> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Walt > > My current inclination is to go ahead and stick with both, as there are > times when I like to access my images with applications other than > Lightroom (Picasa, IrfanView, etc.) simply because they perform some > tasks a little more handily than LR appears to (at least at first > blush): Cropping, resizing, accessing some of the old .8BF filters that > I still like using, et. al.
that makes sense, but bear in mind that LR doesn't make any changes to the original file. When you use it to crop, all it's doing is, in effect, putting a mask over the original and enlarging it. And resizing isn't really a LR concept - size is only applied when you export a jpg, tiff or whatever, or build a web page or book. Again, the original isn't changed. So if you changed something in LR, then worked on the original in another application you probably wouldn't see the changes you'd made in LR. If you then went back into LR the changes you'd made before using the external application would be applied over a different baseline, and I'd guess 'the result is undefined' as programming manuals used to say. So if you'll be working with external apps then you'll probably need to export from LR and work on a copy. If you don't re-import it in LR afterwards then you'll need to use a different filing system. B > I find that I regularly use Windows > Explorer's thumbnail view to find specific photos and use the context > menu to open them in those other applications. Keeping my old > hierarchical directories would keep that process fairly simple, and > adopting the keywording aspect in LR would simplify the process within > LR itself. > > It may be a tad more cumbersome than necessary, but as a matter of > keeping old habits to make things more convenient across the board with > regard to my already established workflow, it strikes me that I > probably shouldn't completely abandon my old ways. At least not until > I've gotten more comfortable with and reliant on LR. > > -- Walt > > On 9/26/2012 1:50 PM, Bob W wrote: > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > >> Of John Sessoms > >> > >> Y'all act as if you have to choose between key wording & > hierarchical > >> folders. > >> > > Not at all - people can do both if they want to. John of Occam > > wouldn't though, and nor do I. > > > > B > > > >> From: "Bob W" > >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > >>>> Behalf Of Walt > >>>> > >>>> I'll be sure to keep in mind the keyword stuff. But, sadly, I'm > >>>> just horrible about doing stuff like that -- it's a > procrastination > >> thing, > >>>> I guess. > >>>> > >>>> Thankfully, I don't have many older photos, so it won't be a huge > >>>> deal > >>>> -- at least until I put off adding keywords to my newer images for > >> so > >>>> long that it gets to be too much of an ordeal to mess with. ;) > >>>> > >>> If you do the basic keywords (who, what, where, why) at the time > you > >>> import the pictures you can avoid the procrastination problem. The > >>> keyword entry box is on the right hand panel of the import dialog. > >>> > >>> Keywords are more helpful and more flexible than deriving a folder > >>> structure, and it doesn't take any longer to use them. For example, > >> if > >>> your folder structure is say \Holidays\Paris\Cafe de Rostand\Fifi\, > >>> just enter the keywords holidays, paris, Caf? de Rostand and fifi > >>> instead (I would make caf? a separate keyword). > >>> > >>> You're liberated from the tyranny of the fixed structure, and the > >>> problem of what to do with something that belongs in more than one > >>> folder, For example if Fifi also belongs in Family\Nieces\Pretend\ > >> and > >>> in Mistresses\No longer\ you just include as keywords family, > >>> nieces, etc. You can search on any equal or proper subset of the > >>> keywords, in any order, rather than having to find your way through > >>> all the levels of a folder structure that you will lose track of. > >>> > >>> You can put keywords themselves in hierarchies if you want, > although > >> I > >>> stopped doing that a long time ago. For example, Europe > France > > >>> Paris, Europe > France > Lyon, Europe > Germany > Neuschwanstein. > If > >>> you then keyword something as Neuschwanstein it will turn up in > >>> searches for Europe, without you having to put Europe as a keyword > >>> against the picture, and any search for France will include both > >> Paris and Lyon. > >>> The problem, for me, is maintaining the hierarchies and also making > >>> sure that what you are doing is a real, genuine, hierarchy, and > >> that's > >>> not always obvious until it's too late. A keyword can belong to > more > >>> than one hierarchy, I think, so it's slightly better than a folder > >>> structure in > >>> (most) hierarchical file systems. > >>> > >>> B > >>> > >>> B > >> > >> -- > >> 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. > > > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
