Okay, a couple questions...
Why don't you all like the Pentax RAW software?
Which software do you like, and why?
--
~Nick David Wright
http://www.nickdavidwright.com/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the
Nick Wright wrote:
Why don't you all like the Pentax RAW software?
The UI is terribly clunky, mostly.
Which software do you like, and why?
Adobe Camera Raw, which comes with Lightroom and Photoshop. It just
feels smoother and easier. And it does batches better.
--
Thanks,
DougF (K
based Apples with 2G or more RAM, or
equivalently powerful Windows systems.
Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com
On Apr 1, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Nick Wright
wrote:
Okay, a couple questions...
Why don't you all like the Pentax RAW software?
Which software do you like, and why?
--
~Nick David Wright
09, at 7:18 PM, Nick Wright wrote:
>
>> Okay, a couple questions...
>>
>> Why don't you all like the Pentax RAW software?
>>
>> Which software do you like, and why?
>>
>> --
>> ~Nick David Wright
>> http://www.nickdavidwright.com/
>
2009/4/2 Nick Wright
>
> Does anyone recommend a program that does not cost $300?
>
Try Picasa - it's free.
http://www.google.com/picasa/
Opens PEF's fine, allows simple editing, saves as jpeg. Lots of
people don't seem to like it much, but I think it's incredible value
for money. The latest
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Nick Wright wrote:
> Does anyone recommend a program that does not cost $300?
I do. Picasa. It's free. Download it from Google. Or maybe
Cinepaint if you're running a Mac or Linux.
--
Scott Loveless
Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008
http://www.twosixt
Picasa for the Mac has a few bugs. But I'll add that to my list of
things to play with.
Does anyone here use RAW Developer?
I've been playing with the demo a bit, and so far I really like it.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Nick Wright w
have both. If finances can't measure up to
either, PhotoShop Elements is the correct and obvious choice.
Paul
On Apr 1, 2009, at 10:18 PM, Nick Wright wrote:
Okay, a couple questions...
Why don't you all like the Pentax RAW software?
Which software do you like, and why?
--
~
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:18 -0500, "Nick Wright"
wrote:
> Okay, a couple questions...
>
> Why don't you all like the Pentax RAW software?
I think the user interface was designed to be deliberately obtuse
> Which software do you like, and why?
Raw Therapee. It&#
ocess
again later.
Meanwhile there's more than enough to learn about your camera.
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 09:18:51PM -0500, Nick Wright wrote:
> Okay, a couple questions...
>
> Why don't you all like the Pentax RAW software?
>
> Which software do you like, and why?
certainly under $300. Maybe
download a trial version of PE7 & see if you like it.
Cheers, Christine
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Wright"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:18 PM
Subject: RAW software
Okay, a couple questions...
Why don't you all like the
I like Capture One, for it's simplicity and great workflow. I also
feel that I get great high ISO shots (ISO 1600) with no effort with
it.
For anything not high ISO I remember liking Silkypix, it has precanned
looks that are quick and nice to work with, plus great control.
I didn't try Lightroom
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> I prefer PSCS and the Adobe ACR converter. The total package does more
> overall than Lightroom. While it may not be as good for mass production, if
> one must choose between Lightroom and PhotoShop for fine art photography,
> PhotoShop has
Well, I started out using Capture One. It was nice to process large
batches. Lightroom didn't exist then. When Lightroom came out, I
tried it a couple of times. I found it to be too much. It wanted to
manage my files and organize things and build galleries and much
more. Since I already had s
Nick,
Another vote for Picasa. You can also use Irfanview - one of the
classic, or "dcraw" if you like batch processing.
-Pasvorn
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Nick Wright wrote:
> Does anyone recommend a program that does not cost $300?
>
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http
I like PS Elements. I am using version 5 -- I can't remember, but think that
was the first version that came with Adobe Bridge.
It allows me to do conversions (I mainly do RAW to JPG), clone, create B&W
versions of my shots, bring up highlights in shadows (once used, you'll love
it), and m
I wouldn't touch Picasa, personally.
RAW Developer is good. But by the time you pay for it, and for
GraphicConverter to edit metadata, you have paid for half of Lightroom
2 ... which is a better performer than both of those put together.
There are such things as false economy. ;-)
Godfrey
On Apr 1, 2009, at 8:18 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
While I like Lightroom, I don't like some of
the restrictions in file organizing it forces on me
What restrictions would those be? You can organize your files on the
hard drive any way at all and import them in place with Lightroom. I
truly don
- Mensaje original
> De: Pasvorn Boonmark
> Nick,
>
> Another vote for Picasa. You can also use Irfanview - one of the
> classic, or "dcraw" if you like batch processing.
