanks for the help.

Alt+Tab broken in full screen mode

Hi,



I generally use lightroom in full screen mode where the title and menu bar are both hidden. However, when in this mode I find using Alt+Tab is broken. For example, say I have LR as the foreground application. I press Alt+Tab and switch to another app. Then press Alt+Tab once expecting to get back to LR. But somehow LR has gone to the end of the list and instead I get another application.



Is anyone else seeing this? I use WinXP+SP2+latest updates.



Thanks,

Nick
Alt+Tab broken in full screen mode
Same here. Swedish winXP. The solution is to use SHIFT-ALT-TAB to go back, but that is not a satisfactory solution.



John
Alt+Tab broken in full screen mode
It's a function of Windows and not Lightroom. When you switch from Lightroom to another window, it puts the full-screen application, in this case Lightroom, at the bottom of the pile, known as the z-order, and shows all of the other windows. As a result, Lightroom goes to the end of the Tasklist.



John Gregson

I tried with three different browsers and Photoshop (full-screen one at a time). It works as expected in full-screen. ALT+TAB goes to another window, ALT+TAB and you're back.



John

I run many applications full screen and Lightroom is the only one that goes to the ''bottom of the queue'' with ALT/TAB.

There are different types of full-screen mode. If in the other applications, you see the Minimize/Restore/Close buttons in the top right-hand corner, then that is not the full screen mode being used by Lightroom, which you'll notice, does not have those buttons available.



The other applications are actually maximized, and not in full-screen mode.



John Gregson

I mean fullscreen like F11 in browsers or twice F in Photoshop.

John

It may very well be a Windows issue. However, if MS doesn't address it one would think Adobe can find a workaround the way others have. As it is I find it very annoying.



Nick

Lightroom and camera raw

can I import camera raw,edit it and then export stilll as camera raw to a new folder? I used the colors to select my keepers but can't move those to a new folder. Help

Thanks
Lightroom and camera raw
No, I don't believe so. You can export those you want to keep into a new folder. You can save them as a collection also.

Personally I keep the raw files out side LR by importing as DNG's with the raw files as an archive. Keeps the number of files down - less confusing for me!!
Lightroom and camera raw
You should be able to move images from folder to folder in LR, what ever they are. Drag and Drop from center of thumbnail, one or many.



Don



Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D

http://donricklin.blogspot.com/

Can you describe exactly what you are doing to move (or try to move) the raws? You use the word ''export'' the raw, then say you can't ''move'' the image. Those are two different things.



- Pierre

Just a few days ago John Zeman (hope you don't mind my using your name John) postd on the Rawshooter Lightroom forum that he was trying to move edited RAW files from LR into Photoshop CS3 for further editing. He reported that he was able to do this by using Bridge. A few hours later I stumbled upon this info in the FAQ at the Lightroom Extra site ( http://lightroom-extra.com )

''How to open RAW or DNG in PhotoShop CS:

Put an alias/pointer to PhotoShop CS, in the 'Export Actions' folder.

Export the RAW or PNG, It Opens in ACR and on to PSCS2! ''

Cant say that I was able to achieve a result with either method as I don't have Photoshop, but maybe this info might be useful to someone.

swan-

You can use stars to rate/select photos, and these go into metadata which will go anywhere. Not sure about colors, as I make minimal use of them



As Pierre points out, we need more info as to what you're attempting.



Andrew- the simplest way I know is to choose Edit with CS3 from the Photo menu.

bridal make up

Make a Change, blurry, Make another,...

Hello,



I am editing my first large group of photo in Lightroom and the everything is nice except for the blurriness.



When I just move a slider one number the image goes blurry then re-focuses.



This is giving me a headache when trying to fine tune a photo, much less 400+.



My machine is Athlon 4200, 2 gig ram, dedicated FW 800 drive, XP.



Is there a way around this?



I can't believe Adobe would send this out the door thinking ''photographers won't mind this out of focus thing everytime they move a slider''.



I don't care about software coding ect..., this is a program for photographers and that is what we do, tweak every photo.



Thanks for any help.
Make a Change, blurry, Make another,...
This is from ''pixel doubling'' and it makes making changes drastically faster and smoother. Lots of programs use this approach including RSP and LR.
Make a Change, blurry, Make another,...
How could this make changes dramatically faster %26amp; smoother when the photo goes blurry for a simple brightness nudge?



In Bridge, moving the brightness slider is smooth and instant, not a hint of blurriness in between moves.



How could Lightroom's way be better than that?

The way pixel doubling works is to turn one pixel into many, then adjust those originals. If you have 1 pixel to adjust for every 9 on the screen, it runs 9 times faster. The price for this is that it has only 1/3 the linear resolution.



Don't know about Bridge. I could never get it to do anything useful.

Okay, I just tried the same operation (exposure adjustment) on the same image in Bridge and LR, both viewed at 1:1. In LR it is approximately 4 times faster.

Lee, we must be speaking of two different things here.



When in Lightroom (Raw File), even at 1:1, every change I make to a slider number (highlighting a field and using the up arrow to change the value by one number) results in the photo going blurry for a second or two then making the change and getting back to sharpness.



In Bridge (camera Raw), a slider move results in instant change in the photo without any blurriness.



Now is this different from your experience in Lightroom?



If so, do you know why my Lightroom is doing this?



Because 4 times faster is nowhere in the ballpark with my experience.



Do your photos go blurry when you move a slider?



Thanks

We're talking about the same thing. The ''blurry'' is pixel doubling as I said. I do see it. Some people see it as movement.



I did a test where I just slid the exposure slider up and down rapidly watching how many times it updated the screen per second. LR seemed to be updating about four times faster than ACR called from Bridge. Now, that version of ACR was quite a bit older than the version used in LR so that may be the reason, I don't know.

Lee, I have to ask this again,



How could Pixel doubling make changes dramatically faster %26amp; smoother when the photo goes blurry for a simple brightness nudge?



This only happens in PSCS2 inside the filter gallery preview.



