Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom Library Strategy  (Read 12709 times)
jdoolitt
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2007, 11:25:03 AM »
ReplyReply

We could go back and forth all day on this.  They are small in size, but the files have to be parsed, updated, written to disk.  If you have a lot of them - you are doing a lot of disk io.  That is not very fast, if you are updating hundreds or thousands.  (note: apologies for my earlier reference to lua tables  -- I've been working on a preset editor/copier... and had this on my brain when i posted).
Quote
It's for the odd few images and not large groups where this is a real pain. To have to open up LR navigate to those images and then save changes, simply to open up in PS via Bridge is a complete PITA. If LR could do all the clever things Bridge can do then it would be less of an issue.
LR's remit was to make things easy for the photographer with lots of images, but it only introduces lots of new complications and too many annoying workarounds.
XMP files are anything but beefy, they are small text files. And to not use them counteracts what Adobe say on this page.
http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp/ especially this paragraph
"Built-in XMP support within Adobe applications fosters metadata capture and exchange for improved workflow and increased production efficiency"
Rendering what the text file says, yes that takes more grunt. But if LR has already rendered the image, adding a few bytes to a text file should not seriously slow down as mentioned above a dual Quad MacPro, 8gb of ram with 1.5 terabytes of Raid 0+1 hard drive space, with 750gb free, unless Adobe have got something very wrong with their software. Have they?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: November 03, 2007, 08:26:44 AM by jdoolitt » Logged
saty
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2007, 11:54:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Could someone for the love of god DEFINE what exactly is the difference between a LIBRARY, A FOLDER, A CATALOGUE, A COLLECTION, A QUICK COLLECTION AND WHETHER YOU CAN IMPORT OR EXPORT INTO ALL OF THE ABOVE???
many thanks,
Saty, a newbie
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2007, 12:00:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Could someone for the love of god DEFINE what exactly is the difference between a LIBRARY, A FOLDER, A CATALOGUE, A COLLECTION, A QUICK COLLECTION AND WHETHER YOU CAN IMPORT OR EXPORT INTO ALL OF THE ABOVE???
many thanks,
Saty, a newbie

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Catalog is the newer name for Library. Its the database you store your images into.

A collection is just that, a group of images within that catalog. Think of a playlist in iTunes. They are pointers to images. You can have one image that appears in a dozen collections.

A Quick Collection is just that, a temporary collection you use as you move around your catalog and want to collect images that you may print, or upload to a web gallery or whatever. Ultimately, if you don't want this to be temporary, you make a collection.

You can export anything you can select so yes, you could click on a Collection called "Dogs" and export all those images.

A folder is a folder. You got em on your computer right? You have images inside them. LR just lists those folders of imported images within your catalog so you can see the images where they reside on the HD.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
John Caldwell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 466



« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2007, 11:26:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
By doing that, you risk losing your edits if your catalogue goes squiffy.
Plus Bridge won't see the edits, so those of us who use both or want to have our edits with the images, like to have edits in XMP.
There are no solutions, only new problems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This, as I understand it, is one of the arguments for importing files as DNG files, rather than as RAW files. Is it not the case that metadata characteristics, including those embedded in xmp sidecars, resides within the DNG file? Then any DNG-capable program can see all metadata settings, irrespective of xmp files, and irrespective of a Catalog file which contains the metadata.

I've been wondering about aborting my RAW habit and start over with DNG for this reason.

John-
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3539



WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2007, 11:48:54 AM »
ReplyReply

By the way  LR 1.3 fixes some of the problems mentioned above. In particular the tediously slow XMP writing  bug. I am now at last [on 4th release of LR] actually starting to use LR for work. It was simply too painful and awkward to use before.  Still needs work though, but it's way, way better.
 
Funny how even though I have a machine that handles hefty 16bit Prophoto in PS images no problem, it doesn't feel fast enough for LR.
But possibly that's LR's problem.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad