Digital BW, The Print

I really agree with Paul.  I have been using Lightroom for four years 
and I am still  befuddled by it.  I much prefer the camera raw interface 
in Photoshop to the Lightroom one.  I know they do the same things, but 
I can see what I am doing much better in camera raw.
I still have situations where I cannot for the life of me change from a 
grid view to a whole page view.  Normally, there is no problem, but now 
and then I just have to put up with what Lightroom has decided to do.
I also hate the Lightroom cataloging system. I try to make one that 
works for me but it is not great.  I am actually thinking of dumping 
Lightroom.  I see the main problem as an unfriendly user interface and 
real lack of integration with Photoshop.
If they expanded Adobe Bridge capability it could be great.
Lightroom may be great for the technically very savvy superuser but it 
is not good for someone like me.  I am not going to spend any more money 
on it.
Geraldine

Dunno if this helps, but try the toggles using the Function keys [F5], [F6], [F7] and [F8], and just the plain letter [F] key.  the function keys show/hide the panels, and the letter F toggles between Full screen and what you had before.

It's all in the help screen and in the manuals. Maybe you need to upgrade to a newer version? I use 3.6, upgraded since v1ß came out (from Pixmantec),

Maybe a little reading, "Lightroom 3: The Missing FAQ" by Brompton is in order, along with Lynda tutorials?  "The DAM Book" is also a good workflow intro.

Good luck.

-= CB =-

----- Original Message -----

> I still have situations where I cannot for the life of me change from
> a
> grid view to a whole page view.

I tried it , in fact several times. When it first came out.
Couldn't warm up to it then, nor later when i got LR3. Even bought an ebook guide to help me get a handle on what I might be missing.
I know some swear by it, but I am still passing.
Just wanted you to know, your not alone
an n

--- On Wed, 1/11/12, Geraldine Powell <gpowell@...> wrote:

From: Geraldine Powell <gpowell@...>
Subject: [Digital BW] I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 9:44 AM
















 



  


    
      
      
      I really agree with Paul.  I have been using Lightroom for four years 

and I am still  befuddled by it.  I much prefer the camera raw interface 

in Photoshop to the Lightroom one.  I know they do the same things, but 

I can see what I am doing much better in camera raw.

I still have situations where I cannot for the life of me change from a 

grid view to a whole page view.  Normally, there is no problem, but now 

and then I just have to put up with what Lightroom has decided to do.

I also hate the Lightroom cataloging system. I try to make one that 

works for me but it is not great.  I am actually thinking of dumping 

Lightroom.  I see the main problem as an unfriendly user interface and 

real lack of integration with Photoshop.

If they expanded Adobe Bridge capability it could be great.

Lightroom may be great for the technically very savvy superuser but it 

is not good for someone like me.  I am not going to spend any more money 

on it.

Geraldine





    
     

    
    






  










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

Ditto…   Tried it but not for me. Staying with PS.

 

Tom 

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ann clancy
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:08 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

 

  

I tried it , in fact several times. When it first came out.
Couldn't warm up to it then, nor later when i got LR3. Even bought an ebook guide to help me get a handle on what I might be missing.
I know some swear by it, but I am still passing.
Just wanted you to know, your not alone
an n

--- On Wed, 1/11/12, Geraldine Powell <gpowell@... <mailto:gpowell%40lucasta.net> > wrote:

From: Geraldine Powell <gpowell@... <mailto:gpowell%40lucasta.net> >
Subject: [Digital BW] I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 9:44 AM

 

I really agree with Paul. I have been using Lightroom for four years 

and I am still befuddled by it. I much prefer the camera raw interface 

in Photoshop to the Lightroom one. I know they do the same things, but 

I can see what I am doing much better in camera raw.

I still have situations where I cannot for the life of me change from a 

grid view to a whole page view. Normally, there is no problem, but now 

and then I just have to put up with what Lightroom has decided to do.

I also hate the Lightroom cataloging system. I try to make one that 

works for me but it is not great. I am actually thinking of dumping 

Lightroom. I see the main problem as an unfriendly user interface and 

real lack of integration with Photoshop.

If they expanded Adobe Bridge capability it could be great.

Lightroom may be great for the technically very savvy superuser but it 

is not good for someone like me. I am not going to spend any more money 

on it.

Geraldine

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





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

On 01/11/2012 04:09 PM, Tom Maugham wrote:
> Ditto\ufffd   Tried it but not for me. Staying with PS.
>
>
>
> Tom

With DPP, CS 5.5 Premium and Qimage Ultimate available there is no 
budget and time left for another application. Much of what I want is in 
Qimage and I would not like to change the print side of that program 
with LR's printing approach. Nice that it shows a calibration button for 
the HP Z integrated printer calibration function but that is not a thing 
you need every day. Qimage can make catalogs but I prefer to keep the 
files in the original maps.

The softproof features now introduced in LR 4 are interesting though, 
both monitor and printer gamut clipping shown, saving an image with 
adaptions to fit the printer gamut. All in all it is an improvement on 
other editor's softproofing tools. The LR users had to wait long for 
softproofing though.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

> ... Staying with PS.

We spend to much time interfacing with our digital machines these days, that reducing the time and effort in those functions becomes important.  These interfaces are all like languages, and I was never very good at learning those.  So, I tend to stick with what I know and need the most, in part, because I don't get enough benefit from the new "language" or interface to justify its costs in learning.  

How the cost-benefit analysis nets out for an individual will depend, in part, on the which part of photography and printing one is in.  I mostly need PS for editing intensively my personal work.  So, the LR search is excellent and used, but after I review the images and find what I'm after, I move to PS, which is where I anticipate I'll stay for some time.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Geraldine:

I agree that grid vs. Loupe view can be confusing (and if you press T, you can lose the Toolbar, which confuses a lot of people). I've spent thousands of hours in Lightroom and I've taught a lot of people to use it, and I still get frustrated from time to time!

Here are a few quick tips to try:

1. Remember "GE," G will take you to Grid, and E to Loupe, then use the minus and plus keys to make the thumbnails larger or smaller (easier than the slider in my opinion).
2. Use a date-based system for cataloging your work. I have a pretty long article on this here to give you an idea of what I mean by that:

http://prophotoresource.com/home/item/528-tracking-gigabytes-how-to-organize-your-image-collection.html?tmpl=component&print=1

Hope that helps!

Andrew

Andrew Darlow
Editor, The Imaging Buffet
http://www.imagingbuffet.com
Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http://www.inkjettips.com
and
Pet Photography 101: 
Tips for Taking Better Photos of Your Dog or Cat - http://www.PhotoPetTips.com
http://facebook.com/andrewdarlow

On Jan 11, 2012, at 9:44 AM, Geraldine Powell wrote:

> I really agree with Paul. I have been using Lightroom for four years 
> and I am still befuddled by it. I much prefer the camera raw interface 
> in Photoshop to the Lightroom one. I know they do the same things, but 
> I can see what I am doing much better in camera raw.
> I still have situations where I cannot for the life of me change from a 
> grid view to a whole page view. Normally, there is no problem, but now 
> and then I just have to put up with what Lightroom has decided to do.
> I also hate the Lightroom cataloging system. I try to make one that 
> works for me but it is not great. I am actually thinking of dumping 
> Lightroom. I see the main problem as an unfriendly user interface and 
> real lack of integration with Photoshop.
> If they expanded Adobe Bridge capability it could be great.
> Lightroom may be great for the technically very savvy superuser but it 
> is not good for someone like me. I am not going to spend any more money 
> on it.
> Geraldine
> 
>

Hi Andrew,

I notice when discussing these catalog issues, it's a matter of understanding relational databases.  We are photographers, and classify the old paper negative method. Mentally, we want all the same negative in the same spot (aka folder). We are mentally wired for flat files.

It is hard to comprehend that photographs can be anywhere, and that LR serves as an inventory management tool. Hence assigning topic, subjects, accounts, etc. is important during the ingest process.  Thus if we assign names correctly, we can find and display easily all pictures across all folders AND drives for any topic/subject, AND yes date, not by the folder, but by the metadata.

The key of course is to maintain a safe copy of the LR master database file on a secondary drive or RAID.

We tend to want to place the related pictures in folders, just like in the real paper work process, but in computers, the files (read pictures) can be anywhere, LR finds them by filters.  Difficult physical data management concept.

-= CB =-



----- Original Message -----

> Hi Geraldine:
> 
> I agree that grid vs. Loupe view can be confusing (and if you press T,
> you can lose the Toolbar, which confuses a lot of people). I've spent
> thousands of hours in Lightroom and I've taught a lot of people to use
> it, and I still get frustrated from time to time!
> 
> Here are a few quick tips to try:
> 
> 1. Remember "GE," G will take you to Grid, and E to Loupe, then use
> the minus and plus keys to make the thumbnails larger or smaller
> (easier than the slider in my opinion).
> 2. Use a date-based system for cataloging your work. I have a pretty
> long article on this here to give you an idea of what I mean by that:
> 
> http://prophotoresource.com/home/item/528-tracking-gigabytes-how-to-organize-your-image-collection.html?tmpl=component&print=1
> 
> Hope that helps!
> 
> Andrew
> 
> Andrew Darlow
> Editor, The Imaging Buffet
> http://www.imagingbuffet.com
> Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
> An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers -
> http://www.inkjettips.com
> and
> Pet Photography 101:
> Tips for Taking Better Photos of Your Dog or Cat -
> http://www.PhotoPetTips.com
> http://facebook.com/andrewdarlow
> 
> 
> On Jan 11, 2012, at 9:44 AM, Geraldine Powell wrote:
> 
> > I really agree with Paul. I have been using Lightroom for four years
> > and I am still befuddled by it. I much prefer the camera raw
> > interface
> > in Photoshop to the Lightroom one. I know they do the same things,
> > but
> > I can see what I am doing much better in camera raw.
> > I still have situations where I cannot for the life of me change
> > from a
> > grid view to a whole page view. Normally, there is no problem, but
> > now
> > and then I just have to put up with what Lightroom has decided to
> > do.
> > I also hate the Lightroom cataloging system. I try to make one that
> > works for me but it is not great. I am actually thinking of dumping
> > Lightroom. I see the main problem as an unfriendly user interface
> > and
> > real lack of integration with Photoshop.
> > If they expanded Adobe Bridge capability it could be great.
> > Lightroom may be great for the technically very savvy superuser but
> > it
> > is not good for someone like me. I am not going to spend any more
> > money
> > on it.
> > Geraldine
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
> resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
> this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
> Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER�
> AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES),
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

Hi Chris:

I agree that LR can do a great job of managing images in many ways, and I both advocate and teach that. Everyone ingests images differently, from scans, digital camera cards, etc. My goal when I teach the system I use and developed is to make it easy to keep scans or cards organized so that they can be easily cataloged. One other issue is that many file formats are not supported by Lightroom, so folders become more important when trying to deal with those formats.

