On 9/26/2012 2:19 PM, Bob W wrote:
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
Picasa does essentially the same thing unless you do a "Save" from
within its interface -- and even then, it'll make a backup copy of the
original image (which is nice, and has saved me on more than one
occasion after some ham-handed editing). I used to do my RAW editing in
Picasa, then export a full-sized jpg into a different "Picasa Exports"
directory, which opens on the desktop when the export completes, and
from there I could do the work with the old .8BF filters in IrfanView.
Right now, the biggest advantage I see in LR is the 16-bit/channel
color, which I've never had before.
The one complaint I have with LR, though, is that the slider controls
seem a tad balky -- likely due to the fact that I only have 4 GB RAM.
Beyond that, it's pretty wonderful, I have to say.
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.