>
Although I am a heavy user of Picasa and (still) a light user of RAW, my little
experience converting picture
Lightroomski
>
> Does anyone recommend a program that does not cost $300?
>
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
Nick Wright wrote:
> Okay, a couple questions...
>
> Why don't you all like the Pentax RAW software?
>
> Which software do you like, and why?
It is less than intuitive, somewhat intrusive towards your computer and is not
amenable to automation. It is, however, as
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Bob W wrote:
> Lightroomski
Why, Bob, however much does that one cost?
--
Scott Loveless
Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> On Apr 1, 2009, at 8:18 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>> While I like Lightroom, I don't like some of
>> the restrictions in file organizing it forces on me
>
> What restrictions would those be? You can organize your files on the hard
> drive an
On Apr 2, 2009, at 5:38 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
wrote:
On Apr 1, 2009, at 8:18 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
While I like Lightroom, I don't like some of
the restrictions in file organizing it forces on me
What restrictions would those be? You can or
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 5:38 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 1, 2009, at 8:18 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>>>
While I like Lightroom, I don't like some of
the restrictions in
Adam Maas wrote:
So Lightroom adds extra steps (Import) in order to gain features I
don't want (the Library) but can't get away from (The Library once
again).
That's exactly how I feel about Lightroom, and most of the other
programs that try to organize photos ... they never seem to organize
Adam Maas wrote:
So Lightroom adds extra steps (Import) in order to gain features I
don't want (the Library) but can't get away from (The Library once
again).
That's my only quibble with Lightroom: I can't just browse and convert,
I have to import images into its database first. I use Lightro
On Apr 2, 2009, at 8:27, Mark Roberts wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
So Lightroom adds extra steps (Import) in order to gain features I
don't want (the Library) but can't get away from (The Library once
again).
That's my only quibble with Lightroom: I can't just browse and
convert, I have to impor
Very well put, Adam. That is one of the main reasons I chose not to
use it. I already have software that deals with organization
directly at the OS level rather than this import part. I don't want
to bother with the import and all my other packages work just fine
with the files in directories as
Charles Robinson wrote:
On Apr 2, 2009, at 8:27, Mark Roberts wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
So Lightroom adds extra steps (Import) in order to gain features I
don't want (the Library) but can't get away from (The Library once
again).
That's my only quibble with Lightroom: I can't just browse and
I much prefer Bridge as well, and it's kept me wedded to ACR, of which
I"m also very fond.
On Apr 2, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
wrote:
On Apr 1, 2009, at 8:18 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
While I like Lightroom, I don't like some of
the re
Adam Maas wrote:
That IS the restriction I'm speaking of. Because it uses a library
instead of a file browser I need to jump through that hoop if I want
to use a filesystem organization other than the one it wants. As
opposed to my files just being there in Bridge. Bridge is simply much
less hass
I guess notions of efficiency, productivity, and overall image
management to expand creativity and profitability are not viable for
this user community.
Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com
On Apr 2, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Dario Bonazza
wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
That IS the restriction I'm speaking of
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I guess notions of efficiency, productivity, and overall image
management to expand creativity and profitability are not viable for
this user community.
that's kind of a big leap, don't you think?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Bob W wrote:
> Lightroomski
>
Sounds bootlegged...
:-)
--
Bong Manayon
http://www.bong.uni.cc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and fo
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, mike wilson wrote:
>
> Nick Wright wrote:
>> Okay, a couple questions...
>>
>> Why don't you all like the Pentax RAW software?
>>
>> Which software do you like, and why?
>
> It is less than intuitive, somewha
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I guess notions of efficiency, productivity, and overall image management
to expand creativity and profitability are not viable for this user
community.
Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com
On Apr 2, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Dario Bonazza
wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
That IS the re
Nick Wright wrote:
Okay, a couple questions...
Why don't you all like the Pentax RAW software?
Extremely slow and very limited functions
Which software do you like, and why?
Adobe Lightroom. Plenty options for control and postprocessing. I only
rarely using photoshop because I
There is one true God, and she is Lightroom.
Let us worship at her alter. Regards, Bob S.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> I guess notions of efficiency, productivity, and overall image management to
> expand creativity and profitability are not viable for this user co
Doug Brewer wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I guess notions of efficiency, productivity, and overall image
management to expand creativity and profitability are not viable for
this user community.
that's kind of a big leap, don't you think?