The problem many get into is when they drop a DCIM folder on their desktop or in an arbitrary place, then import into Lightroom, then they decide to move that folder somewhere. It can quickly become a mess. Then their hard drive gets filled, and they need to off-load those images. Now Lightroom is full of question marks.

I'm happy to expand a bit on the system that took me years to finally settle on after many different archiving approaches. If we could easily store all of our files on a single hard drive going back 15 years, then having a date-based system with folders for each year, or even months, would not be as important. For example, iif we just wrote novels and did not produce anything but text files, it would be very possible to have hundreds of thousands of pages on a single hard drive, and backed up on multiple other drives. But the sheer size of RAW files, high-bit layered files and video for many people makes it almost impossible to store a copy of their life's work on one drive (of course, additional copies are then needed for backup). 

The beauty of a date-based system from a macro standpoint is this: if you place work from 2011 in a folder, then on 1/1/2012, you never put another item in that same main folder. When you export a file (if you need to export from Lightroom), then it goes into 2012 (in whatever folder you choose). The Lightroom catalog files do not go into a specific year, unless you decide to make a new catalog each year.

This is very valuable because many people have older hard drives, and if you use this system, you can have work from years 2002, 2003, 2004, to 2011 etc. archived on multiple hard drives without ever having to touch that data. If you have a real problem down the line, you just collect the hard drives, pick up the folders for each year (hopefully all the years' combined will all fit on a 3TB hard drive or a RAID array that may be larger).  After you point your LR catalog to the new drive, you can have it rebuild the thumbnails and you are back in business.

All the best,

Andrew

Andrew Darlow
Editor, The Imaging Buffet
http://www.imagingbuffet.com
Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http://www.inkjettips.com
and
Pet Photography 101: 
Tips for Taking Better Photos of Your Dog or Cat - http://www.PhotoPetTips.com
http://facebook.com/andrewdarlow

 
On Jan 11, 2012, at 12:51 PM, -= Chris =- wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I notice when discussing these catalog issues, it's a matter of understanding relational databases. Â We are photographers, and classify the old paper negative method. Mentally, we want all the same negative in the same spot (aka folder). We are mentally wired for flat files.
> 
> It is hard to comprehend that photographs can be anywhere, and that LR serves as an inventory management tool. Hence assigning topic, subjects, accounts, etc. is important during the ingest process. Thus if we assign names correctly, we can find and display easily all pictures across all folders AND drives for any topic/subject, AND yes date, not by the folder, but by the metadata.
> 
> The key of course is to maintain a safe copy of the LR master database file on a secondary drive or RAID.
> 
> We tend to want to place the related pictures in folders, just like in the real paper work process, but in computers, the files (read pictures) can be anywhere, LR finds them by filters. Â Difficult physical data management concept.
> 
> -= CB =-
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Hi Geraldine:
> > 
> > I agree that grid vs. Loupe view can be confusing (and if you press T,
> > you can lose the Toolbar, which confuses a lot of people). I've spent
> > thousands of hours in Lightroom and I've taught a lot of people to use
> > it, and I still get frustrated from time to time!
> > 
> > Here are a few quick tips to try:
> > 
> > 1. Remember "GE," G will take you to Grid, and E to Loupe, then use
> > the minus and plus keys to make the thumbnails larger or smaller
> > (easier than the slider in my opinion).
> > 2. Use a date-based system for cataloging your work. I have a pretty
> > long article on this here to give you an idea of what I mean by that:
> > 
> > http://prophotoresource.com/home/item/528-tracking-gigabytes-how-to-organize-your-image-collection.html?tmpl=component&print=1
> > 
> > Hope that helps!
> > 
> > Andrew
> > 
> > Andrew Darlow
> > Editor, The Imaging Buffet
> > http://www.imagingbuffet.com
> > Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
> > An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers -
> > http://www.inkjettips.com
> > and
> > Pet Photography 101:
> > Tips for Taking Better Photos of Your Dog or Cat -
> > http://www.PhotoPetTips.com
> > http://facebook.com/andrewdarlow
> > 
> > 
> > On Jan 11, 2012, at 9:44 AM, Geraldine Powell wrote:
> > 
> > > I really agree with Paul. I have been using Lightroom for four years
> > > and I am still befuddled by it. I much prefer the camera raw
> > > interface
> > > in Photoshop to the Lightroom one. I know they do the same things,
> > > but
> > > I can see what I am doing much better in camera raw.
> > > I still have situations where I cannot for the life of me change
> > > from a
> > > grid view to a whole page view. Normally, there is no problem, but
> > > now
> > > and then I just have to put up with what Lightroom has decided to
> > > do.
> > > I also hate the Lightroom cataloging system. I try to make one that
> > > works for me but it is not great. I am actually thinking of dumping
> > > Lightroom. I see the main problem as an unfriendly user interface
> > > and
> > > real lack of integration with Photoshop.
> > > If they expanded Adobe Bridge capability it could be great.
> > > Lightroom may be great for the technically very savvy superuser but
> > > it
> > > is not good for someone like me. I am not going to spend any more
> > > money
> > > on it.
> > > Geraldine
> > >
> 





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

WOW!!!!!!  I think this is the first discussion that I have seen where
people are openly talking about dumping it. There are no doubt many that
just don't get it, and there is a lot to get. I have been working with it
since the earliest Beta 2 and have seen it inch along the path to replacing
PS for many.  In my teaching and consulting, I have witnessed a wide set of
reactions to LR. Some get totally confused by the idea of the import
process. First and foremost it is a data base, and does a fine job of
developing, but it doesn't do a great job of being a cataloging system. It
does a particularly bad job for many with large scanned files. These days
are not as hard on the mind as before, but it still sucks in some ways. 
 
 
Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
 
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
skype me with ejprinter
Let's Talk Photography
 


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

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

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: E.Neilsen 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:42 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom


    
  WOW!!!!!! I think this is the first discussion that I have seen where
  people are openly talking about dumping it. There are no doubt many that
  just don't get it, and there is a lot to get. I have been working with it
  since the earliest Beta 2 and have seen it inch along the path to replacing
  PS for many. In my teaching and consulting, I have witnessed a wide set of
  reactions to LR. Some get totally confused by the idea of the import
  process. First and foremost it is a data base, and does a fine job of
  developing, but it doesn't do a great job of being a cataloging system. It
  does a particularly bad job for many with large scanned files. These days
  are not as hard on the mind as before, but it still sucks in some ways. 


  Eric Neilsen
  Eric Neilsen Photography
  4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
  Dallas, TX 75226

  www.ericneilsenphotography.com
  skype me with ejprinter
  Let's Talk Photography


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



  

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

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
>

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]

I played around with LR a few years ago. Does it have the capabilities in its cataloging to keep track of multiple backup DVDs instead of a hard drive? And what are its search options, can you search by keywording, etc? Any limits on number of files or DVDs? I have been using Extensis Portfolio, but it has limits.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jan 12, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Walker Blackwell wrote:

> 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
>

Because it relies on an external DB/ThumnailDB system, you can catalogue off-line things like DVDs and externalHDs, etc. No file number limit. I know of some who have 500,000 item catalogues. Live search, and it will search assets using folder-structure tagging. AKA: if a bunch of images are in a folder called "Richard Avedon," and you type that into the search box, all sub-images will show up live even if they weren't tagged with anything.

best,
Walker

On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Mark Savoia wrote:

> I played around with LR a few years ago. Does it have the capabilities in its cataloging to keep track of multiple backup DVDs instead of a hard drive? And what are its search options, can you search by keywording, etc? Any limits on number of files or DVDs? I have been using Extensis Portfolio, but it has limits.
> 
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> 
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Walker Blackwell wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 



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

Well that will not work for me, I have hundreds of backups on DVDs. Thanks or the info.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jan 12, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Walker Blackwell wrote:

> Because it relies on an external DB/ThumnailDB system, you can catalogue off-line things like DVDs and externalHDs, etc. No file number limit. I know of some who have 500,000 item catalogues. Live search, and it will search assets using folder-structure tagging. AKA: if a bunch of images are in a folder called "Richard Avedon," and you type that into the search box, all sub-images will show up live even if they weren't tagged with anything.
> 
> best,
> Walker

Mark Savoia wrote:
>I have hundreds of backups on DVDs

You obviously like living dangerously!

