On my Mac platform, the transition of nearly 15,000 images in 350 folders was successfully completed in just under 60 minutes, without problem.
Just to clarify. The actual translation of my library went fine. All the files were transfered and preserved their Lightroom data. My problem was that the files in my shoots were distributed amongst folders in a deep hierarchy.
For example, if I had a file on my network drive in directory \photos\photography\2007_Seattle\RAW, Lightroom named that file's folder: z:\(ReadyNAS\\192.168.16.5)\photos\photography\2007_Seattle\RAW. I would have preferred if it had created the folder hierarchy as follows:
> photos
> photography
> 2007_Seattle
> RAW
Instead, I had to reimport the files in that directory to get Lightroom to set up this hierarchy.
Me too! I'm now totally Portfolio and Aperture free, and haven't had any need to exit Lightroom for any part of my image management and post-production workflow.
I don't think I'll ever totally give up on the Bridge/ACR/PS combo. But, Lightroom is now my main workflow tool.
I'm still waiting for that email - when did you get yours?
Just a few minutes before I made my post. I think they may be putting a pause in sending out e-mails since the download site is buggy (many people report not getting a serial number, I didn't get one until I tried for the 7th time).
ok kids so i downloaded lthe lightroom trial, i took some pictures, edited them and then couldnt figure out how to save them. i know im stupid and missing something obvious and so simple a deaf mute blind quadriplegic chimp with a head injury and memory loss could figure it out, so help me out here.
I can only hope to progress to the point of one day being a second rate photographer, wish me luck.
If you haven't purchased a new camera, can't you just continue to use RSP?
For the sake of getting RAW processor envy, what is it about RSP you like so much better than Lightroom (in terms of DAM and RAW processing)?
Yes, and I do continue to use RSP, but one day I will replace my 20D and then I'll be stuck.
Some may disagree with me on this, but I prefer RSP's color rendition and detail extraction. On top of that, and I don't think anybody will disagree with this one, RSP is, to put it simply, FAST. When you are going through 1000+ photos per week at around 500/shoot, speed is key and RSP has that and Lightroom doesn't. Also, RSP's sliders move in logical increments (for instance white balances moves by +/-50, not some random number when you use the slider).
Also, RSP had a quite accurate auto-CA fixer.
Lightroom isn't bad for that one picture at a time get it perfect thing, but RSP's main strength was that it was fast and efficient, and there are plenty of good ways to convert your pictures slowly and nicely, but there are no converters to do it fast it seems.
The magnifying glass is better than the click and hold thing too IMHO.
Lightroom isn't bad for that one picture at a time get it perfect thing, but RSP's main strength was that it was fast and efficient, and there are plenty of good ways to convert your pictures slowly and nicely, but there are no converters to do it fast it seems.
Interesting, the number 1 reason I prefer LR to Bridge/ACR/PS is the HUGE speed increase in processing 100s of images, even in beta. V.1.0 is even faster. I guess RSP must be really fast.
I totally agree with you on the odd slider increments. What's up with that?
Interesting, the number 1 reason I prefer LR to Bridge/ACR/PS is the HUGE speed increase in processing 100s of images, even in beta. V.1.0 is even faster. I guess RSP must be really fast.
I totally agree with you on the odd slider increments. What's up with that?
The size of the slider increments varies with the size of that slider area...though for some reason every time you open lightroom that slider area reverts to being the default size. Since 99% of the images I work with are portrait orientation, this is a PITA for me since I always have to stretch it out again.
I've been using Lightroom beta on my Mac since beta 1. I really like it. I tried Aperture, and while it is a very powerful program, it just never worked the way my brain works. Now, just receintly I found SmugMug, and intend to transition all my online photo needs from .Mac to SmugMug. The one thing I am really looking for is a export plug-in for Lightroom. I know it can be done, as there are Flickr plug-ins for Lightroom. We just need one for SmugMug. With v1.0 of Lightroom around the corner, hopefully someone will write a good export plug-in as well. There's already several export plug-ins for Aperture, why not Lightroom? I'll even donate $20 to the cause if it works well.
