Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Lightroom Catalogue  (Read 9360 times)
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2010, 11:16:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
Well, if you have a properly configured colour management system and understand how to manage the inherent difference between transmitted and reflected light you CAN trust the display. And if you want the best possible matching between display and paper, you absolutely want to soft-proof, because soft-proofing is what helps you make the display show what the print will come out looking like. It ha always been a fundamental weakness of LR not to include softproofing, but it would appear this is technically challenging and something the Adobe team is working to perfect before releasing.

Point taken, Mark but it's really not an issue which I'm bothered about. I rather like making my little prints as I go along. I've been working in LR all afternoon, and I am now a lot more comfortable about doing all my file management from within the application, especially now I've learned how to move a file from one folder to another. So the original reason for this post is now pretty much overtaken by superior knowledge (thanks, chaps).

The one thing which is still really getting right up my nose with LR is the thing I mentioned before - there is no way, in either LR2 or LR3, to export a TIFF as grayscale, only RGB. So I have to export my B/W pictures as RGB, shut down LR, start up PS Elements, open each file, convert it to grayscale, and save it back to disk again, otherwise each one would be three times larger than it needs to be. This is just really stupidly tedious. I would much rather have this fixed than more bells and whistles which I probably wouldn't use much, and it must be a simple fix, surely?

John
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 11:29:16 AM by John R Smith » Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2458



WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2010, 05:12:37 PM »
ReplyReply

The purist argument would be there's no need to export the TIF if you're not doing anything further to it.

John
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2010, 07:26:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John R Smith
Point taken, Mark but it's really not an issue which I'm bothered about. I rather like making my little prints as I go along. .......................

The one thing which is still really getting right up my nose with LR is the thing I mentioned before - there is no way, in either LR2 or LR3, to export a TIFF as grayscale, only RGB. So I have to export my B/W pictures as RGB, shut down LR, start up PS Elements, open each file, convert it to grayscale, and save it back to disk again, otherwise each one would be three times larger than it needs to be. This is just really stupidly tedious. I would much rather have this fixed than more bells and whistles which I probably wouldn't use much, and it must be a simple fix, surely?

John

Uh, well, each to his/her own in terms of workflow preferences. If making those small prints really floats your boat, by all means; my advice was based on the objective factors of efficiency and effectiveness.

As for exporting in greyscale, why would you want to do that? What purpose is served by greyscale mode other than compressing file size? Your highest quality and most flexible B&W work will be done in RGB mode using the LR "greyscale" settings in the HSL panel, then exporting the image as an RGB TIFF or PSD with the metadata for those B&W settings embedded. Then in PS you have still further control over the final B&W appearance of the image. Yes, the images are larger, but storage is cheap these days.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2010, 08:32:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I haven't read all the replies, but it sounds like what you really want is Adobe Bridge.

Bridge/ACR lets you do all the editing tasks that LR does, only it doesn't use the catalog/database paradigm. Of course you have to fire up Photoshop for printing, and if you use the slideshow stuff in LR I'm not sure if there's an equivalent for that in Bridge/PS (never felt the need to investigate).

I realize this probably isn't the answer you want if you don't have Photoshop, since it's considerably more expensive than LR. It's a shame LR doesn't have a "disk mode" that disables the cataloging stuff since it's more hassle than it's worth for some of us.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2010, 08:38:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
I haven't read all the replies, but it sounds like what you really want is Adobe Bridge.

Bridge/ACR lets you do all the editing tasks that LR does, only it doesn't use the catalog/database paradigm. Of course you have to fire up Photoshop for printing, and if you use the slideshow stuff in LR I'm not sure if there's an equivalent for that in Bridge/PS (never felt the need to investigate).

I realize this probably isn't the answer you want if you don't have Photoshop, since it's considerably more expensive than LR. It's a shame LR doesn't have a "disk mode" that disables the cataloging stuff since it's more hassle than it's worth for some of us.

That was my thinking too (see post 19), and I agree with you about the idea of a disk access mode for LR - it would be great for people who don't want the Lightroom Library approach, but do want the other features. I manage it by using the LR Library approach as is, then export the files to my own file structure, which I then manage in Bridge for all those images that will be further worked-up in PS. This combo works fine for me and is very easy to do.

LR and PS are not substitutes and they were never meant to be. There will always be a slew of things one can do with images in PS that simply fall beyond the scope and philosophy of LR. So it really isn't a question of expense, but of basic needs. Whoeever needs no more than LR, well they've saved themselves a few hundred bucks, but if you need more you pay more - "vat else is neu", eh?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2458



WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2010, 02:21:55 AM »
ReplyReply

The closest you are likely to get to disc access is the loupe view in LR3 beta's import dialog. Anything more would be an utter waste of development resources.

The catalogue is fundamental to the Lightroom concept and enables a range of other functions which would either be completely impossible, or impossibly slow in a Finder/Explorer substitute such as Bridge.