Bob Frost

Hey Mark,
You may want to look into Cumulus.. It's more work then Lightroom , at least I thought it was, but as far as tracking assets its really great.. It doesn't matter if it's on or off line..  It's search capabilities are incredible but we need to remember as with any data base ...Shit in shit out.. As far as tracking off line DVD's I've never tried that with LR.. I think it would do it .. But Cumulus if structured right will show you the image, tell you what DVD it's on and where to find it..  It will track any type of asset really well.. I really liked it at first then got tired of all the work.. Nikon used to provide it for free some years ago when you bought a camera. maybe you can get a 30 day trial to try out.. I liked the way LR worked in my workflow.. It wasn't a new step to the process ...It just added a feature to my editing task.. I just had to make sure I managed it rather then let it be eclectic . Less work then Cumulus but it works ..  

jimbo

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Savoia 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom


    
  I played around with LR a few years ago. Does it have the capabilities in its cataloging to keep track of multiple backup DVDs instead of a hard drive? And what are its search options, can you search by keywording, etc? Any limits on number of files or DVDs? I have been using Extensis Portfolio, but it has limits.

  Mark
  http://www.stillrivereditions.com

  On Jan 12, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Walker Blackwell wrote:

  > 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
  > 



  

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

I re-burn them / move them up from previous the "latest greatest" backup media. They have gone from Zip Disks, Jazz Disks, Tape, CDs.....and now even off-site clouds. These are the times I long for analog negatives ;)

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jan 12, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Bob Frost wrote:

> Mark Savoia wrote:
>> I have hundreds of backups on DVDs
> 
> You obviously like living dangerously!
> 
> Bob Frost

I looked at that a few years ago but decided on Extensis, don't remember why. Only major roadblock with Extensis Portfolio is you need to start new master catalog after so many thousands of files. I have gotten use to it.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Jan 12, 2012, at 11:25 AM, mrjimbo wrote:

> Hey Mark,
> You may want to look into Cumulus.. It's more work then Lightroom , at least I thought it was, but as far as tracking assets its really great.. It doesn't matter if it's on or off line..  It's search capabilities are incredible but we need to remember as with any data base ...Shit in shit out.. As far as tracking off line DVD's I've never tried that with LR.. I think it would do it .. But Cumulus if structured right will show you the image, tell you what DVD it's on and where to find it..  It will track any type of asset really well.. I really liked it at first then got tired of all the work.. Nikon used to provide it for free some years ago when you bought a camera. maybe you can get a 30 day trial to try out.. I liked the way LR worked in my workflow.. It wasn't a new step to the process ...It just added a feature to my editing task.. I just had to make sure I managed it rather then let it be eclectic . Less work then Cumulus but it works ..  
> 
> jimbo

The words "the Print" are in the name of this Group and Lightroom's printing
capabilities alone are enough reason to use it.  Lightroom is photoshop for
photographers.  It still is missing some pieces but integrates with PS for
going back and forth.  It's important to have a PC or Laptop with power but
remember that you need a recent machine for everything coming out now,
including PS.  I used the tutorial from Luminous Landscapes and that did it.
I'm printing like a crazy person using LR.  Adobe has heavily involved input
from photographers in the design of LR.  And every version is a revolution.
I use the noise reduction and sharpening (with masking) on every image and
the improvement is incredible.  I like large prints (17 x 22) from my Canon
40D and it is amazing how much better the prints are when I print with LR.
A photographer friend said they look like they came from a view camera.
It's possible to do this in PS but only very skilled users know all the
up-rezing techniques that still maintain quality.  In summary, regarding
processing and printing, LR maintains image quality.  And all the other
functions are excellent and will be even better in LR 4.  As photography
changes, Adobe adds to LR.  PS is still mainly a graphics app with a small
percentage relevant to photography.

 

I hope those who have it now will give it one more try, especially the
DEVELOP MODULE and the PRINT MODULE.  It's just the beginning (version 3 now
with 4 due soon)  Consider what you see now in LR as the baby's first steps.
Eventually it will contain everything, including video, all in one app.
It's a revolution and it's just begun.  

 

One last point:  Adobe will make it very challenging to continue as we have
before, buying occasional upgrades to PS when they have something new that
is worth the cost of the upgrade.  The intent is that we stay up to date all
time or lose the original investment and need to buy it again.  No mention
about LR yet.  It has been a fraction of the cost up to now.

 

Mike



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

I'd like to add here that LR does non-destructive 8bit color corrections. ie: It doesn't split histograms. Go ahead and do some intense edits in LR on 8bit, export as tif, and take a look at the histogram.

:)

Walker

I use ID Imager in addition to LR for catalog as it will see more assets
than just those in LR. LR really started out ONLY in the digital realms of
small capture files. The designers were geared to think like a shooting pro
of a few particular styles, not the general basis of shooters. If you don't
shoot like them, many of these tutorials suck. Collections are great tools
in LR, but without keywording, you darn well better know what camera, lens,
date, etc if you are trying to find something.  

 

I still use LR primarily for quick sorts, web output and metadata up dating
which is also done with ID Imager. 

 

Eric Neilsen

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

 

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

SKYPE ejprinter

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Prestie
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:43 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

 

  

The words "the Print" are in the name of this Group and Lightroom's printing
capabilities alone are enough reason to use it. Lightroom is photoshop for
photographers. It still is missing some pieces but integrates with PS for
going back and forth. It's important to have a PC or Laptop with power but
remember that you need a recent machine for everything coming out now,
including PS. I used the tutorial from Luminous Landscapes and that did it.
I'm printing like a crazy person using LR. Adobe has heavily involved input
from photographers in the design of LR. And every version is a revolution.
I use the noise reduction and sharpening (with masking) on every image and
the improvement is incredible. I like large prints (17 x 22) from my Canon
40D and it is amazing how much better the prints are when I print with LR.
A photographer friend said they look like they came from a view camera.
It's possible to do this in PS but only very skilled users know all the
up-rezing techniques that still maintain quality. In summary, regarding
processing and printing, LR maintains image quality. And all the other
functions are excellent and will be even better in LR 4. As photography
changes, Adobe adds to LR. PS is still mainly a graphics app with a small
percentage relevant to photography.

I hope those who have it now will give it one more try, especially the
DEVELOP MODULE and the PRINT MODULE. It's just the beginning (version 3 now
with 4 due soon) Consider what you see now in LR as the baby's first steps.
Eventually it will contain everything, including video, all in one app.
It's a revolution and it's just begun. 

One last point: Adobe will make it very challenging to continue as we have
before, buying occasional upgrades to PS when they have something new that
is worth the cost of the upgrade. The intent is that we stay up to date all
time or lose the original investment and need to buy it again. No mention
about LR yet. It has been a fraction of the cost up to now.

Mike

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





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

I too miss the simplicity of analog negatives, in pages, in binders.  
But I always found them hard to back up.  ;-)

BTW, I have recently become a fairly happy user of LR3.  I played with 
the beta when it originally came out, years ago, but was doing a lot of 
bit manipulations in PS7 at the time and didn't want to have to switch 
between the two.  I didn't need the cataloging features, as I don't do 
large volumes or any commercial work and have a folder/backup system 
that has been working for me since I switched to digital. 

But I don't do much bit manipulating any more, and I'm shooting mostly 
RAW, so for my annual Xmas book project (4-500 prints from ~100 images, 
all cropped to 8x8 and converted to B&W, and bound into 12 different 
books for various family members, all between Thanksgiving and 
Christmas) I decided to try LR3 and found it was much faster to work 
with than PS7.  Having the raw converter built in, and being able to 
apply the 1:1 crop factor across all selected images before beginning to 
B/W convert and tweak each one was a real convenience.  And having the 
thumbnail film strip along the bottom of the Develop screen reminds me 
how convenient the thumbnail navigator in PS7 is (compared to 
Bridge/CS5, for example).

I find the B/W converter in LR3 to be workable, and easier for me to 
manipulate than what I've found in CS5.  I haven't worked up the nerve 
to try Silver EfEx yet, as I'm afraid I'll love it and then have to buy 
it.  But maybe after tax refund time . . .  I print using QImage, using 
2 dedicated B/W printers driven by a laptop, so haven't explored LR3's 
print capabilities very far.  That will be for the future.  For now, I'm 
just pleased that I can process as many images as easily and quickly as 
I can with LR.

Cheers,
Kip
>


Mark Savoia wrote:
>  
>
> I re-burn them / move them up from previous the "latest greatest" 
> backup media. They have gone from Zip Disks, Jazz Disks, Tape, 
> CDs.....and now even off-site clouds. These are the times I long for 
> analog negatives ;)
>


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

I won't dump LR and will probably buy LR4. I like the cataloging system and
I use collections quite a bit ( I understand collections will be available
in all the modules with LR4). I use Qimage or QTR to print so the
only modules I use are library, develop and web occasionally. I'm a little
leery of the new modules they're adding, mapping and book building, which I
won't use at all. If they were the only thing that's new I'd skip the
upgrade.

Tom Husband


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

Hi,
   While I am a professional artist/photographer today I spent my previous career life as a Computer Systems Analyst for the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, DC (27 years).  As computer professionals we were called upon to maintain and analyze huge quantities of data e.g. the high, low and closing price of every stock ever traded on the American and New York stock exchanges.
   Here are some guidelines I developed during those decades of experience.

1.  Do not use proprietary storage formats.  Sooner or later the company that developed the software will change the format burdening you with tons of work or worse yet go out of business leaving you with no way to output YOUR hard work or the output will be a comma delimited file requiring expert programmer help to recover the data.  Think big bucks.

2.  Name each and every file with a unique name.  Yes it can be done and quite easily.  Include in the name the date exposed for sure and also other info that will help you to identify the file w/o having to actually look at it, such as where, who,version, use and other tags.  On a PC the maximum length of a filename is 255 characters.  I have over 90,000 image files of all different types and not one of them has a duplicate name.  Be careful of sort order of the file names.  Remember the computer needs to have the date as YEARMMDD in order for you to understand the chronological order of the files within a folder. 