It's not only a big leap, it's opposite what many
Thanks for all the replies.
I've been fiddling around with several different programs. And I'll
just have to decide.
Frankly I've really been enjoying the look of the photos done by
iPhoto. I'm really rather surprised by this in fact.
I just downloaded Bibble and was struck by how much noise my
On Apr 2, 2009, at 06:24 , Doug Franklin wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
So Lightroom adds extra steps (Import) in order to gain features I
don't want (the Library) but can't get away from (The Library once
again).
That's exactly how I feel about Lightroom, and most of the other
programs that try
On Apr 2, 2009, at 06:27 , Mark Roberts wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
So Lightroom adds extra steps (Import) in order to gain features I
don't want (the Library) but can't get away from (The Library once
again).
That's my only quibble with Lightroom: I can't just browse and
convert, I have to imp
On Apr 2, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Doug Brewer wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I guess notions of efficiency, productivity, and overall image
management to expand creativity and profitability are not viable
for this user community.
that's kind of a big leap, don't you think?
Intentional or not, this reply comes across as nose-in-the-air snobbery
- that your way is the *only* way to do things. Keep in mind that other
people's needs and resources may be different from yours and that what
may be a logical process in your mind may be different in someone else's.
Your
In a message dated 4/2/2009 10:14:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
godd...@mac.com writes:
If that is not important to you, it is to me. Be happy in what you do,
I'm quite happy with what I do. ;-)
Godfrey
I'm happy with my combo of LR 2 and Elements 5.
For me, LR is okay.
On Apr 2, 2009, at 09:36 , Bob Sullivan wrote:
There is one true God, and she is Lightroom.
Let us worship at her alter. Regards, Bob S.
Here we have religious freedom.
I therefore worship Aperture, which seems to do everything all the
various disjointed programs you all are discussing try
- Original Message -
From: "Dario Bonazza"
Subject: Re: RAW software
Godfrey, don't make general assumptions and take it easy. Can one or two
people have different needs from yours?
Not unless you are a loser, apparently.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
One nice thing about Bridge is while it's closely integrated to ACR, I
can set it to open files of various types in other converters. I have
it currently setup to open NEF's (Nikon RAW files) in CaptureNX and
all other files in ACR. If I ever get a Sony A900 (a camera I'm quite
interested in as a h
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Bob W wrote:
> > Lightroomski
>
> Why, Bob, however much does that one cost?
>
>
Couple of roubles, apparently.
(Let me point out that I have a legit copy of Lightroom, which I think is a
great program and worth every penny. I'd rate it as one of the to
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> I guess notions of efficiency, productivity, and overall image management to
> expand creativity and profitability are not viable for this user community.
>
> Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com
>
I found Lightroom to have the opposite effect _for
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 06:24 , Doug Franklin wrote:
>
>> Adam Maas wrote:
>>
>>> So Lightroom adds extra steps (Import) in order to gain features I
>>> don't want (the Library) but can't get away from (The Library once
>>> again).
>>
>> That's
Such silliness.
On Apr 2, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I guess notions of efficiency, productivity, and overall image
management to expand creativity and profitability are not viable for
this user community.
Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com
On Apr 2, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Dario Bonazz
IPhoto does a decent job. I fooled around with it a bit and was
surprised as well. I imagine it shares some conversion technology with
Aperture.
Paul
On Apr 2, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Nick Wright wrote:
Thanks for all the replies.
I've been fiddling around with several different programs. And I'
I am really impressed with iPhoto's conversions of my photos.
Here's a gallery comparing a 3200 iso shot converted with Bibble and iPhoto.
http://is.gd/qmKQ
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> IPhoto does a decent job. I fooled around with it a bit and was surprised as
> wel
The conversion engine is identical between iPhoto and Aperture, and
the backend is closely related. Aperture is really just a better UI
with more control over editing on top of iPhoto's backend.
-Adam
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> IPhoto does a decent job. I fooled arou
Impressive.
On Apr 2, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Nick Wright wrote:
I am really impressed with iPhoto's conversions of my photos.
Here's a gallery comparing a 3200 iso shot converted with Bibble and
iPhoto.
http://is.gd/qmKQ
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Paul Stenquist > wrote:
IPhoto does a dec
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 09:24:28AM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote:
> Adam Maas wrote:
>
> >So Lightroom adds extra steps (Import) in order to gain features I
> >don't want (the Library) but can't get away from (The Library once
> >again).