From your posts, it sounds like this does not bother you?



It hurts my eyes to watch photo after photo go blurry with each slight exposure or brightness adjustment.



Is there any way to get Lightroom to behave like the ''slower'' Photoshop or Camera Raw?

%26gt; How could Pixel doubling make changes dramatically faster %26amp; smoother when the photo goes blurry for a simple brightness nudge?



I already explained this. Because it only has to update a small fraction of the pixels before you see the change!



Not only does this not bother me, but it was a request from the Beta period (from multiple users) that I was grateful for when it was implemented.

%26gt; LR seemed to be updating about four times faster than ACR called from Bridge.



I wonder if this is another Mac vs. PC thing, because I don't see much if any difference between ACR or Lightroom in screen update time. What is different, as Tim has pointed out, is that there is no pixel doubling going on in ACR; as you make small adjustments, the changes are very smooth and retain maximum sharpness. There's a ''clear'' advantage to ACR in this regard. :)

Tim,



You're not crazy. Yes I notice this too on my MacBook Pro C2D.



But I'm pretty much in Lee's camp. Trust me I have (or am cursed with) a discerning eye (I find the quality of 90% of previews in LR's 'Library' of unacceptable quality even when JPEG quality is set to 'high', for example); however, I don't mind the bit of blurriness due to the fact that moving sliders almost instantaneously updates the image. Works for impatient folk like myself...



In an ideal world, we'd just have a checkbox under 'Preferences' for this sort of behavior... perhaps as LR matures.



-Rishi

So there is not way to stop the blurriness?!



Camera Raw is so smooth on my computer, I just can't see Lightroom as an improvement.



I can literally move the mouse back and fourth on a slider as fast as I can and the image still changes smoothly in Camera Raw.



This seems like a flaw in Lightroom rather than a desired effect.



Lee you posted:

''Not only does this not bother me, but it was a request from the Beta period (from multiple users) that I was grateful for when it was implemented''.



Can I ask what we gain by using pixel doubling if the refesh speed is slower?



Is the image quality better?



I can't believe people would vote for a two second pause after every change.

%26gt; Can I ask what we gain by using pixel doubling if the refesh speed is slower?



The refresh speed is faster! It should take about the same time to get to the final, sharp image, but the ''blurry'' one goes way faster.



The steps are, update 1/4 of the image 4 times as fast, then update the other 3/4 if no other changes are requested.



On my system, looking at a 1:1 in ACR from Bridge on a 1920x1200 screen, changing the exposure slider results in perhaps 2 updates per second. In LR, the same thing is a little jumpy, but I'm guessing closer to 8 updates per second.

I am with Tim on this, in that the ''blurriness'' prevents one from easily assessing the cnages being applied. If the change was smooth, albeit a bit slower, the changes would be much easier to observe.

I know it is possible to view the before and after image side by side, but most of the time, I like to keep a single image on screen.

As has been suggested, it would be nice to have a preference option.

%26gt; I am with Tim on this, in that the ''blurriness'' prevents one from easily assessing the cnages being applied.



This is true regarding sharpening, but how can the pixel doubling inhibit your perception of the basic and tone controls?

Lee, as I said in my first post, I don't care about software coding.



I don't write the software, I just buy it and use it.



The fact is, Lightroom is slower to show the changes than ACR on my computer when one moves a slider.



I want to use Lightroom because I agree with its concept.



But it is more difficult to adjust photos due to this blurriness appearing with every slider move.



I am not against pixel doubling ect..., it seems I dislike the disruption of the sharpeness of the photo.



Is this the correct problem I am speaking of so we are on the same page?



You do not see a problem with a photo going out of focus with slider move?



Sorry to be argumentative, but I really can not understand where you are coming from.

The pixel doubling is the cause of the ''disruption of the sharpness'' that you are seeing, the reason is that this approach is faster by the amount of the ''doubling'' (if doubled, it's 4 times faster, if tripled, it's 9 times faster, etc. [actually this is an over-simplification but you get the idea]).



The fact for me is, LR is faster by a good bit than ACR when I move a slider (for the version of ACR I'm using). But I don't wait until the image shows up sharp to ''stop the clock''. As soon as the adjustment is made and shows up, even ''blurry'', it's done as far as I'm concerned, except for sharpening adjustments.



RSP used heavy pixel doubling and was often praised for that because moving the adjustment sliders created adjustments in a very smooth fashion.

Well, it hurts my eyes to look at something and watch it go out of focus.

Well PSSC has a toggle for this, maybe eventually LR will too, though it seems unlikely at this time.



Don



Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D

http://donricklin.blogspot.com/

I'm so used to it, I don't even notice it *at all*.

Please Tim, back off. Be careful what you wish for. Can you imagine how slow LR rendering would be if it didn't have pixel doubling?



I hate it too and find that Bridge is faster to render the change. This should be fixed with a preset (a lack of presets in LR is a major fault) but the rendering engine should be improved before it is done.

I am going to e-mail adobe tech support and ask them about the performance difference between ACR and Lightroom.



I really like the color control inside of Lightroom and will stick with it, but I hope they can clean this up as it is kind of a show stopper for me.



BTW, I don't know anything about pixel doubling, and do not want to know either.

This attitude of 'I don't want to know anything about X, but I'm gonna go ahead and complain about it to no end' is just ridiculous.



People here are genuinely trying to help by *explaining* your observations, yet you simply say 'I don't wanna know about it'. If you took the time to *know* about it, or just listen to what someone is saying when they try and explain it to you, you might have a better idea of *why* this particular feature might be the way it is.



Only *then* can you engage in an intelligent conversation about the pros and cons of having or modifying said 'feature'.



Ignorance is not cool. Certainly not in these forums.



-Rishi

I thought he was going for the ''ignorance is bliss'' approach.

Okay Lee Jay, it's the same old mantra--attack people who point out LR weaknesses.



Do you know everything about everything? How about endocrinology--or more narrowly, human endocrinology? Is your ignorance of it bliss? Just what did you mean by that comment? He was asking for help, not an explaination of what was happening.



Are you perfectly skilled in first-generation programming languages? How about all scripting languages? How about something so low as agronomy? The Krebs cycle?



Lee Jay, should a photographer be well versed in ''pixel doubling'' to do their job effectively? Is that really important? How about first-generation programming languages? Or the Korn shell? It sounds like Tim is a photographer who would like to use LR in a way that helps him. Does he really need to know about ''pixel doubling'' to shoot and process better pictures? He just wants to do his job faster and better.



Sorry to see that the attitude of the MVC's (or whatever you were named or named yourselves) hasn't changed.



Tim, as for Adobe tech support, I spoke with them about these and other issues and their approach was, ''Gee, let's see. I try to do X on my computer and it takes Y seconds. Isn't LR great?'' In effect, live with it. Same as the LR defenders in these forums.

Thanks for your post Mark, I agree with you.



As for Lee or Rishi ect...



I can't say you have any valid points.



One should not have to have the knowledge of the code to use a program nor to decide if a program is easy to use or helps one complete a task.



Ignorance about topics that one does not have interest in is, what?



Lee, I don't know your background, or if you are a moderator here.



I appreciate your willingness to participate, but I feel for whatever reason you are trying to explain away issues with tech talk that favors this program.



Bottom line - This problem does not occur in Photoshop, so why should it occur in Lightroom?



I will let it rest and deal with it.



Thanks for your help.

The proper answer should be:



Lightroom uses botched pixel doubling algorithm, causing that the image jerks. This is not so in better quality programs, like RawShooter Pro, in which case these updates were not only drastically faster than in Lightroom, they were also stationary to your eye.



This jerking/blurring of the image in Lightroom has been meanwhile filed as a bug by David Metzger, moderator of the Pixmantec forum.



I find this image jerking maddening. In addition, with some graphics card by NVidia the entire image can jump sidewards several times by as much as the entire margin between the image left edge and the edge of the Lightroom window.

%26gt;Do you know everything about everything?



Nope. But when I need to learn something to suit my needs/wants, I do.



%26gt;He was asking for help, not an explanation of what was happening.



Sure, but now that he has an explanation for what is happening, he can intelligently conclude that nothing will fix the problem in LR as of now... hence, he can now make an informed decision about when and if to use LR.



Without that explanation, he would have been forced to make an uninformed decision. Unless you don't question what you're told and would have simply accepted a 'nope there's nothing you can do about the image going blurry' without any sort of follow-up inquiry or 'why?'



But, this is all more a philosophical discussion at this point and entirely OT, so, apologies for the late night ramblings.



Rishi

Clearly the effect of pixel doubling is a problem for some and not others. Accepting this to be the case and also recognising that that is the way LR is currently set up, one would hope that if Adobe value this sort of forum they will at least take note and offer alternatives.

But whatever happens don't let the forum descend into bickering. We are all photographers keen to make the best of Lightroom!

What the heck? You wanted to know why things go ''blurry'' and if it's a bug. I tried to explain why it's done (several times). You respond with:



''BTW, I don't know anything about pixel doubling, and do not want to know either.''



Okay, then just realize that it's a feature, not a bug. Period. I don't care at all if you want to remain ignorant. But people who want to be ignorant generally don't get a lot of respect from me.

Or many others.

Okay, can someone explain why this ''feature'' is missing from Bridge/ACR, Photoshop, Raw Shooter, etc., and yet those programs, from my point of view (and apparently others as well), seem to handle image manipulation in this capacity better?

Rishi, Don, and Lee Jay,

Explain to me how knowing the intricacies of pixel doubling will help Tim to deal with it. He can't fix it. Okay, so he's no longer ''ignorant.'' LR still does it and Bridge doesn't. That seemed to be the point of his post.



I once had a truck that significantly hesitated when moving from a standing stop. Did I need to know the intricacies of this wonderful ''feature'' or just its name and that it wasn't fixable? Since I didn't care about the details (I couldn't do a thing about it other than drive more carefully), did that mean I wanted to remain ignorant?



Some people don't need to know the details of everything they use. Not everyone is an electrical engineer. I appreciate the details but they weren't significant to Tim. I can understand both positions.

%26gt; Okay, can someone explain why this ''feature'' is missing from Bridge/ACR, Photoshop, Raw Shooter, etc.,



RSP uses heavy pixel doubling.

RSP uses heavy pixel doubling.



Ah... Fair enough. I didn't know that.



How about ACR and Photoshop however? I base my concerns over the current release of Lightroom because I compare performance with Lightroom to Bridge/ACR, IVMP/ACR, and Photoshop in general. What these other programs do very well, Lightroom has trouble with on the very same computer.



Oh, and to offer a little explanation, I see the pixel-doubling on my computer, but the refresh time is very small,
almost insignificant. I can see why people are complaining about it, but I can also see why people don't mind it. I am in the camp that it shouldn't be there, feature or not. If other image manipulation programs don't need it, then I don't understand why Lightroom does.

It doesn't help to try to explain bugs or design flaws to the Adobe apologists. They'll explain everything away and try to make you think it's a feature.



I agree with Thomas - it's botched code. One section of code among many that are botched. People were crying out for the next version of Lightroom almost since day 1 - and not just because of features, but because it's just not ready for prime-time.



I sure hope the next version is free to registered users. I'd hate to think anyone would have to pay for the pleasures of having a program that works correctly!

Well I posted the same question on a different forum and this is the first reply I recieved:



The raw file has to be developed each time a change is made. That is what is causing the delay. It does not happen in bridge because bridge is just just displaying a preview image.



Makes sense to me.

When you say, ''in Bridge'' do you really mean ''in Bridge'' or ''in ACR called from Bridge''? When I call ACR on a RAW from Bridge, it's updates are several times slower than LR, and that's why I like the pixel doubling that LR uses. And yes, the reason is that the RAW (cropped or down-sampled, depending on your current view) has to be re-converted at each adjustment.