3.  Backup, Backup, and Backup.  When your Lightroom or Aperture catalog gets corrupted or lost you will lose hundreds and even thousands of hours of work.  Perhaps there will be a loss that is not even recoverable.  The reason for 3 backups is one is your master file that you work with daily, the second is a copy of the master in case the drive goes bad (sure they do MTBF) and the third copy must be stored off-site.  This is to protect against catastrophes such as fire and theft.  I store my third copy in a bank vault and try to swap it once a month.

Everyone thinks that 'Oh, it will not happen to me.'  I did too but 30 years ago it did and I have never forgotten the pain when my boss said she did not care how I made up the lost work as long as I did it on my own time.

I give lectures on this topic but this is the first time I have written anything down.  I know the subject by heart and I usually talk for 90 minutes so I cannot put it all down here.  If anyone has specific comments I would be glad answer as best as I can.

BertGF

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Darlow <ad@...> wrote:

>
> Hi Geraldine:
> 
> I agree that grid vs. Loupe view can be confusing (and if you press T, you can lose the Toolbar, which confuses a lot of people). I've spent thousands of hours in Lightroom and I've taught a lot of people to use it, and I still get frustrated from time to time!
> 
> Here are a few quick tips to try:
> 
> 1. Remember "GE," G will take you to Grid, and E to Loupe, then use the minus and plus keys to make the thumbnails larger or smaller (easier than the slider in my opinion).
> 2. Use a date-based system for cataloging your work. I have a pretty long article on this here to give you an idea of what I mean by that:
> 
> http://prophotoresource.com/home/item/528-tracking-gigabytes-how-to-organize-your-image-collection.html?tmpl=component&print=1
> 
> Hope that helps!
> 
> Andrew
> 
> Andrew Darlow
> Editor, The Imaging Buffet
> http://www.imagingbuffet.com
> Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
> An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http://www.inkjettips.com
> and
> Pet Photography 101: 
> Tips for Taking Better Photos of Your Dog or Cat - http://www.PhotoPetTips.com
> http://facebook.com/andrewdarlow
> 
> 
> On Jan 11, 2012, at 9:44 AM, Geraldine Powell wrote:
> 
> > I really agree with Paul. I have been using Lightroom for four years 
> > and I am still befuddled by it. I much prefer the camera raw interface 
> > in Photoshop to the Lightroom one. I know they do the same things, but 
> > I can see what I am doing much better in camera raw.
> > I still have situations where I cannot for the life of me change from a 
> > grid view to a whole page view. Normally, there is no problem, but now 
> > and then I just have to put up with what Lightroom has decided to do.
> > I also hate the Lightroom cataloging system. I try to make one that 
> > works for me but it is not great. I am actually thinking of dumping 
> > Lightroom. I see the main problem as an unfriendly user interface and 
> > real lack of integration with Photoshop.
> > If they expanded Adobe Bridge capability it could be great.
> > Lightroom may be great for the technically very savvy superuser but it 
> > is not good for someone like me. I am not going to spend any more money 
> > on it.
> > Geraldine
> > 
> >
>

So I have read all of the posts related to "I am thinking of getting rid of
Lightroom"    I did miss however the first post that started it so I am at a
loss to the original context.

 

I think a couple of points are worth clarifying:

 

1.   Lightroom is NOT as database in the true sense of the word.    It does
not manage and manipulate your photos like a true Data Base would.   Your
files can be left where you have them in whatever structure you want.
Lightroom does a very good job of helping you structure your files in many
ways but it only does what you tell it to.    I would say it is more of a
Catalog of your files than as true database.   When I teach lightroom
classes the biggest mistake I see people making is moving their files
outside of Lightroom then expecting Lightroom to know where they are.   You
either have to let Lightroom Keep track of them or forget it.    Lightroom
is NOT  a Browser like Bridge.

 

2.   Many people think the image processing in Lightroom is completely
different than Photoshop.    The RAW processing engine in Lightroom 3 is
exactly the same as the RAW processing engine in Photoshop CS5.       If you
download the Lightroom 4 Beta you will get a glimpse of what the new
Photoshop CS6 or whatever will be.   Its pretty slick.

 

3.   If you are not very prolific and only working on a few masterpieces at
a time then Photoshop is about all you need.   If you do much work and
process many images from shoots at a time then Lightroom is pretty amazing.
You can quickly open photos from Lightroom into Photoshop, Photomatix and
others and Lightroom keeps track of it all for you.    Have the ablitity to
create Virtual Copies I find amazing.

 

My two.5 cents...

 

Paul

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E.Neilsen
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:43 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

 

  

WOW!!!!!! I think this is the first discussion that I have seen where
people are openly talking about dumping it. There are no doubt many that
just don't get it, and there is a lot to get. I have been working with it
since the earliest Beta 2 and have seen it inch along the path to replacing
PS for many. In my teaching and consulting, I have witnessed a wide set of
reactions to LR. Some get totally confused by the idea of the import
process. First and foremost it is a data base, and does a fine job of
developing, but it doesn't do a great job of being a cataloging system. It
does a particularly bad job for many with large scanned files. These days
are not as hard on the mind as before, but it still sucks in some ways. 


Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226

www.ericneilsenphotography.com
skype me with ejprinter
Let's Talk Photography


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





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

Another option (although it will be dissed before most consider it) is to use the Organizer in Photoshop Elements (PSE). It has a fairly robust multiple cataloging function with backup, keywording, searching, metadata, collections, etc., and has many PS similarities. While in the Organizer just highlight an image and hit Ctrl/H and the image is sent to PS or to ACR is it's a RAW file. Of course it has it's own Editor with about 80% of the capabilities of PS and has built-in bookmaking and other projects, like calendars, etc. It's a lot cheaper than LR so you might want to check out the demo. PSE with CS5 works pretty well for me.

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

The whole point of using a Lightroom workflow it to be able to accomplish a wide range of activities within one program. Yes there are better cataloging programs (and some people may need that) there are certainly better printing output platforms, Adobe Camera Raw, which is essentially free, can do all the parametric, non-destructive editing of Raw files, and other programs can produce more sophisticated slide shows and web display options. But the idea of Lightroom is to do it all in one place. And for a working photographer who shoots lots of DSLR files and needs to access and finesse them quickly, without doing major retouching on them, and doesn't want to go out and buy and continually upgrade all these other programs, I think it does it's job quite well.

But it certainly needs soft proofing capability if its going to be seen as a serious printing platform.

john



But the idea of Lightroom is to do all of this in one place with one 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael-K <michael3442@...> wrote:

>
> Another option (although it will be dissed before most consider it) is to use the Organizer in Photoshop Elements (PSE). It has a fairly robust multiple cataloging function with backup, keywording, searching, metadata, collections, etc., and has many PS similarities. While in the Organizer just highlight an image and hit Ctrl/H and the image is sent to PS or to ACR is it's a RAW file. Of course it has it's own Editor with about 80% of the capabilities of PS and has built-in bookmaking and other projects, like calendars, etc. It's a lot cheaper than LR so you might want to check out the demo. PSE with CS5 works pretty well for me.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

From:  john
> But it certainly needs soft proofing capability if its going to be seen as 
> a serious printing platform.

LR4beta has it. Try it and see!

Bob Frost

It thought they would, if they didn't it would have been a huge embarrassment. I'll check it out. 

j



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...> wrote:

>
> From:  john
> > But it certainly needs soft proofing capability if its going to be seen as 
> > a serious printing platform.
> 
> LR4beta has it. Try it and see!
> 
> Bob Frost
>

I have tried LR4 and it is slow, blows up on my Windows 7 quad core system -
totally unusable.

 

Bob Rapp

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Frost
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 9:26 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

 

  

From: john
> But it certainly needs soft proofing capability if its going to be seen as

> a serious printing platform.

LR4beta has it. Try it and see!

Bob Frost







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

Another option is to use the Organizer in Photoshop Elements (PSE). It has a fairly robust multiple cataloging function with backup, keywording, searching, metadata, collections, etc., and has many PS similarities. While in the Organizer just highlight an image and hit Ctrl/H and the image is sent to PS or to ACR is it's a RAW file. Of course it has it's own Editor with about 80% of the capabilities of PS and has built-in bookmaking and other projects, like calendars, etc. It's a lot cheaper than LR so you might want to check out the demo. PSE with CS5 works pretty well for me.
************************
As new to this list and for the most part being a spider under the table listening and hopefully learning from the many experienced smart people here, I have been a B&W hobbiest since I was 8 and grew up with a darkroom and then used bathrooms and hallways for many years finally getting a small 8 x 10 darkroom in my workshop about 30 years ago and using it until 2006. I got my first digital a Sony Mavica in 1995 and continued shooting film until I exausted the supply of Fugi color print and slide film in the freezer. I went through a number of digital cameras chasing pixels and used Photoshop 5 and later Elements 6 and 8 mostly for retouching scanned old family photos. I have been 100% digital for 4 years now, retired I am setting up a digital darkroom and am paying attention to the discussions here and learning a lot and doing a lot of web searching for those questions that come up as I read. I picked up several books I have seen mentioned and a number of others with interesting titles that people on Amazon recomended in their lists or were on the also bought list on Amazon.

