Digital BW, The Print

For those who need fast rendering of 8x10 drum-scans I would recommend CaptureOne. It uses amazing graphics card stuff. LR4 has started to do this but still not as well. (It's beta though.)  For database (keeping track of client files), LR is great. I've used it for years and rely on it every day.

For interpreting images, LR and all raw editors are still clunky. For saving out print-templates and job orders, etc, LR workflows are great! Especially when you can send to a ppd rip like ColorBurst or a hot-folder. I wish LR printed tif files instead of just JPGs for "print-to-file" though  . . . 

best,
Walker



On Jan 12, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Peter Marshall wrote:

> Having tried (and reviewed) a few image databases in the past I think 
> Lightroom isn't bad. It's currently running a catalogue of over 250,000 
> images for me, and really does pretty well. Mainly I rely on the 
> keywording of images and Exif/IPTC data which I want to add to images 
> anyway (and Lightroom lets you do fairly painlessly) though I'm also 
> starting to use its collections. It works better if you give some 
> thought to renaming and storing files on input, and some photographers 
> are pretty resistant to that. Getting a more powerful computer recently 
> has made a difference for me. I certainly wouldn't consider going back 
> to a separate database. LR isn't perfect, but it saves me a great deal 
> of time and there is no real alternative.
> 
> LR has become almost a one-stop shop for digital images. Perhaps one in 
> a thousand I need Photoshop for (and mainly to use a particular 
> plugin.) if you work on a Mac, then Aperture might be an alternative, 
> but I use a PC. If I still worked mainly on film I'd probably have stuck 
> to IMatch (http://www.photools.com/imatch-3-overview/ ) and Photoshop.
> 
> Peter
> 
> In Search of Atget: Paris 1984 http://is.gd/oRLosu
> Still Occupied: A View of Hull 1977-85 http://is.gd/GwtO3o
> Before the Olympics: The Lea Valley 1981-2010 http://is.gd/dp02K
> 
> Peter Marshall - Photographer, Writer: NUJ
> petermarshall@...
> __________________________________________________________
> >Re:PHOTO http://re-photo.co.uk
> My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
> London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
> The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
> River Lea/Lee Valley 1980-2010 http://river-lea.co.uk/
> and elsewhere......
> 
> On 12/01/2012 13:56, mrjimbo wrote:
> > I agree Eric.. Your post got me to thinking.. As you folks know I use Lightroom.. Constructively , what might be replacement options.. Just Photoshop in it's present state doesn't get it. It lacks the visual cataloguing system Lightroom has... and it's worse then watching paint dry if your trying to processa few hundred images. It seems for many if it were added then that would end up being a detriment unless they did it totally differently.. So what are the options..I will openly admit that the catalogue system is not the greatest but how many would really take the time to use a real relational database properly.. I want to be a shooter not a data entry jock.. As far as the developing tools in Lightroom I actually like them for the most part.. Admittedly the program has holes but if this thread is really going to bring home any bacon maybe alternates should be discussed too. Has anyone here actually had a good data base their happy with? The only one I've fooled with is Cumulus.. Long ago I also built one in access but to be truthful that was a joke.
> >
> >
> > jimbo
> >
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]