For instance, the catalogue records where files should be, while Bridge is like Finder/Explorer and merely tells you what happens to be there, right now - which is of little use reconstructing your archive after a drive crashes, or finding pictures which might include those held offline on external drives or CD/DVD/BR. Another example is in complex searches where Bridge would have to churn through however many thousand files you may have - at least those which are online or on the drive you're searching - while with the catalogue you're just running a much-quicker query on the database. Looking purely at image adjustments, the catalogue enables the History log, so you're able to see exactly what you've done to an image and reverse or fine tune your work many reboots into the future. Managing your pictures with a catalogue is a whole lot better than attempting to do so with your file system....

John
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 02:57:08 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2010, 04:01:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
As for exporting in greyscale, why would you want to do that? What purpose is served by greyscale mode other than compressing file size? Your highest quality and most flexible B&W work will be done in RGB mode using the LR "greyscale" settings in the HSL panel, then exporting the image as an RGB TIFF or PSD with the metadata for those B&W settings embedded. Then in PS you have still further control over the final B&W appearance of the image. Yes, the images are larger, but storage is cheap these days.

Well, I have always archived my B/W film scans as 16-bit grayscale TIFFs. And with the digital files from my CFV, I see no reason to do it differently - we are not talking about editing here, but archival storage. I archive the raw files and their XMPs as well, but those are for my own use. The TIFFs are for whomsoever might wish to access my archive in the future, when I have departed this mortal coil. They will not be editing my pictures, they will merely wish to print them. Given this requirement, and the fact that in a year or so I shall be retired and on a greatly reduced income, the cost of storage to me is a very significant factor, especially with 39MP files. It means that instead of buying one terabyte, I will have to purchase three, and pro rata.

John
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 07:25:39 AM by John R Smith » Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2010, 04:40:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
That was my thinking too (see post 19), and I agree with you about the idea of a disk access mode for LR - it would be great for people who don't want the Lightroom Library approach, but do want the other features. I manage it by using the LR Library approach as is, then export the files to my own file structure, which I then manage in Bridge for all those images that will be further worked-up in PS. This combo works fine for me and is very easy to do.

LR and PS are not substitutes and they were never meant to be. There will always be a slew of things one can do with images in PS that simply fall beyond the scope and philosophy of LR. So it really isn't a question of expense, but of basic needs. Whoeever needs no more than LR, well they've saved themselves a few hundred bucks, but if you need more you pay more - "vat else is neu", eh?

I believe that the key thing here is to let go of what one is used to, and that is in essence "physical storage" one is so accustomed to (we are used to store things physically: on a shelf in a cupboard in a room in a place). Storing files on a disk in a directory structure is a 1:1 match with the physical storage we are used to.

Catalogs, like LR, are a layer on top of physical storage (a "physical" file has to be in a "physical" place on your harddrive(which is again physical)), that allows you to add logical concepts to the management of your files. For example one can make combinations of images to meet a particular purpose, without the need to alter the physical storage of the image files. Quite identical to a real life library (a public library with many many books), where one would rather go to the cataloging system first to find books matching certain criteria and where they are physically stored (room, cupboard, shelf), than to physically go through the storage of books, and physically read the titles on the backs, etc. In very large libraries one does not even have access to the physical storage anymore, but books/documents are issued upon request via the cataloging system.

In my working life, primarely physical-asset data management related, i once had a meeting with a librarian of a very large technical documents archive of a large petrochemical company. He made a study on how often it is needed to create a physical copy of a file(=document) to create a complete physical dossier(for a particular purpose like applying for a license to operate, environmental, etc) for a given master document (master doument referencing other master documents). It turned out, that on average each master document needed to be copied about 26 times.
For a library (or archive) of any size (this was a case of more than 3 million documents), increasing its physical size 26 times is monstruous and economically not very viable. Not to mention issues regarding the propagation of updates.
With a cataloging system, effectively on a computer that could fit in a locker where one keeps brooms etc, the same goal could be achieved (and was achieved), at much-much lest cost and time, and much less hassle in managing updates and their propagation.

Now coming back to catalogs like LR, obviously will not contain that many physical images. But the possibility any image will eventually be part of many collections (dossiers if you like) is as likely as in the above example(or perhaps more likely). Also: searching a particular image by filtering to bring the total number down to something that is overseeable and results in the right image found in an aceptable time-frame, or do a roundtrip to PS to modify the image while retaining the link to the originating image, or etc(fill in yourself, depending your way of working).
The digital era also added a few more options to create multiple versions or variants of the same originating image, options that in the "physical era" were limited, and if possbile costly, time-consuming, and usually with image quality degradation as a consequence.

So i really believe a catalog is needed, it is a "layer" on top of the physical storage, therefore has to be seen as two inseparable aspects of what in the end provides control over your invaluable set of images, for whatever purpose they are used for.




Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2010, 07:15:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: johnbeardy
The closest you are likely to get to disc access is the loupe view in LR3 beta's import dialog. Anything more would be an utter waste of development resources.

