Thanks for the consideration on behalf on the audience Ken ;-) The keyword in the first sentence is "_based_ on 1500 pictures". I've already got 1100 in the bin, more will follow. Don't worry. It's a lot of crap. What I tried to say is that Lightroom is efficient for sorting files, and thereby throwing files away.
I assume this reply is a waste of bandwidth. Something tells me that your post was a tongue in cheek reply. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kenneth Waller Sent: 4. februar 2007 21:46 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Where Lightroom stores settings, data etc Tim, I'm not Godfrey either but unless you're trying to put your audience to sleep, you better cut the size of your slideshow down or go thru them really, really fast. Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Øsleby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Where Lightroom stores settings, data etc > I'm not Godfrey, but I'm using Lightroom right now preparing a large > slideshow, based on 1500 pictures. It is efficient sorting the images, and > tagging them with meta tags. They are well displayed, with a nice compare > function. After I realised the importance of free HD space it is fast > enough > for my purpose. The converting tools are efficient, with a few bonus > tools, > but I don't really know how I feel about the new Curve tool. > > The major plus is that making a good workflow feels natural. All > significant > tools are within reach, and the way they are organised is good. They kind > of > asks for being used in a workflow friendly order if you get the idea. > > When the final version is released I have no problem seeing myself making > the final slideshow inside Lightroom. Haven't used it for printing, my > printer is out of ink, and my budget is low at the moment. The final > version > will have cloning and healing tools (not healing brush, but something > similar). The final version will also have non flash web tools. The slide > function in the beta is no good, but what I've seen of the final edition > makes me pretty sure it will do a good job. > > I have never used the full version CS, so I can't compare directly. My > only > PS reference is Elements, and I can say that Lightroom is way better than > that. From my point of view it is worth every dime. > > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jan > van Wijk > Sent: 4. februar 2007 11:01 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Where Lightroom stores settings, data etc > > Hi Thibouille, > > On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:00:00 +0100, Thibouille wrote: > >>1/ As I understand, when Lightroom imports data it copies it to it own >>storage area (which means I'd beter have anough space for it). > > I think you get the choice, either create copies (taking up much space) > or reference an existing archive of images (no copy done). > >>And I can backup the originals elsewhere once the import is done. > > Don't see why not :-) > >>2/ Lightroom also stores previews, its database etc... > > Have not used lightroom itself yet, but if it is anything like the CS/CS2 > Bridge it probably has 'caches' for previews and a few other things. > These speed up viewing significantly (after the 1st time) but the > contents is dispensible, when deleted the next 'view' wil be slower. > > >>Can I ask Lightroom to store *everything* on another drive? >>It'd make things a lot easier if any OS/apps reinstallation is >>needed. > > The thumbnail cache for CS/CS2 can be placed anywhere you like > and I expect Lightroom to be the same in that respect. It is not that > important since the info will be recreated automatically when needed > after it has been deleted (just takes time then). > > Another thing is the RAW conversion information, that is often kept > in a database (specific to the RAW conversion application). > > With DNG however, it is common to store that info IN the DNG itself. > > That has the advantage that multiple copies of CS (or Lightroom) > automatically share the same inf, and DNG's copied to backup > storage still have all conversion info with them ... > >>It could even be used to share the dtabase betwenn computers ... > > Yes, but having it with the DNG's is even better I think ... > >>Is that correct ? > > I guess most of your assumptions are, but will wait for Godders > to chime in, he seems to be one of the few people on the list > that has actually used the beta to some extent ... > > For me, I am still trying to decide if Lightroom is the way to go now, > or if it is better to wait for CS3 with Camera RAW/Bridge ... > > Regards, JvW > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
