On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Bob W <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> And exactly what do I gain by importing them? Nothing except a file >> management UI I don't like in the first place and metadata-based >> searching I'll never use along with the need to import it in the first >> place, which Bridge doesn't need to do. Not to mention the fact that >> Bridge allows me to work on the files as I scan them without >> additional jumping through hoops (don't need to set a watched >> directory). And I'll end up importing once, then having to point LR at >> the files again when they go from 'To Be Worked' to the archives. >> Which I don't have to do with Bridge. So Bridge does exactly what I >> want, with less work. > > Absoultely no reason for you to use LR then, but a number of the complaints > you make about it are factually incorrect, and that could seriously mislead > people who are considering it, and for whom it would be a very useful tool. > > I don't fully understand the process you're describing here, but what again > it sounds as though you're claiming things about LR that simply aren't true. > For example, there is absolutely no reason why you should have to set up a > watched directory - I don't have any watched directories.
If I want to work on some files of a scanned job via LR while the scanner is still scanning, I'd have to use a watched directory or import multiple times. Since I'm usually working this way (Due to my 120 holder requiring me to flip/rotate scans to get the correct orientation) this is an issue for me. > > In trying to work out what you mean about moving things around between > archives, I suspect that the differences of opinion about LR may arise from > differences in how people use it in the workflow. So I, and I think Godfrey > too, just use it end-to-end, whereas I'm getting the impression that other > people have developed a workflow and use different parts of different tools > in the workflow. If I'm right about that then LR is never going to be right > for people who do that, because it's not designed to be used that way. > I've got my files split between a temporary working directory where they go for initial consideration and editing before they get moved to slower but larger external archival storage. Its part organizational and part performance optimization. So the folder for say HP5 Roll 31 will be in my 'To Be Worked' folder when originally scanned, I'll rate the keepers, process them and export to my uploads directory for upload to flickr or printing (I process for print, and post downseized versions to flickr) and then move the entire folder to the 35mm Archives/B&W/HP5 heirarchy for archiving. And yes, I'm aware that LR will handle this with few/no issues depending on whether the copy is done in Finder/Explorer or within LR. Note I'm approaching this from the point of view of replacing my collection of tools with LR, so a nearly end-to-end use of LR (I'd still need to make use of PS in many situations, as well as my other RAW converters for certain files). >> >> My organizational needs are different between film and digital. I >> don't edit the files the same way, I can't usually organize film scans >> by the day they were shot and the day they were scanned is useless to >> me since I might have scanned a half-dozen rolls of varying vintage >> that day (Among other things, I'm rescanning my archives). So using >> the same folder heirarchy makes little sense to me. > > Lightroom doesn't require you to use the same folder hierarchy. I import > film scans and digital scans into different top-level folders and could > structure those any way I wanted. I scan into a folder called 'Raw scan' and > import in place from there. Yep, this isn't a lightroom complaint, its an answer to something Godfrey was saying about using the same organization for film scans and digital files. > > It's true that you have to do the import step for scanned files, and can't > as Mark said, use LR's facilities without importing, but that's the way LR > was designed to work from the beginning. Complaining about it is like > complaining that a car is not as good as a pram because you have to put > petrol in it. Considering that I was repeatedly told by a certain someone that LR involves less work, I'm explaining exactly what extra work using it requires for my uses. Importing is indeed a fundamental aspect to LR's design. But its also a source of one of my fundamental complaints with LR, which is that it creates more steps in the workflow, not less. Wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for the fact that a large portion of my work is still film based, I've no issues with auto-import from card type setups (I currently use Image Ingester to do exactly that) > >> >> As to keyword metadata, frankly I find adding it annoying and using it >> of little use to me. I understand what value it can add, I just find >> using said capabilities to be something that doesn't work for me. I've >> got nothing agains keywording (Which Bridge fully supports btw), I >> just don't want it shoved down my throat like Lightroom does (Since >> the LR file management UI is based around it) >> > > Nothing in Lightroom forces you to use keywords, and you can just as easily > work with a hierarchical folder structure with no extra effort. If LR > doesn't suit you, that's fine, but you ought not to put out misleading > information about it. > > Bob > Bob, I spent several months using LR. I disagree quite a bit on whether or not its as easy to work with a heirarchical folder structure in LR as with keywords. I found that not to be the case. LR isn't bad with heirarchical folders, but it's no better than Bridge, and arguably a bit worse. The real advantage to the Library is in the keywording and search features. And no, I'm not putting out misleading info about LR, just my take on the software. Which is its an excellent tool for someone who is primarily a digital shooter, especially if they prefer working with keywording and search over heirarchical folders, but is of significantly less value for someone who works heavily with film scans or anything else which hits the drive before having to be manually imported to LR. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