I have noticed a few who use Elements with Photoshop and some prefer Lightroom I suppose there are some who use only Photoshop I even read a post on another list of someone using Lightroom with PSE for editing. I have been using Elements only the last couple of years and one of the books I purchased was on ver 8. I just set up the Organizer with the photos from our 4 month backpacking trip to southern England. In Learning PSE 8 Organizer I started and deleted what I had done a number of times and finally have a reasonable I think structure Although if I did it again I would do it differently. I did not want to spend a lot of time placing images into the organizer as I felt my path would lead to Lightroom 4 and then to PS CS6. Here in Texas seniors can attend classes at state schools for $20 so I signed up and when PS CS6 becomes available I will purchase it at the campus bookstore currently Adobe is running CS 5 Premium at a $100 discount from student list price so I assume 6 is not far off. For the present I have found that if I needed to do something not in Elements there was usually a plug in available to do what I wanted many of these are free so I have loaded around a dozen of these into the proper folder and I have also found some stand alone programs like InPaint that for a tiny price would allow me to do advanced photoshop tasks in a few simple steps. As a member of an online group that does one day beta testing I have found a few useful photography manipulation programs that by evaluating I get a free copy to use InPaint was one of these.

So I have at this point in time found Elements with additional add on routines to do what I need at this point in my journey. I am taking a class on Elements this spring, they have ver 9 on the lab computers so my knowledge of 8 should come across fine, on the recomendation of the Photoshop instructor since Photoshop is a 2 semester course and it begins in the fall this will serve as a prerequisite along with my experence with darkroom work. I am also taking Digital Cameras and Digital Scanning as part of the prerequisite so he can be sure I am up for the class and suggested I get a copy of Photoshop before class and spend some time going over the basics. If I could not purchase PS 6 at the student rate I would probably use PSE with plugins or perhaps Lightroom.

Bill Lewis

From: Bob Rapp
> I have tried LR4 and it is slow, blows up on my Windows 7 quad core 
> system -
> totally unusable.

Quite the opposite on my Win7x64 system. I'm now using it instead of LR3.6. 
Far superior raw processing, and no problems at all with speed or crashes.

BobFrost

Same here.  It's working much faster than LR3.6 on my Window 7/64.

Tina

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Bob Frost <bobfrost@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: Bob Rapp
> > I have tried LR4 and it is slow, blows up on my Windows 7 quad core
> > system -
> > totally unusable.
>
> Quite the opposite on my Win7x64 system. I'm now using it instead of
> LR3.6.
> Far superior raw processing, and no problems at all with speed or crashes.
>
> BobFrost
>
>

-- 
Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com


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

What is your secret? I am Win7 64-bit as well with 8 gig of Ram, plenty of
hard drive space and the ATI v4800 graphics card.

 

Bob Rapp

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Frost
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 1:32 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

 

  

From: Bob Rapp
> I have tried LR4 and it is slow, blows up on my Windows 7 quad core 
> system -
> totally unusable.

Quite the opposite on my Win7x64 system. I'm now using it instead of LR3.6. 
Far superior raw processing, and no problems at all with speed or crashes.

BobFrost







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

Bob, not sure what's going on.. I just installed it but so far no issues at all.. Dell precision dual quad core  / Win 7 / 64 bit machine.. I still need to crawl around thru it but it is certainly an improvement over 3.6 from what I see so far.....need a few more days...:-)... Is it blowing up on open or when you try to work...Possibly try un-installing and re-installing..
Actually it's in it's beta so possibly your in a position to contribute .. 

jimbo

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Rapp 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 1:19 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom


    
  I have tried LR4 and it is slow, blows up on my Windows 7 quad core system -
  totally unusable.

  Bob Rapp

  _____ 

  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Frost
  Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 9:26 AM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

  From: john
  > But it certainly needs soft proofing capability if its going to be seen as

  > a serious printing platform.

  LR4beta has it. Try it and see!

  Bob Frost

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



  

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

How much RAM is dedicated to LR4? You could have 8GB in your system and
still be starving LR4 for RAM.

 

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Bill Poff | Photographer  |  <http://billpoff.com/> http://billpoff.com |
540-293-3407

 

Description: asmpgeneralmember_red

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Rapp
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 3:38 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

 

  

What is your secret? I am Win7 64-bit as well with 8 gig of Ram, plenty of
hard drive space and the ATI v4800 graphics card.

Bob Rapp

_____ 

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Bob
Frost
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 1:32 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

From: Bob Rapp
> I have tried LR4 and it is slow, blows up on my Windows 7 quad core 
> system -
> totally unusable.

Quite the opposite on my Win7x64 system. I'm now using it instead of LR3.6. 
Far superior raw processing, and no problems at all with speed or crashes.

BobFrost

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





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

Jimbo,

            It blows up in the develop module - at the time there were 69
photos in the film strip. Windows would report that the program has quit
working.

Adobe's LR4 forum is worth reviewing.

 

http://forums.adobe.com/community/labs/lightroom4?view=discussions

 

Bob 

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mrjimbo
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 2:42 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

 

  

Bob, not sure what's going on.. I just installed it but so far no issues at
all.. Dell precision dual quad core / Win 7 / 64 bit machine.. I still need
to crawl around thru it but it is certainly an improvement over 3.6 from
what I see so far.....need a few more days...:-)... Is it blowing up on open
or when you try to work...Possibly try un-installing and re-installing..
Actually it's in it's beta so possibly your in a position to contribute .. 

jimbo
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bob Rapp 
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>  
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 1:19 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

I have tried LR4 and it is slow, blows up on my Windows 7 quad core system -
totally unusable.

Bob Rapp

_____ 

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Bob
Frost
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 9:26 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

From: john
> But it certainly needs soft proofing capability if its going to be seen as

> a serious printing platform.

LR4beta has it. Try it and see!

Bob Frost

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

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





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

Bob,
I'm stretching canvas tonight but ..I'll try to replicate your environment before I saw logs tonight..  I have just played around so far and not really made it do it's job. I'll import a  "sizeable" catalogue and see what happens.. In truth, and I mean this constructively, we pay the money and we have expectations.. In this case ..there's no money.. and I guess in some weird way were part of the development team.. maybe we should get a discount.LOL. Damn I can't believe I said that.. Anyway, as weird as it all is.. were all trying..

jimbo

  ----- Original Message -----  
  From: Bob Rapp 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 4:19 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom


    
  Jimbo,

  It blows up in the develop module - at the time there were 69
  photos in the film strip. Windows would report that the program has quit
  working.

  Adobe's LR4 forum is worth reviewing.

  http://forums.adobe.com/community/labs/lightroom4?view=discussions

  Bob 

  _____ 

  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mrjimbo
  Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 2:42 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

  Bob, not sure what's going on.. I just installed it but so far no issues at
  all.. Dell precision dual quad core / Win 7 / 64 bit machine.. I still need
  to crawl around thru it but it is certainly an improvement over 3.6 from
  what I see so far.....need a few more days...:-)... Is it blowing up on open
  or when you try to work...Possibly try un-installing and re-installing..
  Actually it's in it's beta so possibly your in a position to contribute .. 

  jimbo
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Rapp 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
  Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 1:19 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

  I have tried LR4 and it is slow, blows up on my Windows 7 quad core system -
  totally unusable.

  Bob Rapp

  _____ 

  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
  [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Bob
  Frost
  Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 9:26 AM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

  From: john
  > But it certainly needs soft proofing capability if its going to be seen as

  > a serious printing platform.

  LR4beta has it. Try it and see!

  Bob Frost

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

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

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



  

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

From: Bob Rapp
> What is your secret? I am Win7 64-bit as well with 8 gig of Ram, plenty of
> hard drive space and the ATI v4800 graphics card.

Not sure, but to use a Mac advertising phrase "It just works"! But there are 
other crash reports on the LR4 forum, so if you add yours that may help to 
sort them out. I seem to remember that some are related to filmstrip use, 
and I rarely use the filmstrip - I prefer to get that space back. There are 
also problems with files that have previous edits in 3.6 or earlier. Best to 
start afresh on an old file with 2012, or keep it in 2010 mode. I find that 
the new 2012 develop is so much better that I am redoing some old files from 
scratch - not mixing 2010 and 2012 develop on the same file.

Bob Frost

I agree with that!  I'm going to have to redo all of my files!!

Tina

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Bob Frost <bobfrost@...> wrote:

> **
>
> . I find that
> the new 2012 develop is so much better that I am redoing some old files
> from
> scratch - not mixing 2010 and 2012 develop on the same file.
>
> Bob Frost
>
>  --
>
Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com


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

> Far superior raw processing, ...

I'm a big fan of Adobe raw processing.  Is there any word on whether this new module will be available in PS?  What specific advances do you see over what was in CS5/LR3?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Look forward to it in CS6. 

 

Bob 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 9:42 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

 

  


> Far superior raw processing, ...

I'm a big fan of Adobe raw processing. Is there any word on whether this new
module will be available in PS? What specific advances do you see over what
was in CS5/LR3?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 





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

From: Paul
> I'm a big fan of Adobe raw processing.  Is there any word on whether this 
> new module will be available in PS?  What specific advances do you see 
> over what was in CS5/LR3?


From the article in Lightroom Journal - 
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/


"Develop Module (Updated 2012 Process Version)

Ever wonder why there was both an Exposure control and a Brightness control 
in Lightroom's Develop module? Why the Black setting defaulted to 5 and 
Brightness/Contrast to 50 and 25 respectively? When the Camera Raw plug-in 
was introduced in 2003 these concepts weren't overwhelming for those 
intrepid photographers willing to switch their camera's capture format to 
"RAW." (It's not an acronym so I have no idea why folks continue to 
capitalize that word.) When Lightroom and the Camera Raw plug-in started 
supporting JPEG and TIFF files, the visual appearance of the settings and 
preset behavior was never truly optimized for the additional formats. 
Lightroom 4 rationalizes the controls and addresses a fundamental 
photographic problem of balancing highlight and shadow detail. Please give 
the new tone controls a try on your most challenging images as well as the 
additional controls listed below:

Simplified controls in the Basic panel
Exposure, Contrast, Highlights, Shadows, Whites, Blacks
Powerful, content aware, shadow and highlight controls to extract all of the 
dynamic range in a single capture
Updated Clarity adjustment for superior results without the artifacts
Updated Chromatic Aberration correction solution

New local adjustment parameters
Noise Reduction
Temperature and Tint
Shadows
Highlights
Moire

Per channel curves adjustments

Soft proofing
Paper and ink simulation
Choose between perceptual and relative intent

Intuitive virtual copy creation for profile-specific adjustments

Profile and Monitor gamut warnings

Print module brightness/contrast option to address differences between 
monitor and paper characteristics "


Bob Frost

Most of these seem like editing functions rather than "better RAW conversion" for a ACR that has been calibrated to a specific camera. Has Adobe ever before released a version of its RAW conversion software in Lightroom without also updating ACR? 


