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

Cataloging Photos

Does anybody know if Lightroom can catalogue photos (make thumbnails) which I have offline on a CD Rom or DVD? Many thanks.
Cataloging Photos
Yup. More than Thumbs, too. You import them as referenced and the folder turns red and a ? shows on the thumbnails which will identify the CD/DVD to pull it up same as an off line HD.



Even so you can do slideshows, webstuff and Draft print from the larger previews built.



Don
Cataloging Photos
Oh man, I now no longer need PSP or, in fact, ACDSee, which I bought JUST for the offline cataloging feature!!!

As I know, LR has limited support for offline media now.

For ex, it can't help you with _finding_ DVD with offline shot, it doesn't have database of burned/cataloged disks.



For my amateur workflow it's ok, but good DAM application should have such things...

Don is referring to V1 Grafin.

This is a V1.0 Forum. Most of the time unless we say otherwise we are refering to V1.0 as it will ship.



Don

Don, Sean,

thanks for clarificatrion.

So, has something changed in v1.0? Great news!

My understanding is that with the new release version 1.0 LR will allow you to find photos that you have saved off line (to a DVD). My question is how does LR known where to find the images and on what DVD. Does it allow you to burn a DVD or does it make a catalogue off of images you have already burned to DVD.



Thanks,



Dennis

And to add a bit to Dennis's question, does it tell you what DVD needs to be inserted to find the files?

v1.0 has the information in its database/library and when the folder/images are unavailable the folder shows in red. When you click on a''red'' folder it shows you the path to access it i.e.DVD/Cd number or title.

If you have files already on DVD you would need to bring them into LR first so they are in the library. I assume you are meaning old images here.

I prought in astack of old Photoworks 35mm to CD images this way and it works fine. Shows the Title of the CD and is Red when they are off-line.

Don

Maybe I missed something :)

But how does LR know if pictures on my hard drive already imported to the LR library whether I backed them up to DVD's since it doesnt seem LR has an archiving feature, I would most likely be using other software to archive my photos.



This is a much needed feature for me at least and I'm sure others.

Sometimes photos I archive to DVD I also keep pictures I print often for sales on my hard drive in one folder.

So if I needed to go back to the original file on DVD, how would LR be able to direct me to the proper DVD for that particular file.



Thanks,

Ruth :)

oil companies

Collection not handling a duplicated...

I wanted to have 2 versions of an image - 1 colour (color ;) ), one B%26amp;W. Created a duplicate image and took it into photoshop (as I like precise control over my color-B%26amp;W conversions) B%26amp;W image saved as a tif. So far, all fine. I can see both images in all views, keyword them, give them different titles etc etc - as far as I can tell, they are 2 separate images.



I can add one, or other, or both, to quick collections. BUT. When I tried to create an actual collection using the original colour image, the B%26amp;W turned up. Deleted it from the collection. Dragged the colour one in again, same problem. Created a quick collection with both versions, then tried dragging in the colour - wouldn't allow it as the ''image'' was already there (the B%26amp;W one!). Deleted the B%26amp;W out of the collection, dragged the colour in, the B%26amp;W showed up. Deleted it again, tried dragging in BOTH images. Only the B%26amp;W showed up.



I am planning on doing this a lot - converting images and retaining both versions for different purposes. Why can't ''Collections'' handle something so basic (when the rest of Lightroom seems to be able to)?
Collection not handling a duplicated...
Do they have the same filename?
Collection not handling a duplicated...
Kind of - one is called IMG_0398.JPG the other is IMG_0398.tif (the B%26amp;W)



The original is 1MB, the B%26amp;W is 14MB (I'm sure that isn't relevant btw, but they are definitely 2 different files)

Uh huh. LR 1.0 has this thing about identical file names with different extensions.



Try renaming one of them and see how it goes.

Try maybe IMG_0398BW.tif for the tiff.



Don



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

http://donricklin.blogspot.com/

Well that worked a little too easily - renamed the image in finder (OSX) and not only does it now work, Lightroom didn't loose track of the B%26amp;W version (that's a bit freaky).