Export all photos your want to upload to a folder on your desktop and right-click and use "send to smugmug." Go back to LR and keep playing while they upload in the background.
...You can of course export JPGs, etc, but now that I use LR, the only JPGs I ever make are the ones I upload to SmugMug, and I then wipe them away.
Greg, what file format do you use for archiving? The original RAW with the Lightroom sidecar info?
I ask this question because I am reading Peter Krogh's book on Digital Asset Management, and he recommends converting all RAW files to DNG. I am PC based and currently do a very poor job of cataloguing through ACDSee Pro--although I do like the ability to do simple edits on the fly sort-of-so I plan to keep it in my workflow for now. However ACDSee does not read edits in DNG files, so a JPEG would be needed to see an edited version of the image. My hope is to migrate completely to Lightroom, but it still begs the question of which file format to archive.
Your thoughts, and anyone else's for that matter, would be appreciated.
Greg, what file format do you use for archiving? The original RAW with the Lightroom sidecar info?
I ask this question because I am reading Peter Krogh's book on Digital Asset Management, and he recommends converting all RAW files to DNG. I am PC based and currently do a very poor job of cataloguing through ACDSee Pro--although I do like the ability to do simple edits on the fly sort-of-so I plan to keep it in my workflow for now. However ACDSee does not read edits in DNG files, so a JPEG would be needed to see an edited version of the image. My hope is to migrate completely to Lightroom, but it still begs the question of which file format to archive.
Your thoughts, and anyone else's for that matter, would be appreciated.
Judy,
I should warn you first that my opinion might be in the minority. Ask a few other photographers you trust before making up your own mind. With that said...
To answer your first question, I keep all my RAWs in their native format. In my case, this means CR2 files from my 20D and a few CRW files from a borrowed 10D in the days of yore. I have nothing against the DNG format, but I think DNG is much more about helping Adobe's bottom line than it is about helping photographers with their workflow.
As it is, Lightroom and a whole host of other RAW developers excellently process RAW files from a variety of camera manufacturers. Are the algorithms for processing these RAW files going to magically disappear? Likely not. So what does my time invested in converting these CR2s to DNGs buy me? Nothing - maybe a few megabytes of cheap disk space in exchange. My time is far more valuable to me. DNG does buy Adobe a means to get camera makers to build in DNG support, which saves Adobe the money invested in supporting future RAW formats.
Canon's not going to lock down their RAW formats in the future - there are too many Adobe users who would stop buying Canon products. And I would hope that Adobe wouldn't choose to remove existing RAW algorithms from future products - I think it would turn many people away from Adobe and toward another solution.
So, in summary, I don't plan to ever convert anything to DNG unless I'm forced to. And if that ever happens, there'll be a lot of forewarning and people whining about it in forums (me included ).
I just started to convert my files to DNG. I keep a copy of the original RAW files (Olympus .ORFs in my case) in one directory, and have the DNG as my work file in another. The advantage of a DNG (to me) is that I don't have to keep track of the sidecar: information like development settings, keywords, copyright information etc. is all inside that one file.
The advantage of a DNG (to me) is that I don't have to keep track of the sidecar: information like development settings, keywords, copyright information etc. is all inside that one file.
I didn't know that. That would be useful for workflow management. Thanks for the info!
Comments
Charlie
For example, if I had a file on my network drive in directory \photos\photography\2007_Seattle\RAW, Lightroom named that file's folder: z:\(ReadyNAS\\192.168.16.5)\photos\photography\2007_Seattle\RAW. I would have preferred if it had created the folder hierarchy as follows:
> photos
> photography
> 2007_Seattle
> RAW
Instead, I had to reimport the files in that directory to get Lightroom to set up this hierarchy.
I don't think I'll ever totally give up on the Bridge/ACR/PS combo. But, Lightroom is now my main workflow tool.
www.ackersphotography.com
I'm still waiting for that email - when did you get yours?
Just a few minutes before I made my post. I think they may be putting a pause in sending out e-mails since the download site is buggy (many people report not getting a serial number, I didn't get one until I tried for the 7th time).