On 15 Jan 2012, at 18:43, Bob Frost wrote:

> From: Paul
> > I'm a big fan of Adobe raw processing. Is there any word on whether this 
> > new module will be available in PS? What specific advances do you see 
> > over what was in CS5/LR3?
> 
> From the article in Lightroom Journal - 
> http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/
> 
> "Develop Module (Updated 2012 Process Version)
> 
> Ever wonder why there was both an Exposure control and a Brightness control 
> in Lightroom's Develop module? Why the Black setting defaulted to 5 and 
> Brightness/Contrast to 50 and 25 respectively? When the Camera Raw plug-in 
> was introduced in 2003 these concepts weren't overwhelming for those 
> intrepid photographers willing to switch their camera's capture format to 
> "RAW." (It's not an acronym so I have no idea why folks continue to 
> capitalize that word.) When Lightroom and the Camera Raw plug-in started 
> supporting JPEG and TIFF files, the visual appearance of the settings and 
> preset behavior was never truly optimized for the additional formats. 
> Lightroom 4 rationalizes the controls and addresses a fundamental 
> photographic problem of balancing highlight and shadow detail. Please give 
> the new tone controls a try on your most challenging images as well as the 
> additional controls listed below:
> 
> Simplified controls in the Basic panel
> Exposure, Contrast, Highlights, Shadows, Whites, Blacks
> Powerful, content aware, shadow and highlight controls to extract all of the 
> dynamic range in a single capture
> Updated Clarity adjustment for superior results without the artifacts
> Updated Chromatic Aberration correction solution
> 
> New local adjustment parameters
> Noise Reduction
> Temperature and Tint
> Shadows
> Highlights
> Moire
> 
> Per channel curves adjustments
> 
> Soft proofing
> Paper and ink simulation
> Choose between perceptual and relative intent
> 
> Intuitive virtual copy creation for profile-specific adjustments
> 
> Profile and Monitor gamut warnings
> 
> Print module brightness/contrast option to address differences between 
> monitor and paper characteristics "
> 
> Bob Frost 
> 
> 



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

Some of you maybe interested to learn that John Dean has created a user guide for Lightroom here:

http://theagnosticprint.org/lightroom/

I've been keen on LR since v. 2, it just keeps getting better.

I now have LR 4 Beta RC loaded on an Acer Aspire netbook, Win 7 64 bit pro, 4GB RAM, and 7200 RPM WD-HD, dual core 1.3 ghz AMD C60 cpu and the develop module runs like a top. Import and convert to DNG is very quick also.

How well a large catalog will perform is yet to be determined. Since this is a beta RC I don't suggest committing a large number of images since the final release may crater the beta catalog.

Anyway, kudos to Adobe for their public beta strategy. It benefits the user community enormously.

As for the LR/PS synchronicity of the current version (LR 3.6/PS-CS5) I couldn't be happier. I was not very happy with PS-CS4 but Adobe seems to have turned over a new leaf with new useful features and updates which they should for what they charge!

Anyway +1 so far for LR4 Beta.

I wish Capture 1 supported DNG and DNG camera profiles; I think it is a great product also but I only have patience and disk space for one image editing app. Competition is a good thing for everyone. 

Don Bryant

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john" <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> The whole point of using a Lightroom workflow it to be able to accomplish a wide range of activities within one program.

Hi -
I've been reading all these lightroom discussions, and interestingly, nobody has mentioned Expression Media, which was known as iView before 
Microsoft bought them out. And now I understand that one of the digital back companies has purchased the company. I've been using it for a
long time, and don't really take advantage of all it offers, but will say that it's a very good data base, with much more capacity than Light Room, 
and it handles a large number of profiles, including DNG.

It does not replace using Photo Shop and/or Camera Raw, but is terrific for organizing and searching, adding key words into the metadata, and 
a lot more. At least for me, since I've used PS from its' beginnings as well as Camera Raw when it was introduced, Light Room seemed okay,
but still doesn't solve my data base problems, so the combination of those with Expression Media still simplifies my process.

Is there something about it that I've missed?

Clay Price

+1 for this software.  Now called Media Pro and offered by Phase One. Been using it since it's iView version 1.0 days, and it's great that Phase One management has rescued it from almost certain death at the hands of Microsoft. What makes it a better DAM (digital asset manager than LR or Bridge is that it will catalog much more than just image formats, and is equally at ease at tracking both on-line or off-line files/folders (ie. on CDs, DVDs, unplugged external drives, etc).  I use it to keep track of Excel, Indesign files, plain text and RTF files, PDF, Word files, etc.  And if on a Mac, it will write/embed caption data to any file using the file resource fork, so you can extend the use of IPTC fields with file formats that don't officially support IPTC (something that both all OS platforms should have done long ago at the OS level). All in all, IMHO, Media Pro still the best-in-class software for DAM. That said, LR will be better for photographers needing to handle basic image edits to lots of files in batch (.e.g, a wedding or sports event), and many photographers like the way LR seamlessly handles sharpen-for-print routines (which i'm guessing/hoping could come to PS in the next release). 

What remains to be seen is if Phase One, in efforts to compete more with LR, merges or integrates Capture One with Media Pro at the expense of Media Pro"s usefulness in tracking non-image file formats. That would be sad, but it won't surprise me if/when it begins to happen.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Clayton Price <clay@...> wrote:

>
> Hi -
> I've been reading all these lightroom discussions, and interestingly, nobody has mentioned Expression Media, which was known as iView before 
> Microsoft bought them out. And now I understand that one of the digital back companies has purchased the company. I've been using it for a
> long time, and don't really take advantage of all it offers, but will say that it's a very good data base, with much more capacity than Light Room, 
> and it handles a large number of profiles, including DNG.
> 
> It does not replace using Photo Shop and/or Camera Raw, but is terrific for organizing and searching, adding key words into the metadata, and 
> a lot more. At least for me, since I've used PS from its' beginnings as well as Camera Raw when it was introduced, Light Room seemed okay,
> but still doesn't solve my data base problems, so the combination of those with Expression Media still simplifies my process.
> 
> Is there something about it that I've missed?
> 
> Clay Price
>

I have not read every single Lightroom discussion because I stopped using LR in the 2.0 edition. But I thought I should mention that I use Aperture for all of my DAM and image manipulation needs. Coupled with the complete collection of Nik plugins, I rarely use Photoshop anymore. I don't want to get into an endless Lightroom vs. Aperture argument, I just wanted to mention that my workflow has treated me well for my small catalog of approximately 25,000+ images, books, smart albums, et al.

Tim Burak
Pittsburgh, PA

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Clayton Price <clay@...> wrote:

>
> Hi -
> I've been reading all these lightroom discussions, and interestingly, nobody has mentioned Expression Media, which was known as iView before 
> Microsoft bought them out. And now I understand that one of the digital back companies has purchased the company. I've been using it for a
> long time, and don't really take advantage of all it offers, but will say that it's a very good data base, with much more capacity than Light Room, 
> and it handles a large number of profiles, including DNG.
> 
> It does not replace using Photo Shop and/or Camera Raw, but is terrific for organizing and searching, adding key words into the metadata, and 
> a lot more. At least for me, since I've used PS from its' beginnings as well as Camera Raw when it was introduced, Light Room seemed okay,
> but still doesn't solve my data base problems, so the combination of those with Expression Media still simplifies my process.
> 
> Is there something about it that I've missed?
> 
> Clay Price
>

From: Tim
> I have not read every single Lightroom discussion because I stopped using 
> LR in the 2.0 edition.

Lightroom 4 is Lightyears ahead of Lightroom 2!!! You should try it.

Bob Frost

Thanks to Clay and Mark for pointing this software out. Capture 1 is a great product and Media Pro looks like a winner.

It's great to have alternatives to Adobe products, though I'm not sure I could replace PS at this point.

Interesting!

Don Bryant

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mark@...> wrote:
>
> +1 for this software.  Now called Media Pro and offered by Phase One.

Yes. It could use 16 easily.

W

-------------------
Walker Blackwell
802.821.4451

On Jan 14, 2012, at 5:15 PM, "Bill Poff" <bill@...> wrote:

> How much RAM is dedicated to LR4? You could have 8GB in your system and
> still be starving LR4 for RAM.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill
> 
> Bill Poff | Photographer | <http://billpoff.com/> http://billpoff.com |
> 540-293-3407
> 
> Description: asmpgeneralmember_red
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m] On Behalf Of Bob Rapp
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 3:38 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom
> 
> What is your secret? I am Win7 64-bit as well with 8 gig of Ram, plenty of
> hard drive space and the ATI v4800 graphics card.
> 
> Bob Rapp
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Bob
> Frost
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 1:32 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom
> 
> From: Bob Rapp
> > I have tried LR4 and it is slow, blows up on my Windows 7 quad core 
> > system -
> > totally unusable.
> 
> Quite the opposite on my Win7x64 system. I'm now using it instead of LR3.6. 
> Far superior raw processing, and no problems at all with speed or crashes.
> 
> BobFrost
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 


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

I have 16gb installed.   I have a huge lib ray of 90k photos or so.  With Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom open it really uses above 8gb.  Certainly if I am working on a huge file it goes up a bit.     I couldn't see running anything less than 8gb these days.