RSP shows this very clearly and, when you let go, the little gear icons grind for quite a while before the image is finished converting. RSP uses even heavier pixel doubling than LR and is even smoother in its adjustments. Actually, I prefer that approach to LR's (more pixel doubling) for smoother transitions and adjustments.



This is not ''botched code''. As I said, it was even a feature request from the Beta forum.

I have the exact same thing happen on my brand-new PC. Core 2 Duo 2.6 Ghz, 2GB RAM, 7500 RPM SATA drives in RAID 0. Sadly, LR is unusably slow on this hardware...While ACR and CS3 Beta simply scream.



I really wish I could use LR, but I have gone back to ACR as LR is simply 2 slow to use on my PC. Sure hope they issue a patch here fairly soon, otherwise I've flushed $200..

There are many posts on ''unusably slow'' in LR. Have you tried any of those suggestions?

You already posted this elswhere, and there are reply posts, as well.



Once is enough.



Don



Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D

http://donricklin.blogspot.com/

I'd like to get back to Tim's original problem. Some internal testing has shown that an image can ''pixel double'' at an unacceptable level with severe pixelization or blurring of the image. This can be corrected by changing the zoom state then returning to the original zoom state. (I moved from Fit to 1:1 and back to Fit and the problem went away)



Tim, does this accurately describe your problem?



The normal pixel doubling should show a slight softening of pixels then move back into sharp focus as soon as the slider stops moving. It should show consistent performance across all images of the same megapixel dimension. Camera Raw has no pixel doubling enabled so the slider response is slower but the image never softens.



Tim, if this normal pixel doubling has a significant softening effect can you describe the edits that you are making, your zoom level and what file type/size that you're working with?



Regards,

Tom Hogarty

Adobe Systems

Tom can correct me here, but this is what I see and what I believe is normal since I see this on all four of the systems on which I've tested. This is a divx file so you'll need that codec to play it.



http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/pixel%20doubling.avi

Hello Tom,



Thanks for your presence.



I am working with RAW files from a Canon 5D at ''fit'' level zoom.



What is happening/bothering me is during small incrimental moves like one number at a time exposure or brightness moves using the up/down arrows.



I move these sliders a bit at a time to find the limit of exposure then pull them back.



Well, when I am doing this, the photo is jumping in and out of focus.



This makes seeing your changes as they happen rather difficult.



While ACR might be a lesser implementation, at least the movement of the sliders does not impair the vision of the changes made to the photo.



Maybe the Lightroom develop module could have an ''edit'' mode where this focus/out of focus could be disabled for heavy slider movement?



I tried changing the zoom levels and everything was left unchanged.



I also changed the preview quality to low from high and the same behavior was noted.



Thanks for your help Tom.

%26gt;Lee, I don't know your background, or if you are a moderator here.



He's the self appointed Fanboy of these forums. And woe betide anyone who dares suggest LR isn't perfect. as he'll 'ave you!

C'mon, ''troy'', you can do better than gratuitous ad hominems.

Troy,



You're a moron.



First of all, I've made it known on many occasions that I don't even use LR for RAW conversions yet because the image quality is too low (noise, sharpening, and fringing, mostly, plus the Canon orange-reds problem). I've also made dozens, if not hundreds of feature requests, from small to large, and posted a great many of them here usually by confirmation. I've also pointed out several times that LR is too modal in some areas, some of which are specific and some fundamental. I've also said on several occasions that Adobe's UIs tend to be the worst of any company I've seen (PS being right up there) and LR is only a half-step in the right direction, still needing plenty of work.



However, many people come here simply saying LR is junk and that the developers are stupid, without even knowing how to use it or without asking any questions. Such people get little mercy from me and deservedly so.

%26gt;I've made it known on many occasions that I don't even use LR for RAW conversions yet because the image quality is too low (noise, sharpening, and fringing, mostly, plus the Canon orange-reds problem).



So, what do you use it for?

JPEG edits right now, where it saves me unbelievable amounts of time compared to file-browser and PSE 3.0. I used to think the fact that I could edit 1 image per minute that way was pretty good. LR is averaging more like one order of magnitude faster than that!



In some situations I use it for RAWs (low ISO shoots - I've had some shoots like that lately, but they aren't my main thing). I also do a lot of testing and learning as I can see the writing on the wall. It says something like ''LR is about to be better overall for what you use it for, so you'd better get used to it and get working to get it into your full workflow.'' ;-)

''RSP uses heavy pixel doubling''



Lee, yes it does, but in my opinion more effectively than LR.



In RSP any change to a slider causes the image to go slightly out of focus, and, from i gather learning what you say about pixel doubling, is probably unavoidable.



However, In RSP the change is smooth, and modifications are easily followed. In LR, the changes are jerky, the whole image tends to 'jump out of its skin' (for lack of better term) almost like its about to zoom in, and thus its very difficult to follow major, let alone slight modifications.



Hopefully the RSP designer now with LR, can help improve this function.



Brad

CRTL & SHIFT selection is not working...

Hello,



When I am in library, if I hold down CRTL, select a photo, then go forward some photos and hold down CRTL %26amp; SHIFT, just the two photos are selected, not all of the photos in-between.



Is there a setting to turn this on or off?



Works fine in Windows Explorer.



Thanks
CRTL %26 SHIFT selection is not working...
If you want a block selected, select the first one then go to the last one a shift-select it.
CRTL %26 SHIFT selection is not working...
Hey thanks!



I guess CRTL %26amp; SHIFT negates the command.

Printing after making corrections with...

Hello,



I need some direction .. and hope that someone will help :) ..



Am making my corrections on my photos with Lightroom and anything I can't do in Lightroom .. I do in Photoshop .. however, when I print (please note .. I OUTLAB my prints) .. when I get my photos back .. they look nothing like the ones I have corrected in Lightroom i.e. too dark, etc. .. I do export them and am choosing the correct photo .. but they are not matching up with what I am sending out for printing.