>
> That's exactly how I feel about Lightroom, and most of the
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:55:22AM -0500, Charles Robinson wrote:
> It's funny that one of the major features that I love about Lightroom
> is something that others find to be a pain.
>
> The importing for me is just a minor step. I love the fact that I can
> locate images from 3 years ago in
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 03:29:06PM -0500, Nick Wright wrote:
> I am really impressed with iPhoto's conversions of my photos.
>
> Here's a gallery comparing a 3200 iso shot converted with Bibble and iPhoto.
>
> http://is.gd/qmKQ
When I tried iPhoto I found it to be the single worst user interface
iPhoto 7 is an immense improvement over previous versions. I find it
does just about everything I need it to do.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 03:29:06PM -0500, Nick Wright wrote:
>> I am really impressed with iPhoto's conversions of my photos.
>>
>>
>
> Perhaps you can tell me how to handle an issue. My iMac doesn't have
> huge amounts of disk space, and it's not trivial to add a bigger
> drive. So my process:
>
[...]
>
> My problem with this software may be from the fact that I use a mac
> because it's unix, rather than I'm using a unix ma
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 09:18:51PM -0500, Nick Wright scripsit:
> Okay, a couple questions...
>
> Why don't you all like the Pentax RAW software?
Doesn't run on Linux.
> Which software do you like, and why?
ufraw/dcraw (ufraw is a graphical front end for dcraw) and
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Bob W wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps you can tell me how to handle an issue. My iMac doesn't have
>> huge amounts of disk space, and it's not trivial to add a bigger
>> drive. So my process:
>>
> [...]
>>
>> My problem with this software may be from the fact that I use a mac
Not familiar with the intricacies of the Mac OS, but I'm wondering if
you can't use the Linux box as a file server and map that drive to your
Mac so it sees the Linux drive as a local drive.
-p
Larry Colen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:55:22AM -0500, Charles Robinson wrote:
It's funny that
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 11:53:19AM -0400, Doug Brewer scripsit:
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>> I guess notions of efficiency, productivity, and overall image
>> management to expand creativity and profitability are not viable for
>> this user community.
>
> that's kind of a big leap, don't you th
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 06:18:19PM -0500, Paul Sorenson wrote:
> Not familiar with the intricacies of the Mac OS, but I'm wondering if
> you can't use the Linux box as a file server and map that drive to your
> Mac so it sees the Linux drive as a local drive.
In theory that can be done, probably
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Graydon wrote:
> Permit me to quote the Perl motto -- "There's more than one way to do
> it."
You're totally off the Wall now.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit
Joseph McAllister wrote:
Doesn't Lightroom allow you to set the organization of your imports up
any way you want to? And doesn't it allow for keywords that will allow
even further abilities to organizing, as well as searches for particular
type, color, time, year, or other descriptive words?
Adam Maas wrote:
But I don't use extensive
Metadata or keywording (and find such to be bloody annoying to add)
which eliminates the advantages and magnifies the disadvantages of
Lightroom.
I don't even have time to mess with metadata, tagging, and such, when
I'm trying to post 3,000 images fr
Bob W wrote:
A number of people have complained about having to import data in Lightroom.
I don't really see what the issue is. At some point you have to get the data
off the card and onto your storage system.
No you don't. Not for some purposes.
Furthermore, even after copying a file from th
Larry Colen wrote:
Mac so it sees the Linux drive as a local drive.
In theory that can be done, probably via samba.
Dude, these days, the Samba solution goes in like a dream with pretty
much any modern Linux distro. Based on my Linux experiences, it
wouldn't surprise me if the Samba clie
> > A number of people have complained about having to import
> data in Lightroom.
> > I don't really see what the issue is. At some point you
> have to get the data
> > off the card and onto your storage system.
>
> No you don't. Not for some purposes.
>
Such as?
> Furthermore, even after c
Bob W wrote:
Er, that's what Lightroom is for - files you want to keep.