I wish Adobe had just bought out pixmantec and not touched it other than updates for new cameras.
For the sake of getting RAW processor envy, what is it about RSP you like so much better than Lightroom (in terms of DAM and RAW processing)?
www.ackersphotography.com
hi my name is charlie, and im an idiot.
Yes, and I do continue to use RSP, but one day I will replace my 20D and then I'll be stuck.
Some may disagree with me on this, but I prefer RSP's color rendition and detail extraction. On top of that, and I don't think anybody will disagree with this one, RSP is, to put it simply, FAST. When you are going through 1000+ photos per week at around 500/shoot, speed is key and RSP has that and Lightroom doesn't. Also, RSP's sliders move in logical increments (for instance white balances moves by +/-50, not some random number when you use the slider).
Also, RSP had a quite accurate auto-CA fixer.
Lightroom isn't bad for that one picture at a time get it perfect thing, but RSP's main strength was that it was fast and efficient, and there are plenty of good ways to convert your pictures slowly and nicely, but there are no converters to do it fast it seems.
The magnifying glass is better than the click and hold thing too IMHO.
I totally agree with you on the odd slider increments. What's up with that?
www.ackersphotography.com
The size of the slider increments varies with the size of that slider area...though for some reason every time you open lightroom that slider area reverts to being the default size. Since 99% of the images I work with are portrait orientation, this is a PITA for me since I always have to stretch it out again.
On my laptop, RSP is pretty much instant.
Hi my name is also Charlie, and I'm an L'coholic.
Export all photos your want to upload to a folder on your desktop and right-click and use "send to smugmug." Go back to LR and keep playing while they upload in the background.
:thumb
Greg, what file format do you use for archiving? The original RAW with the Lightroom sidecar info?
I ask this question because I am reading Peter Krogh's book on Digital Asset Management, and he recommends converting all RAW files to DNG. I am PC based and currently do a very poor job of cataloguing through ACDSee Pro--although I do like the ability to do simple edits on the fly sort-of-so I plan to keep it in my workflow for now. However ACDSee does not read edits in DNG files, so a JPEG would be needed to see an edited version of the image. My hope is to migrate completely to Lightroom, but it still begs the question of which file format to archive.
Your thoughts, and anyone else's for that matter, would be appreciated.
Vivid Vision: A bright and distinct object of extraordinary beauty, presented in a clear and striking manner.
http://www.vividvisionsphoto.com http://vividvisions.smugmug.com
Judy,
I should warn you first that my opinion might be in the minority. Ask a few other photographers you trust before making up your own mind. With that said...
To answer your first question, I keep all my RAWs in their native format. In my case, this means CR2 files from my 20D and a few CRW files from a borrowed 10D in the days of yore. I have nothing against the DNG format, but I think DNG is much more about helping Adobe's bottom line than it is about helping photographers with their workflow.
As it is, Lightroom and a whole host of other RAW developers excellently process RAW files from a variety of camera manufacturers. Are the algorithms for processing these RAW files going to magically disappear? Likely not. So what does my time invested in converting these CR2s to DNGs buy me? Nothing - maybe a few megabytes of cheap disk space in exchange. My time is far more valuable to me. DNG does buy Adobe a means to get camera makers to build in DNG support, which saves Adobe the money invested in supporting future RAW formats.
Canon's not going to lock down their RAW formats in the future - there are too many Adobe users who would stop buying Canon products. And I would hope that Adobe wouldn't choose to remove existing RAW algorithms from future products - I think it would turn many people away from Adobe and toward another solution.
So, in summary, I don't plan to ever convert anything to DNG unless I'm forced to. And if that ever happens, there'll be a lot of forewarning and people whining about it in forums (me included
Hope that answers your question!
-Greg
Swim for Them | WellmanHouse.net | AlbumFetcher | SmugShowBuilder
I didn't know that. That would be useful for workflow management. Thanks for the info!
Swim for Them | WellmanHouse.net | AlbumFetcher | SmugShowBuilder