Any suggestions? .. do I convert to home printing .. if so, any suggestions on printers? .. I'm new to digital .. I shoot with a Nikon D80 and a SB800 ..



Would appreciate any %26amp; all suggestions %26amp; help that you can give me.



Also, for those of you who outlab your photos .. any recommendations for good labs?



Many thanks in advance,



Brenda
Printing after making corrections with...
What colour space are the images you send to your lab??

History, Snapshots and Virtual Copies

In other applications I use, specifically PS and Nikon Capture NX, I have the ability to delete random editing steps that I have done either directly through history or some sort of ''layer'' methodology. I have noticed in LR that the history list seems to be completely serial and ''all or nothing'', with no way to delete, say Step #3 out of 10. I see how I can save a Snapshot or Virtual copy, but that will include all the steps in History up to that point, at which time I can delete them all by clearing history. Is there a way to get rid of one history step in the middle of a sequence? If not, is there some other easy work-around that anyone knows rather than just starting from square one, or a snapshot that may have been 10 steps earlier and then trying to remember how to recreate the others?



Thanks,
History, Snapshots and Virtual Copies
Let's see what comes up Bill!!
History, Snapshots and Virtual Copies
Clearing the history on clears the list, not the operations themselves..

History is Linear in Lightroom and the final state is based on the culmination of steps. So if say step 3 is Sat +3, if you do a Sat -3 you've cancelled the effect. Other than reversing the step there's no current way to remove it. But the detail is there for you to change it.

OK, I see how that works on certain types of operations. I see 2 columns of numbers in history, for example:

Dark Tones: -4 -4



I then did a change:

Dark Tones: +2 -2



And another:

Dark Tones: +2 0



So the first number is the adjustment, the second is the effective result, correct? But if I want to know go back and ''see'' the the -4 result, I have to do it again?



Wait a minute, I just tried this with -50 so I could see a big change, and all the intermediate Dark Tones items ''disappeared'' from the History List, is this normal once I make changes that set it back to zero? Is there any way to do the equivalent with Presets, such as the various Tone Curves?



To be sure I understand things correctly, the only way to get back to ''original'' is to either use the History item Imported or the Imported snapshot once you have Cleared History correct?



Hmm, think I found a bug. Click on a step that shows number, as if you were changing the name, do nothing, but move to the right an click on the adjustment numbers, they disappear. You still see the numbers in the Tone Curve panel, just not in history. Where should I report this?

An unkown error has occured

That is the error message that I get when I try to develop a CR2 file. Just to make sure that the file itself was ok, I converted it using C1 Pro and DPP with no problems.



It will display in the library but as soon as you go to the develop module I get this error message as per the title of this thread.



The file sits in a first level sub folder. ie Folder is ''site images'' and then these sit in a folder below called ''marla''. It seems hit and miss as I can go to folders below ''site images'' and some will be ok and some won't.



Is there some way short of deleting and reimporting to do a check and have it validate that images are good. I've tried the ''check for missing pictures and folders'' option when you right click on a folder.

Stacking help

I recently imported a whole bunch of images (RAW and JPEG) processed by an another person. When i imported them into LR, they appear as two images. Although LR identified and placed the JPEG derivatives right next to its RAW image - they are not stacked. I would have loved to have these stacked, with the JPEG (post processed) to be on the top. Is this possible? Can someone help me here?



Thanks!
Stacking help
Not possible yet, though autostack set at 1 second might do the job.

bridal make up

Print Module: Auto-Rotate to fit and...

When in the print module with ''Auto-Rotate to fit'' selected, A landscape images correctly rotates to fit the page, but the text that is selected in the ''Photo Info'' setting does not rotate. Thus, the text appears along the left side of the image .



Any suggestions to get it to appear correctly on the bottom?



Also, Font size is selectable but not font type.
Print Module: Auto-Rotate to fit and...
What OS?



Don



Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D

http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Print Module: Auto-Rotate to fit and...
Page set up to get the type in the correct place. No you can't change the font there.

White balance

I am confused. I just noticed today that in the Library module I have a choice of a number of white balance settings, including Daylight. In the Develop module, I only have the choice of As Shot, Auto, and ''Custom''. I want the other choices in the develop module. I've read the help and I can't figure out what the story is.



I know I can use presets, but, alas, way too many since I have some of my own and the WOW ones, making them virtually unusable. I know I can copy and paste white balance settings in Develop.



Have I messed up my setup or does White Balance in Develop really not have these default settings? If it isn't, where am I supposed to find these settings which obviously do exist in Lightroom?
White balance
The story is you are looking at JPEGs and JPEGs don't have an embedded color temperature at which they were shot/converted. Therefore, you can't know where ''daylight'' (or any of the others) is because you don't know where you are. QD shouldn't really have them either.



You'll get them on a RAW because RAWs haven't been converted yet so you do know where you are - the natural profile of that camera.
White balance
In Develop/Basic next to the big 'Turkey Baster' and the WB: there is a dropdown triangle set to 'As Shot'.



Dev is in Kelvin and QD is relative.



Don



Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D

http://donricklin.blogspot.com/

What Lee Jay said, too.



:)

The drop-down box in the Develop module but it contains only ''as shot'', auto, and custom. The corresponding drop-down box in Library has many other options, including daylight. Yes, they are jpegs.



If QD is in error, then I like that error!

QD's other options will very likely not work correctly on images that weren't shot in daylight.

Lightroom start up on printer switch on

Whenever I switch my printer on Lightroom starts up, any suggestions to prevent this please.



I am using a Dell computer running Windows XP pro, the printer is a Brother laser printer.



Michael Windle
Lightroom start up on printer switch on
This has been mentioned with other USB devices (typically Card readers) but first I have heard with a Printer. Seems like a Registry thing. (I'm not a PC user, pre se).



Don



Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D

http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Lightroom start up on printer switch on
Does this printer have a card reader in it?

No the printer doesn't have a card reader in it.

best color space for printing

This is another color management questions, so I expect to get 200 responses.



