Re: Where Lightroom stores settings, data etc
Sorry Tim, but I didn't know where you were going with the 1500 slides. I've seen some recommendations in the area of 20 to 30 minutes, as to the timing for a continuous showing of slides alone. If they are to support an oral presentation longer timing would be ok. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Tim Øsleby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Where Lightroom stores settings, data etc 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
RE: Where Lightroom stores settings, data etc
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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Where Lightroom stores settings, data etc
> 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). And I > can backup the originals elsewhere once the import is done. When you import files into Lightroom v4.1 beta, you can tell it to - reference files in existing location - copy files into whereever you've set the Lightroom Library directory - move files into wherever you've set the Lightroom Library directory There are various options for renaming and organizing the files, tagging them, etc. Lightroom 1.0 release has redone the import section a bit with mostly the same features but new tools that make it easier to set things up. There's a neat feature if you're using the Lightroom managed library and want to use an automated import from storage cards: it will put the files you want to work on directly into its library AND make a backup set, presumably to an external hard drive, at the same time. Since the version of LR I'm working with is a beta and I have a file system organization that I like, I have been importing files by reference. > 2/ Lightroom also stores previews, its database etc... Can I ask > Lightroom to store *everything* on another drive? It'd make things a > lot easier if any OS/apps reinstallation is needed. It could even be > used to share the dtabase betwenn computers ... The Lightroom Library (or managed files directory tree) contains all the caches, information and settings it makes as well as your image files if you've chosen the move or copy options above. You can set where you want the root of that directory tree to be in the Lightroom Preferences, on the boot drive, on a separate partition, on a separate physical drive, etc. I have it set up in my master Photos directory, alongside the year by year directory trees for my image files which are imported by reference. When the backup synchronization utility I use runs (ChronoSync by Econ Technologies), it synchronizes everything in all the directories to my external backup/archive system including the Lightroom Library directory tree. Restoring in the unlikely event of a crash is a simple matter of moving the Photos directory from the backup drives back to the boot drive where my account is based. The videos at http://www.photoshopuser.com/lightroom/index.html provide some details on the v1.0 release, which if you are familiar with the v4.1 beta illustrate clearly how things differ. > 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 ... How Lightroom fits in with Photoshop is a topic discussed in a section of the web page above. They are designed to work together. In a nutshell: there are many things that Photoshop CS2/CS3 does which are not possible to do in Lightroom alone. However, the primary thing that Photoshop CS2/3 does NOT do that Lightroom provides is the ability to organize and manage large numbers of photos across many different sessions. That is, by and large, the more important consideration to my needs ... I only need Photoshop's higher level editing a small amount of the time for the majority of my work, where I need more efficient tools for organizing, sorting, selecting, printing, etc all the time. I will have Lightroom as the basis of my work and will use Photoshop when it is needed. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
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 -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
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 -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Where Lightroom stores settings, data etc
I use Windows Explorer to copy everything from my camera to a big drive which I use exclusively for storing photos. Then I import them into Lightroom. You can tell Lightroom to reference them from their current location or to copy them into Lightroom's own database. I prefer the former because it makes them accessible to other applications, doesn't double up on storage, and because Lightroom is still only a beta, so all my eggs aren't going into that one basket. To import files referencing them in their existing location (under Windows): 1. Press the Import button. Lightroom opens a standard File Open... dialog 2. Choose the files you want to import 3. Press OK. Lightroom opens the Import Photos dialog 4. From the dropdown list, choose 'Reference files in existing location' 5. Enter your other choices and press Import. Lightroom imports the photos -- Bob > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Thibouille > Sent: 04 February 2007 09:00 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Where Lightroom stores settings, data etc > > 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). And I > can backup the originals elsewhere once the import is done. > > 2/ Lightroom also stores previews, its database etc... Can I ask > Lightroom to store *everything* on another drive? It'd make things a > lot easier if any OS/apps reinstallation is needed. It could even be > used to share the dtabase betwenn computers ... > > Is that correct ? > Thanks ! > > -- > > Thibault Massart aka Thibouille > -- > *ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Where Lightroom stores settings, data etc
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). And I can backup the originals elsewhere once the import is done. 2/ Lightroom also stores previews, its database etc... Can I ask Lightroom to store *everything* on another drive? It'd make things a lot easier if any OS/apps reinstallation is needed. It could even be used to share the dtabase betwenn computers ... Is that correct ? Thanks ! -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