Paul





On Jan 25, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Walker Blackwell wrote:

> Yes. It could use 16 easily.
> 
> W
> 
> -------------------
> Walker Blackwell
> 802.821.4451
> 
> On Jan 14, 2012, at 5:15 PM, "Bill Poff" <bill@...> wrote:
> 
> > How much RAM is dedicated to LR4? You could have 8GB in your system and
> > still be starving LR4 for RAM.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Bill
> > 
> > Bill Poff | Photographer | <http://billpoff.com/> http://billpoff.com |
> > 540-293-3407
> > 
> > Description: asmpgeneralmember_red
> > 
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Rapp
> > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 3:38 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom
> > 
> > What is your secret? I am Win7 64-bit as well with 8 gig of Ram, plenty of
> > hard drive space and the ATI v4800 graphics card.
> > 
> > Bob Rapp
> > 
> > _____ 
> > 
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Bob
> > Frost
> > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 1:32 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom
> > 
> > From: Bob Rapp
> > > I have tried LR4 and it is slow, blows up on my Windows 7 quad core 
> > > system -
> > > totally unusable.
> > 
> > Quite the opposite on my Win7x64 system. I'm now using it instead of LR3.6. 
> > Far superior raw processing, and no problems at all with speed or crashes.
> > 
> > BobFrost
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 



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

Hey Bill,
Light room is a hungry resource application that's for sure. But we should not confuse processing needs or horsepower with ram..  Lightroom's real work... preview rendering , loading images into the Develop module and making corrections like luminance  noise , color noise or lens correction etc are all done by the processor.. not ram.. It's just needs enough ram to function in partnership with the work requests... So I think , constructively a conversation about what processor makes a difference and how much ram along with that..  I think we get deceived a lot on what ram does.. what it is not is an answer for a lesser processor. The later versions of Photoshop and also Lightroom take full advantage of the latest in processing horsepower.....their resource hogs as far as we see.. Anyway, to have access to 8gb of ram we must have a 64 bit OS but  if were really looking to bump up we need to also look at the processor.. We run both macs and PC's here.. While in lots of ways were running behind many of you guys out there as were late typically to step up to the latest hardware.. We did just recently add a couple of Dell Precisions that are off lease. One was two dual core the other two quad cores.. both started 8gb of ram.. With Lightroom the quad is hands down the winner.. It was also bumped to 20gb of ram and I didn't really notice a performance increase with LR .. as compared to the very apparent  processor difference between the two machines. I guess if were using LR to process huge files then of course more is better.. no argument there.. The only thing I'm trying to say is that ram is not a substitute for a better processor. So we need to look at both sides of it. 

jimbo

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill Poff 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrintdone when it's @yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 4:15 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom


    
  How much RAM is dedicated to LR4? You could have 8GB in your system and
  still be starving LR4 for RAM.

  Regards,

  Bill

  Bill Poff | Photographer | <http://billpoff.com/> http://billpoff.com |
  540-293-3407

  Description: asmpgeneralmember_red

  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Rapp
  Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 3:38 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

  What is your secret? I am Win7 64-bit as well with 8 gig of Ram, plenty of
  hard drive space and the ATI v4800 graphics card.

  Bob Rapp

  _____ 

  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
  [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Bob
  Frost
  Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 1:32 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: I am thinking of getting rid of Lightroom

  From: Bob Rapp
  > I have tried LR4 and it is slow, blows up on my Windows 7 quad core 
  > system -
  > totally unusable.

  Quite the opposite on my Win7x64 system. I'm now using it instead of LR3.6. 
  Far superior raw processing, and no problems at all with speed or crashes.

  BobFrost

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

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



  

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

I agree with Jimbo on this to a point. If you have a 4 drive raid 0 for the work-a-day drive (as long as it's backed up), LR will speed along at 8gb. If you're dealing with drum-scans, 16gb is really nice to have because  LR starts holding 2 renders all in RAM instead of off-loading to the raid. That means you can pull two images up or flip between different dev modes and everything just flys along like butter. It's like having a 3000MB/s raid at your fingertips.

ps: When dealing with drumscans, LR does some pretty amazing things around not destroying one's histogram and also really good color noise reduction.

Best,
Walker

On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:56 PM, mrjimbo wrote:

> Hey Bill,
> Light room is a hungry resource application that's for sure. But we should not confuse processing needs or horsepower with ram.. Lightroom's real work... preview rendering , loading images into the Develop module and making corrections like luminance noise , color noise or lens correction etc are all done by the processor.. not ram.. It's just needs enough ram to function in partnership with the work requests... So I think , constructively a conversation about what processor makes a difference and how much ram along with that.. I think we get deceived a lot on what ram does.. what it is not is an answer for a lesser processor. The later versions of Photoshop and also Lightroom take full advantage of the latest in processing horsepower.....their resource hogs as far as we see.. Anyway, to have access to 8gb of ram we must have a 64 bit OS but if were really looking to bump up we need to also look at the processor.. We run both macs and PC's here.. While in lots of ways were running behind many of you guys out there as were late typically to step up to the latest hardware.. We did just recently add a couple of Dell Precisions that are off lease. One was two dual core the other two quad cores.. both started 8gb of ram.. With Lightroom the quad is hands down the winner.. It was also bumped to 20gb of ram and I didn't really notice a performance increase with LR .. as compared to the very apparent processor difference between the two machines. I guess if were using LR to process huge files then of course more is better.. no argument there.. The only thing I'm trying to say is that ram is not a substitute for a better processor. So we need to look at both sides of it. 
> 
> jimbo
> 



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

For what it is worth I have tried my lightroom Catalogs on Both 2drive raid 0 as well as a large SSD drive.     I do not see any difference between the two.    I do see a marked improved over a single SATAII drive.     I would expect the SATA III to be an improvement.

Paul




On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:03 PM, Walker Blackwell wrote:

> I agree with Jimbo on this to a point. If you have a 4 drive raid 0 for the work-a-day drive (as long as it's backed up), LR will speed along at 8gb. If you're dealing with drum-scans, 16gb is really nice to have because LR starts holding 2 renders all in RAM instead of off-loading to the raid. That means you can pull two images up or flip between different dev modes and everything just flys along like butter. It's like having a 3000MB/s raid at your fingertips.
> 
> ps: When dealing with drumscans, LR does some pretty amazing things around not destroying one's histogram and also really good color noise reduction.
> 
> Best,
> Walker
> 
> On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:56 PM, mrjimbo wrote:
> 
> > Hey Bill,
> > Light room is a hungry resource application that's for sure. But we should not confuse processing needs or horsepower with ram.. Lightroom's real work... preview rendering , loading images into the Develop module and making corrections like luminance noise , color noise or lens correction etc are all done by the processor.. not ram.. It's just needs enough ram to function in partnership with the work requests... So I think , constructively a conversation about what processor makes a difference and how much ram along with that.. I think we get deceived a lot on what ram does.. what it is not is an answer for a lesser processor. The later versions of Photoshop and also Lightroom take full advantage of the latest in processing horsepower.....their resource hogs as far as we see.. Anyway, to have access to 8gb of ram we must have a 64 bit OS but if were really looking to bump up we need to also look at the processor.. We run both macs and PC's here.. While in lots of ways were running behind many of you guys out there as were late typically to step up to the latest hardware.. We did just recently add a couple of Dell Precisions that are off lease. One was two dual core the other two quad cores.. both started 8gb of ram.. With Lightroom the quad is hands down the winner.. It was also bumped to 20gb of ram and I didn't really notice a performance increase with LR .. as compared to the very apparent processor difference between the two machines. I guess if were using LR to process huge files then of course more is better.. no argument there.. The only thing I'm trying to say is that ram is not a substitute for a better processor. So we need to look at both sides of it. 
> > 
> > jimbo
> > 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 



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

On 1/25/2012 9:13 PM, Paul Grant wrote:
> For what it is worth I have tried my lightroom Catalogs on Both 2drive raid 0 as well as a large SSD drive.     I do not see any difference between the two.    I do see a marked improved over a single SATAII drive.     I would expect the SATA III to be an improvement.
>

SATAIII is just a higher-speed connection to the drive, it doesn't make the drive
itself faster, which is always the limiting factor in a single-drive configuration
(even with SATAII)

Dana

As a mostly hobby photographer with a small amount of exhibition work, I find it most useful as a fast import device with the ability to do my first cut editing before using APS6 for heavy-duty editing, final adjustments and printing.

Like some of you, I obviously don't want to spend the time it takes to have to learn a new program every time something *NEW* shows up, thus the APS6 and LR2.7 - they have what I need, I know and can use effortlessly, with a decade of experience in the case of APS6 (I've tested versions of CS and found it to be unbearably slow, in comparison, and too different to re-learn; there are some tools I wish I had, but they aren't worth the cost).

LR is useless for serious image editing, but great for importing hundreds of images quickly and making initial adjustments of images with right-shifted exposure out of the camera, light initial sharpening and keep/delete decisions.

I tested LR3 on my Intel Core 7 PC and found it to be no improvement over 2.7, but 4 beta on a Win7-64 clean install on the same machine might be a worthwhile upgrade for me, being faster and having a simplified top-down editing workflow that actually makes sense to me.

My take-away experience is: use what works for you, not what you think is supposed to be the hot-shot setup.