Strange that everything else in Lightroom (except collections) didn't have a problem with the same filename (different extension). Oh well, hopefully something else that will be fixed in Lightroom 2



Thanks for the help btw! Much appreciated.

File & folder management question

I apologise if this has been answered before, but through my search of this forum and on Internet in general I can't find any answer to this very simple question:



How do I move a folder structure to a new location, i.e. a new drive, existing/new folder, a new partition in LR?



If I move it off-line I need to remap the missing folders, which is OK if I just move one folder, but when I've re-organised dussins of folders it becomes a drag. I know that LR isn't a browser like Bridge, but this is still a rather basic feature that I can't find out how to do in LR.



Just imagine the day when you need to switch to a larger drive or split your collection on several drives and you may have to remap hundreds if not thousands of folders. Therefore, there must be a simple way to do this in LR, which I can't find.



Can someone please help?
File %26 folder management question
Move them all in Finder / Explorer, then reopen LR and right click the root folder.



John
File %26 folder management question
Sorry, I don't get it. Starting LR shows the folder in red. Right clicking on the folder then brings up 5 options: create folder, delete, move selected photos to this folder, locate missing folder, check for missing photos and folders.



The last option seems to be the one that is most applicable, but when I do that LR doesn't do anything. ''Locate missing folder'' brings up a box where I have to manually find the location of the folder. That's OK for one folder, but when we're talking about a lot of folders it becomes very cumbersome.



What am I missing?



I liked the way ACDSee handled it, but that's one of the very few things that ACDSee does better than LR.

You want 'Locate Missing Folder' which will bring up a Finder/Explorer window where you can navigate to th images and point LR to them, unless they are off-line on an unmounted disk (CD, DVD or HD) in whuch case you have to mount the missing and then runn th elast choice.



Don



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

http://donricklin.blogspot.com/

But that's exactly what becomes so very time consuming. Is there no other way?



It's a key issue for me. 22 days left on my trial and I have to decide before then if I can live with this shortcomming. Basically I have to change the way I work, which is exactly what you shouldn't do. Software should be an aid to make work easier. You shouldn't really have to change the way you work because of software, especially not for something so fundamental as file and folder management in a photo library. Enough ranting.



I really love the development module, which is why I'm considering moving to LR. Now if you could only spend as much time on the Library as you've done on Develop...

Donald-



This takes all of a minute, max. You connect the top level folder that contains the missing folders and Bob's your uncle. Other choices include not moving your files off the HDs on the machine, or placing them all on an external drive that you keep connected.

That's why I said ''the root folder''. That, and Locate Missing Folder, should be all you need for a bulk move. I don't know ACDSee, but this is like iView's Reset Paths command.



John

In ACDSee you don't ever have to think about this issue or do anything about it, as long as you use ACDSee to reorganise your files and folders. Which is just as easy as using Explorer/Finder. ACDSee includes a Explorer/Finder type of panel which you just use as you do in Explorer and ACDSee keep track of all your movements automatically. No remapping of files and folders needed ever. Very simple. However, if you have moved files and folders off-line there is an option to remap just like in LR.



If you have a very neat folder structure there isn't a big problem. The big prolem comes when it's a bit messy and you may want to do some larger reorg to get the structure nice and neat. Then it certainly doesn't take a minute to remap.



What if you've done some reorg and then get interupted in your work (urgent job that needs to be done or something) and can't come back to it until next day and therefore have forgot where you put the folders/files that you moved? You could spend a long time looking for those files.



I just don't understand why something so basic this is excluded from LR. Why make things difficult. The interface is allready there. Just use the Explorer/Finder interface from within LR and teach LR to keep an eye on what you're doing in that part of the app and it's done. No remapping and looking for missing files ever again. If LR at least had a facility to scan selected drives/folders for missing items.

Why not just import the destination folder, and drag-and-drop to that within LR?

Will that preserve ratings, keywords, etc?

Drag and drop within LR preserves everything, including LR's knowledge of where it is.



You still have your trial, right? Try it out on some test folders and see how it works.

Thanks, I'll try that.

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.

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.