I have a canon pro9000 printer. Good printer. It can ''recognise'' adobe rgb color gamut.



I export tiff files to qimage for printing. Should I maintain the prophoto rgb color space or should I assign argb? Or does it make a difference?



Andy

''
best color space for printing
I've never used Qimage but one thing in your post caught my attention: I hope by 'assign argb' you actually meant 'convert to argb'.
best color space for printing
Assign or convert, the meaning is clear. When I export a tiff file, I have a choice of 3 color spaces. srgb, argb, or prophoto rgb.



Question is which one gives the best results in printig. Mike Mchaney, who developed Qimage did an article that said that in some instances very large color spaces like prophoto rgb can produce worse results than ARGB. (more banding and posterization). It was a technical article, so I can't explain his reasoning.



Andy

I researched this quite a bit when I first begin using external labs for my prints. I've found that the majority of labs calibrate their printers to the srgb color space. This definitely makes things easier for me because I shoot all my images in the srgb color space. I don't worry with any conversion for development.



However, if you have a 'nice' printer, which you do and care to take the time to produce your own prints - sometimes the larger color spaces can be taken advantage of.



Personally, the less work I have to do, the better for me. I know I'll have consistent colors.

Again, I believe it's one of those things that only the individual can determine, although asking for theoretical advice is a good idea.

For testing, I might recommend a prepared image - one came with my Spyder pro, and I found others on the web a few years back. Bill Atkinson comes to mind.

The journey to printed output is one of always traveling from larger gamuts to smaller ones. The world we photograph has an incredible (infinite?) gamut, our cameras can only capture a part of that, our monitors (most monitors work in the sRGB space) and printers display or print a subset of that. The trick is preserving as much image information as possible as you make your way towards printed output.



Here's a graphical image of various gamuts overlaid on each other that helps illustrate the point: http://the37.com/manray/gamuts.jpg



While your printer ''recognizes'' Adobe RGB, it is very likely that it would convert that working space to the (smaller) gamut that is defined by one of it's built in printer profiles.



John has the best advice, do whatever works for you that produces results that meet your standards.

Well, there's a lot of misinformation available out there...and a lot of the choices regarding what's ''BEST'' depend on the user, their knowledge and experience and the level of quality they want.



It could be said if you want quick and easy without a lot of fuss, shoot in sRGB and output sRGB files. That's what the photo labs want you to do because 1) they end up dealing with a lot of people who don't have a clue what to do and 2) want to lower their customers' expectations and 3) try to avoid dealing with color management.



If you want to go that route, fine and dandy. But there will be trade offs.



Pretty much ALL current DSLRs in raw (as well as most point-N-shoot cameras that shoow raw) can capture a range of colors that even Adobe RGB can not contain.



Saturated yellows, oranges and reds and even browns will get clipped if you capture in or process to Adobe RGB. It's very easy to prove...process a shot of a yellow flower with deep saturated colors into Adobe RGB and Pro Photo RGB (which WON'T clip ANY colors captured by today's cameras). Open the two images side by side and do a slight Saturation bump of say + 12 to each...then look into the deep saturated yellows. See blobs in the Adobe RGB image? That's because deep saturated yellows get clipped and results in uneven saturation increases. There won't be any blobs in the Pro Phot RGB image.



What does that mean?



Well, in order to contain all the colors your camera can capture, you'll need to work in a color space large enough to prevent clipping.



Will that produce better prints?



Possibly.



Todays inkjet printers (recent Epson, HP and Canon pigment printers) can reproduce colors that fall outside of even Adobe RGB (let alone sRGB). So, if you work in Adobe RGB, there are colors that you can capture _AND_ print that the color space clips out. Not so with Pro Photo RGB. Which is why Lightroom is using the Pro Photo RGB chromaticies but in a linear gamma (as apposed to PP RGB's 1.8 gamma).



If what I wrote above gives you a headache, shoot in sRGB and output sRGB files. If you want the best your camera and printer can print, consider using ProPhoto RGB in 16 bit.



And, even if you use and outside source for printing, even Costco has custom printing profiles you can download for sotres around the county...so the next time your pro lab tells you to send them sRGB files, you might ask them why Costco can figgure out how to use profiles...



:~)

Jeff:



VERY nicely put!

Jeff,



Costco doesn't actually provide profiles, they provide a link to drycreek's profiles (which is fine, I'm just saying...).



But help me out here. I read that these Noritsu and Frontier printers that Costco uses (my local one uses a Noritsu 3111) can't produce a gamut much bigger than sRGB using the paper they use (Fuji Crystal Archive). That's why I've never bothered to seek using wider gamuts in my processing. However, if that's not true, I may look into it. Is it true or not?

These drycreek websites seems to indicate that these printer/paper combos can't provide much outside of sRGB, and even not all of sRGB:



http://www.drycreekphoto.com/tools/printer_gamuts/vrml/noritsu/nori-3101-CAGls.h tm

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/tools/printer_gamuts/vrml/fuji/fuji-370-CAGls.htm

I just checked the Costco profile for a store close to me (Costco #381Glossy paper profile, October 5, 2006 - Noritsu model 2901, Fuji Crystal Archive Paper.) and there is an excursion of reproducible color that falls OUTSIDE of sRGB in the Costco profile-particularly deep saturated yellows going both to the green side and the red side of yellow.



The Costco profile DOES fit entirely within the Adobe RGB color space...but you still have the issue of Adobe RGB clipping deep yellows...which can limit your edits.



So, if you shoot in sRGB, you loose colors you _COULD_ print - yellows, and guess what color is the primary color of Caucasian skin?



So much for settling for sRGB huh?



BTW, I use ColorThink from Chromix to view 3D gamut maps for evaluating profiles. http://www.chromix.com

Yeah, the 3101 on gloss has a corner outside on the yellow side too (outside the aRGB space too). I'm sort of amazed at how much of the sRGB space isn't even close to being inside of the printer space, however.



%26gt; So, if you shoot in sRGB, you loose colors you _COULD_ print - yellows, and guess what color is the primary color of Caucasian skin?



So, you're saying it's more interesting to be able to see all the colors you can print than it is to be able to print all the colors you can see. I guess soft proofing is all about seeing *only* the colors you can print, correct?



Any thoughts on the Huey Pro?

Interesting.



According to this:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/tools/printer_gamuts/gamutmodel.php?Submit=Build+Mo del%26amp;CS=1%26amp;CR=120%26amp;TC=73



Even my 20D can capture colors in the blue direction that prophoto can't represent. It can capture every color the printer can print which isn't surprising.

The article that got me thinking about this is

http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/tc_index.html



It was an article by Mike Mchaney who is the creator of Qimage. He seems to say that since most printers only accept an 8 bit channel and that prophoto rgb is ''overkill'' and in fact can cause some degradation to the final product. Pro photo probably has some value on a printer that accepts a 16 bit channel. I hope I haven't misinterpreted his complicated and technical article.



I agree with Jeff that printing in srgb will show inferior results and should be avoided if you can use the larger gamut argb.



I can't say whether using pro photo rgb will show better printer results though.

''He seems to say that since most printers only accept an 8 bit channel and that prophoto rgb is ''overkill'' and in fact can cause some degradation to the final product. Pro photo probably has some value on a printer that accepts a 16 bit channel.''



Yeah, ok. . .there are some problems with your understanding of what Mike was saying (and his name is ''Chaney'').



First off, you seem to be confusing bit depth with color space, while there is a degree of ''relationship'' between bit depth and color space, they are not directly related nor in the least bit interchangeable.



Let's deal with bit depth...it relates to how many discreet shades (or levels) you can have in an image. 8 Bits/channel (24 bit color made up of red, green %26amp; blue, 8 bit/channel x 3 channels) can have 256 discreet shades of gray. A 16 bit/channel Photoshop file is not actually a full 16 bit, but is actually 15 bits plus one and has 32,769 shades of gray. (it's 15+1 for some math reasons you don't want me to get into-so 16 bit ain't 16 bit). The problem is that pretty much any device like a camera or scanner is only capable of 12 or 14 bit output. DSLRs are putting out 12 bit (4096 shades-although the new 1D MII from Canon is claiming 14 bit). Some medium format camera backs claim 16 bit, but it's really only about 15 REAL bits plus some noise.



So, higher bit depth is useful when you need to stretch out (expand) the spacing of the levels such as when increasing exposure or contrast. With an 8 bit image, you may get to the point where there aren't enough discreet shades to maintain a gradation and you end up with banding.



Cameras all start-even if you shoot jpg-with more than 8 bits. The high bit depth is needed for image processing but here to fore, the main OS's (both Mac %26amp; Win) had print pipelines that precluded using anything beyond 8 bits/channel so the print drivers didn't use more bits. The question is, how do you get to 8 bits?



If you start with a 16 bit image in Photoshop and let Photoshop manage color, Photoshop will do a color transform from the working space (in 16 bit if you are working in 16 bit) to the final printer profile in 20 bit/channel precision (if you use Adobe ACE CMM, ColorSync is limited to 16 bit precision) and drop the final image data sent to the print driver to 8 bits/channel. So, you _DO_ get the usefulness of 16 bit in the final transform from color space to print space.



Only one export plug-in (Canon) and a few rips can actually bypass the print driver and send actual high bit depth to the printer. The Canon is actually only a 10 bit/channel device, not 16 bit.



So, where bit depth comes in is sending the ''PERFECT'' 8 bits/channel to the printer and Photoshop (and Lightroom if you use Lightroom managed color) handles the color transforms. So, you DO get the bennies of high bit depth.



So, what about color space? Well, I've already covered a lot of it. Bigger CAN be better if what you do in the color space is useful-such as preserve colors the camera can capture and the printer can print. It should also be noted that the individual red, green %26amp; blue points in a color space can be tighter (closer together) or looser (further apart). Pro Photo RGB has it's color points wider apart while sRGB has its color points closer. This is where bit depth can play a role...if you take a widely spaced color space (Pro Photo or Adobe RGB) in an 8 bit/channel image and try to expand them, you might introduce banding and a larger color space may be more likely to band than a more tightly spaced color space. Even a 16 bit/channel image can be made to band if you expand the points in the file enough.



So, are larger color spaces useful? Yes..potentially

Are higher bit depth images useful? Yes..potentially

The ideal is a large color space in high bit depth.



As long as you have half a clue what you are doing.



And, if you REALLY want to get your head spinning, try figuring out 32bit/channel HDR...32 bit floating point can have shades whiter than white and blacker than black and currently, there are no ''color spaces'' for HDR-although MSFT is trying with their new HD Photo image format including a new color space called scRGB and is capable of up to 32 bit/channel images. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Photo

Jeff, thanks for your explanation. You are right that it is a bit head-spinning though. Andy

Jeff,



So when we're in Lightroom we are using ProPhoto with a linear gamma and then we export to Photoshop we are using ProPhoto with a 1.8 gamma. What kind of hit are we taking for that conversion?



Since you brought up the 1D III and bit depth, how much practical difference is there between the 14bit 1D III file and the 15bit (plus noise) digital back file?



Jim

''What kind of hit are we taking for that conversion? ''



For a relatively minor gamma adjustment very little.



Well, there are other issues at play with ther 1D MIII-seems I remember something about needing 14 bit because the live preview will cause heat build up and more noise so they upped the bit rate. I don't remember exactly...but the result is that going from 12 to 14 bit isn't a total net gain of 2 bits...

Jeff,



''I don't remember exactly...but the result is that going from 12 to 14 bit isn't a total net gain of 2 bits...''



So once we pass 12 bit it becomes increasingly harder to get the full benefit of those extra bits?



Jim

Unless well capacity increases, or a continuous cell reset approach of some sort is implemented, yes. Plus, either approach would require you to shoot at very low ISO (%26lt; 100) to get the benefit.