Or for files you just want to print. Say, a quick print, direct off the
memory card, using the white balance, shadow and highlight recovery,
gamma and curves tools in Lightroom. It would be really nice to be able
to do
My files are simply organized by date shot as the folder name,
followed by a few key words. If the folder hasn't been backed up yet,
it carries a "b" prefix. Once I back it up, I remove the prefix. I
manage the files with Bridge and find it all quite simple. I never
have experienced a probl
2 ea 640 GB USB 2.0 drives for your iMac shouldn't set you back more
than $200. RAID 1 them.
http://go.iomega.com/en-us/products/factory-outlet/external-hard-drive-desktop-prestige/?partner=4760
On Apr 2, 2009, at 14:49 , Larry Colen wrote:
Perhaps you can tell me how to handle an issue. My
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Maas"
Subject: Re: RAW software
One of my beefs with Import is that while it does handle copying
directly off the card reasonably well, I doesn't handle images that
are there already nearly as well. I'm still a heavy film shoo
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Franklin"
Subject: Re: RAW software
Basically, when I tried it out, Lightroom got in my way at least as often
as it helped me. The tools I already have work just fine with my
preferred workflow, and don't make me jump through th
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 07:52:22PM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote:
> Joseph McAllister wrote:
>
>> Doesn't Lightroom allow you to set the organization of your imports up
>> any way you want to? And doesn't it allow for keywords that will allow
>> even further abilities to organizing, as well as sea
And iPhoto 09 is yet another step up towards the Aperture feature set.
http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/
On Apr 2, 2009, at 15:14 , Nick Wright wrote:
iPhoto 7 is an immense improvement over previous versions. I find it
does just about everything I need it to do.
Joseph McAllister
pentax..
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:39:18PM -0600, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Doug Franklin"
> Subject: Re: RAW software
>
>
>
>> Basically, when I tried it out, Lightroom got in my way at least as
>> often as it helped me. The too
On Apr 2, 2009, at 7:37 PM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" Subject: Re: RAW
software
One of my beefs with Import is that while it does handle copying
directly off the card reasonably well, I doesn't handle images that
are there already near
- Original Message -
From: "John Francis"
Subject: Re: RAW software
You do know you can explicitly set the drive letter, I assume?
I do, and I completely forgot that I could do it. Instead, I just let
Lightroom chew away on the 19,000 or so images that are sitt
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 02:49:53PM -0700, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> Problem 1)
> A card may have several sessions from a day. Yesterday I shot some
> flowers at the office, some farm machinery by the road and at a dance.
>
> I can create subdirectories, and move photos from the top level
> directory
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> All you need to do is import in place on the scan files ... scan them into
> the directory you want them to be placed in, then import. I use LR for all
> my scanned images too. It does a very good job. I embed metadata at time of
> impo
On Apr 2, 2009, at 4:52 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
And, I don't know about Lightroom specifically, but with many of the
"Library" oriented, database-based cataloging "solutions", God help
you if you ever want to rearrange things on the file system after
they're in the catalog.
It's never a
On Apr 2, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
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
On Apr 2, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
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 Br
Paul Stenquist wrote:
My files are simply organized by date shot as the folder name, followed
by a few key words. If the folder hasn't been backed up yet, it carries a
"b" prefix. Once I back it up, I remove the prefix. I manage the files
with Bridge and find it all quite simple. I never h
> > Basically, when I tried it out, Lightroom got in my way at
> least as often
> > as it helped me. The tools I already have work just fine with my
> > preferred workflow, and don't make me jump through their
> hoops to do what
> > I want to do. And, I don't know about Lightroom
> specific
> >
>
> 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 al
Bob W wrote:
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 hav
> > 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 becaus
Bob W wrote:
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
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts"
Subject: Re: RAW software
It isn't a false analogy - you just haven't grasped it!
Find me a person who actually wants to put petrol in a pram and you'll
convince me it's not a false analogy.
Is there a
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: RAW software
On Apr 2, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
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
> > Anyway, here's a
> > better one. You need a steamhammer for your work which
> involves driving
> > enormous piles into the ground. You also occasionally need
> to tap a tack
> > into a piece of wood. You complain because the steam
> piledriver is no good
> > at tapping little tacks into woo
Speaking of Steamhammers...and piledrivers, I am still using PSE3. I am
limited to adobe Camera Raw 3.6 (which I have installed)by PSE3. I have
not seen any picture processing tools in any of the subsequent PSE or
Camera Raw releases that warrant their purchase. It appears that the
subsequent
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>> 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 th
Bob W wrote:
> Anyway, here's a
better one. You need a steamhammer for your work which
involves driving
enormous piles into the ground. You also occasionally need
to tap a tack
into a piece of wood. You complain because the steam
piledriver is no good
at tapping little tacks into wood.
Th
1 - 100 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