Mj
In theory I totally agree with your logic...I'm not one that needs the latest and greatest either ... Constructively you may be unintentionally shooting yourself in the foot however .. 
PS 6 falls way short of several features that most shooters can really use.. i.e. .. in this case far superior B&W processing, much improved color management, added 16 bit control for most menu items..missing in 6 , HDR , Panorama's etc etc ..It's a long list.. I would honestly recommend CS3 as a place to sit tight ...not PS 6.. I still have and use 6 on a machine but it's for old plugins I use for proofing..
As far as Light room goes..2 had so many catalogue issues that most of us went nuts with it..I can't tell you how many catalogues I lost or got screwed up back then.. 3 especially 3.5 really made major strides stabilizing catalogue issues and in noise correction and image processing that really benefitted image processing when shooting at higher iso settings.. Kinda tuff to do without I think.

jimbo

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: njfranknj 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 9:44 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] I wouldn't dream of getting rid of Lightroom


    
  As a mostly hobby photographer with a small amount of exhibition work, I find it most useful as a fast import device with the ability to do my first cut editing before using APS6 for heavy-duty editing, final adjustments and printing.

  Like some of you, I obviously don't want to spend the time it takes to have to learn a new program every time something *NEW* shows up, thus the APS6 and LR2.7 - they have what I need, I know and can use effortlessly, with a decade of experience in the case of APS6 (I've tested versions of CS and found it to be unbearably slow, in comparison, and too different to re-learn; there are some tools I wish I had, but they aren't worth the cost).

  LR is useless for serious image editing, but great for importing hundreds of images quickly and making initial adjustments of images with right-shifted exposure out of the camera, light initial sharpening and keep/delete decisions.

  I tested LR3 on my Intel Core 7 PC and found it to be no improvement over 2.7, but 4 beta on a Win7-64 clean install on the same machine might be a worthwhile upgrade for me, being faster and having a simplified top-down editing workflow that actually makes sense to me.

  My take-away experience is: use what works for you, not what you think is supposed to be the hot-shot setup.



  

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

Hi Frank:

I agree that LR 2 is not up to task for serious image editing, but I believe Lightroom 3 can do the job well. It's not as full-featured as Photoshop, but it is very powerful. If you'd like to view a one hour video that I recorded recently on tips and techniques for using the Develop module in LR3, you can view it here:

http://vimeo.com/36076968
The password is:  d14a5

All the best,

Andrew

Andrew Darlow
Editor, The Imaging Buffet
http://www.imagingbuffet.com
Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http://www.inkjettips.com
and
Pet Photography 101: 
Tips for Taking Better Photos of Your Dog or Cat - http://www.PhotoPetTips.com
http://facebook.com/andrewdarlow

On Feb 10, 2012, at 11:44 AM, njfranknj wrote:

> As a mostly hobby photographer with a small amount of exhibition work, I find it most useful as a fast import device with the ability to do my first cut editing before using APS6 for heavy-duty editing, final adjustments and printing.
> 
> Like some of you, I obviously don't want to spend the time it takes to have to learn a new program every time something *NEW* shows up, thus the APS6 and LR2.7 - they have what I need, I know and can use effortlessly, with a decade of experience in the case of APS6 (I've tested versions of CS and found it to be unbearably slow, in comparison, and too different to re-learn; there are some tools I wish I had, but they aren't worth the cost).
> 
> LR is useless for serious image editing, but great for importing hundreds of images quickly and making initial adjustments of images with right-shifted exposure out of the camera, light initial sharpening and keep/delete decisions.
> 
> I tested LR3 on my Intel Core 7 PC and found it to be no improvement over 2.7, but 4 beta on a Win7-64 clean install on the same machine might be a worthwhile upgrade for me, being faster and having a simplified top-down editing workflow that actually makes sense to me.
> 
> My take-away experience is: use what works for you, not what you think is supposed to be the hot-shot setup.
> 
>

I see a lot of posts here relative to editing with Lightroom.   A few general comments that I think a lot of people miss.

1.    If your processing RAW files you should be aware that the RAW engine in Lightroom is equal to or better than that in Photoshop.    If your using anything less than CS 5 you are missing out on a lot of benefits in the RAW processing of Lightroom 3 or Photoshop CS5.   The Beta of Lightroom 4 has a new RAW processing engine which I would expect to show up in CS6.    If your using pre Lightroom 3 and Photoshop less that CS5 then you are missing out on some significant improvements in terms of general RAW processing and in particular Noise Reduction and Sharpening.   Going to Lightroom 4 brings a whole new level to RAW processing.     I believe in the digital age how your software process RAW files is at the heart of creating great images.

2.   Going to Lightroom 4 brings a whole new level of capability in terms of local adjustments in terms of selective noise reduction and many other local editing.

3.  Certainly photoshop is really the only way to for in-depth local editing but getting a batch of images ready for PS I believe Lightroom to be invaluable.

Paul




On Feb 10, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Andrew Darlow wrote:

> Hi Frank:
> 
> I agree that LR 2 is not up to task for serious image editing, but I believe Lightroom 3 can do the job well. It's not as full-featured as Photoshop, but it is very powerful. If you'd like to view a one hour video that I recorded recently on tips and techniques for using the Develop module in LR3, you can view it here:
> 
> http://vimeo.com/36076968
> The password is: d14a5
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Andrew
> 
> Andrew Darlow
> Editor, The Imaging Buffet
> http://www.imagingbuffet.com
> Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
> An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http://www.inkjettips.com
> and
> Pet Photography 101: 
> Tips for Taking Better Photos of Your Dog or Cat - http://www.PhotoPetTips.com
> http://facebook.com/andrewdarlow
> 
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 11:44 AM, njfranknj wrote:
> 
> > As a mostly hobby photographer with a small amount of exhibition work, I find it most useful as a fast import device with the ability to do my first cut editing before using APS6 for heavy-duty editing, final adjustments and printing.
> > 
> > Like some of you, I obviously don't want to spend the time it takes to have to learn a new program every time something *NEW* shows up, thus the APS6 and LR2.7 - they have what I need, I know and can use effortlessly, with a decade of experience in the case of APS6 (I've tested versions of CS and found it to be unbearably slow, in comparison, and too different to re-learn; there are some tools I wish I had, but they aren't worth the cost).
> > 
> > LR is useless for serious image editing, but great for importing hundreds of images quickly and making initial adjustments of images with right-shifted exposure out of the camera, light initial sharpening and keep/delete decisions.
> > 
> > I tested LR3 on my Intel Core 7 PC and found it to be no improvement over 2.7, but 4 beta on a Win7-64 clean install on the same machine might be a worthwhile upgrade for me, being faster and having a simplified top-down editing workflow that actually makes sense to me.
> > 
> > My take-away experience is: use what works for you, not what you think is supposed to be the hot-shot setup.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 



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

And to sum it up, just update to PS 6 when available unless you desperately desire batch processing...

On 10 Feb 2012, at 19:19, Paul Grant wrote:

> I see a lot of posts here relative to editing with Lightroom.   A few general comments that I think a lot of people miss.
> 
> 1.    If your processing RAW files you should be aware that the RAW engine in Lightroom is equal to or better than that in Photoshop.    If your using anything less than CS 5 you are missing out on a lot of benefits in the RAW processing of Lightroom 3 or Photoshop CS5.   The Beta of Lightroom 4 has a new RAW processing engine which I would expect to show up in CS6.    If your using pre Lightroom 3 and Photoshop less that CS5 then you are missing out on some significant improvements in terms of general RAW processing and in particular Noise Reduction and Sharpening.   Going to Lightroom 4 brings a whole new level to RAW processing.     I believe in the digital age how your software process RAW files is at the heart of creating great images.
> 
> 2.   Going to Lightroom 4 brings a whole new level of capability in terms of local adjustments in terms of selective noise reduction and many other local editing.
> 
> 3.  Certainly photoshop is really the only way to for in-depth local editing but getting a batch of images ready for PS I believe Lightroom to be invaluable.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
>

Their nothing wrong with bumping to CS 6 but the fact is CS is designed to be used differently then Lightroom .. Their two totally different ducks.. even though they have some overlaps.. at least to me anyway. I think it depends largely what your image requirements actually are.. I would be on my knees with the concept of processing a 1200 /1600 shoot using PS.. and frankly would be looking for another line of work if that were the case.. Media shooters have no use for Photoshop but sure do light room.. On the other hand this is basically a fine art group and I figure to walk that walk PS is what's needed. In truth most of us have both and that works just fine for me.. I use both and the work flow that I've developed is pretty efficient... That's what really counts.. and that is more likely based on individual needs. As far as the lust for the latest and greatest..Well I'm in the business to make a living.. plain and simple I am not a beta site for any software company anymore and I choose to let you guys deal with that stuff. I just want to keep running.. when it's time to jump it just shows up ...always has.. 

jimbo

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Kale 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 12:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] I wouldn't dream of getting rid of Lightroom


    
  And to sum it up, just update to PS 6 when available unless you desperately desire batch processing...

  On 10 Feb 2012, at 19:19, Paul Grant wrote:

  > I see a lot of posts here relative to editing with Lightroom. A few general comments that I think a lot of people miss.
  > 
  > 1. If your processing RAW files you should be aware that the RAW engine in Lightroom is equal to or better than that in Photoshop. If your using anything less than CS 5 you are missing out on a lot of benefits in the RAW processing of Lightroom 3 or Photoshop CS5. The Beta of Lightroom 4 has a new RAW processing engine which I would expect to show up in CS6. If your using pre Lightroom 3 and Photoshop less that CS5 then you are missing out on some significant improvements in terms of general RAW processing and in particular Noise Reduction and Sharpening. Going to Lightroom 4 brings a whole new level to RAW processing. I believe in the digital age how your software process RAW files is at the heart of creating great images.
  > 
  > 2. Going to Lightroom 4 brings a whole new level of capability in terms of local adjustments in terms of selective noise reduction and many other local editing.
  > 
  > 3. Certainly photoshop is really the only way to for in-depth local editing but getting a batch of images ready for PS I believe Lightroom to be invaluable.
  > 
  > Paul
  > 
  > 
  > 



  

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