''So once we pass 12 bit it becomes increasingly harder to get the full benefit of those extra bits? ''



No...the Canon was using (loosing) some of it's bits for something...heat I think, I just can't remember. But, going beyond 14 bits is kinda tough with today's cameras, yes. Although there is a greyscale camera out there that can capture 96 bits of data and has a dynamic range of, well almost everything (actually over 22 stops if I remember correctly). But it's experimental and no current camera is in that ballpark-that we know about-the CIA or NSA may have soemthing though.



;~)

Using Lightroom with existing folder...

Hello,



What would the recommended work-flow be for using a Lightroom with an existing folder hierarchy? (mix of raw and Jpeg)



Other imaging programs rely on the directory structure, and it is occasionally reorganized.



Basically, in Lightroom I'd like to be able to navigate to the images i want via the directory tree, or a via custom lightroom ''collection / group'' for specific events, etc.



Thanks for any idea,

David
Using Lightroom with existing folder...
Probably just import the root of that folder hierarchy including all subdirectories. Then, if you do want to move things around, move them around in LR.
Using Lightroom with existing folder...
Thanks Lee.



Though, this does not help if the files are added / moved in that folder tree. (And this will happen.)



Basically, I need lightroom for browsing and developing, but NOT file management.



How can I get lightroom to display a hierarchical tree view my folders on disk?



Thanks,

David

If files are added or moved into the folder tree, you have to tell Lightroom to look again for new files for each folder. Lightroom currently has only one ''watched'' folder.



It is not a file browser for files that are not in its catalog.



If you want to use it as a catalog, then you may not want files to appear in there without your knowledge or action on your part, which may be why Lightroom doesn't currently include more ''watched'' folders. When you do ask it to check for new files, the first thing it shows you is that import so you can deal with those new files without being confused by the rest of the files in that folder.



Reading your initial post, you said you want to ''navigate'' the images and mention collections. I suggest you spend some time thinking about how you are going to tag your images in Lightroom. Lightroom can be very helpful for cataloging your images because there are many metadata fields you can use to help you find images later.



You mentioned events. I want to be able to find trips we take not only by the directory I put them in but also from metadata. One reason I moved from Elements is they didn't have any way but collections to use for this. I didn't care for collections to be used this way for several reasons, one of which is ''collections'' are entirely in the program, whereas metadata can be permanently saved for use outside of the current program you are using.



I selected the IPTC ''Job Identifier'' field to identify groups of photos I may want to find together such as trips, workshops, events. I generally fill out caption, keywords, and the various location fields. I created my own metadata preset to make it easy to fill out the fields I generally use.

LR is a datbase so file management isn't it's purpose. It's not like Bridge, which reads your HD, when you open it. LR will only show what you imported into it.

Using the folder panel to ''browse'' your images will depend on your heirachy. I use year-month-day. I can ''browse'' the entire year or an enire month or one day. Using Keywords I can also ''browse' images. Using metadata by lens I can also ''browse''

Use XMP sidecars for all file types?

Is there any way to tell Lightroom to use sidecars for all files (including JPG) instead of embedding the XMP data?



I want to keep my metadata in a safe, externalized format that is future proof without the possibility of damaging my originals writing to them.



thanks,

Pat Niemeyer
Use XMP sidecars for all file types?
No, because other apps look for the metadata embedded, not as sidecar, according to Adobe, thus this is the 'correct' way.



Don



Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D

http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Use XMP sidecars for all file types?
I can understand this approach, however I really don't like the idea of any application messing with my originals in any way.

Me neither, but the fact that everyone else expects the data in those files, that those file types are specified specifically for this type of embedded data, and that LR uses a safe-write approach has made me less worried about it.



If you're bothered by it, keep originals backed up somewhere.

Lee Jay:



I certainly agree with you. However, I would really prefer to have the option of generating XMP files for PSD, JPEG, TIFF, etc.



As far as 'safe-write' is concerned, the present incarnation of Lightroom, will and has modified the creation date of a few of my (rare) JPEGs. Adobe technical support has reproduced this problem. Until the bug is fixed people should be careful.

If I may add...

Exif, IPTC and XMP data are in general considered as ''safe''.. so, what does ''safe-write'' mean? And if at all, why not having options, like:

-always write to separate file,

-always write into image file.



At this time I don't allow LR to write any data into my (jpg) files, because of two reasons:

-it isn't ''safe'' yet,

-Adobe likes to leave his ''footprint'' anywhere he writes...



...which means: if in LR I define Location tags only and write XMP into jpg file, there will be added much more than Location tags. In general I don't like adding there something only Adobe (or anybody else) knows about. Other tools (exiftool, breeze,..) write only what is been told them to write.



Bogdan

I just prefer the ''do no harm'' rule: don't mess with the originals.



I understand that this is an extensible format and that there is very little likelihood that it will ever be a problem (not withstanding the problems people have already reported)... but the idea that my original photos contain a whole bunch of junk created by some early version of Lightroom just makes me cringe.

Safe-write means write an entire new file with the new data before deleting the old file. This way, a crash or power loss during the addition of xmp data can't cause a loss of the original image file.

And an updated creation date is a side-effect of safe-write.

The exif data on capture time is all that's important, as far as I can tell. I don't care when the file was created.

I agree. The creation date is not a part of the file, it's a manifestation of the file system that the file sits on. it doesn't tell me when the picture was taken; it tells me when the current copy of the file was created.

My concern is that LR seems not only to alter metadata (without telling you specifically what it is changing) but also that it alters file sizes - both up and down - on Import and Export. See my posts here: http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc3b731

under the topic heading ''TIF %26amp; JPEG file size increases''.

Unless you write changes to sidecars you loose your original digital signature or cecksum. For archival reasons and file integrity checking I find it indispensable to have the option of writing added info to sidecars.

By the way, xmp sidecars in lightroom could also store snapshots, virtual copies and history info, so that they can be recovered from backups. You could backup the library or part of it, but you won麓t be able to merge libraries when restoring.

bridal make up