The catalogue is fundamental to the Lightroom concept and enables a range of other functions which would either be completely impossible, or impossibly slow in a Finder/Explorer substitute such as Bridge.

For instance, the catalogue records where files should be, while Bridge is like Finder/Explorer and merely tells you what happens to be there, right now - which is of little use reconstructing your archive after a drive crashes, or finding pictures which might include those held offline on external drives or CD/DVD/BR. Another example is in complex searches where Bridge would have to churn through however many thousand files you may have - at least those which are online or on the drive you're searching - while with the catalogue you're just running a much-quicker query on the database. Looking purely at image adjustments, the catalogue enables the History log, so you're able to see exactly what you've done to an image and reverse or fine tune your work many reboots into the future. Managing your pictures with a catalogue is a whole lot better than attempting to do so with your file system....

John

I agree with this, except for one consideration. The catalogue does everything you say in the Library module. Once you move to the Develop Module, if you have changed the location of files on your hard drives, you do need to go through a search process in LR to up-date the catalogue to the new locations. So in order to get the added functionality of the Catalogue you describe here, if file locations have been changed, some housekeeping needs to be done. Not that big an issue, but a factor.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2010, 07:24:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John R Smith
Well, I have always archived my B/W film scans as 16-bit grayscale TIFFs. And with the digital files from my CFV, I see no reason to do it differently - we are not talking about editing here, but archival storage. I archive the raw files and their XMPs as well, but those are for my own use. The TIFFs are for whomsoever might in the future, when I have departed this mortal coil, wish to access my archive. They will not be editing my pictures, they will merely wish to print them. Given this requirement, and the fact that in a year or so I shall be retired and on a greatly reduced income, the cost of storage to me is a very significant factor, especially with 39MP files. It means that instead of buying one terabyte, I will have to purchase three, and pro rata.

John

OK, if the images are B&W from the get-go, sure, unless you are planning to tint them, saving them as greyscale images makes sense. I don't know what a "DFV" is, but if those files start life as colour images, it's as I said above.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2010, 07:38:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
OK, if the images are B&W from the get-go, sure, unless you are planning to tint them, saving them as greyscale images makes sense. I don't know what a "DFV" is, but if those files start life as colour images, it's as I said above.

There is never any real necessity to save B/W files as RGB once the editing process is complete. It is simply redundant information, since we end up with three channels which are all identical. If one wishes to print with split toning or some other tinting effect, then this can be done by simply converting the file back to RGB and applying the toning immediately before and as part of the printing process. As I do all my own printing to an Epson in the ABW mode, anything I send to the printer is treated as a grayscale anyhow, and I do not do split-toning or other colour treatments. And a "CFV" is a bit like a P-45, except it is made by Hasselblad and has some rather nice chrome and faux-leather bits on it.

John
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 07:46:24 AM by John R Smith » Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2458



WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2010, 07:42:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
I agree with this, except for one consideration. The catalogue does everything you say in the Library module. Once you move to the Develop Module, if you have changed the location of files on your hard drives, you do need to go through a search process in LR to up-date the catalogue to the new locations. So in order to get the added functionality of the Catalogue you describe here, if file locations have been changed, some housekeeping needs to be done. Not that big an issue, but a factor.
More of a training issue? Until they really know what they are doing, people just need to know they should stop moving pictures around in Explorer/Finder and making life hard for themselves. Some just need to understand they're wasting effort trying to categorise their work using folders, and see how much more flexible collections and keywords are.

John
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2010, 07:45:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John R Smith
There is never any real necessity to save B/W files as RGB once the editing process is complete. It is simply redundant information, since we end up with three channels, which are all identical. If one wishes to print with split toning or some other tinting effect, then this can be done by simply converting the file to RGB and applying the toning immediately before and as part of the printing process. As I do all my own printing to an Epson in the ABW mode, anything I send to the printer is treated as a grayscale anyhow, and I do not do split-toning or other colour treatments. And a "CFV" is a bit like a P-45, except it is made by Hasselblad and has some rather nice chrome and faux-leather bits on it.

John

Yes in these working conditions that makes sense John.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2010, 07:50:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: johnbeardy
More of a training issue? Until they really know what they are doing, people just need to know they should stop moving pictures around in Explorer/Finder and making life hard for themselves. Some just need to understand they're wasting effort trying to categorise their work using folders, and see how much more flexible collections and keywords are.

John

Yes and no. Circumstances arise when you DO need to move stuff around. In the final analysis the images themselves reside on hard drives in folders and those hard-drives and folders have addresses; so if you change the addresses for whatever reason (and it happens to me every so often), you also need to do things in LR so the program can find the actual images when they're needed in the Develop Module, etc. This remains true regardless of all the acknowledged benefits of Collections and Keywording for the organization and search functions which LR facilitates.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #34 on: April 07, 2010, 08:16:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
Yes and no. Circumstances arise when you DO need to move stuff around. In the final analysis the images themselves reside on hard drives in folders and those hard-drives and folders have addresses; so if you change the addresses for whatever reason (and it happens to me every so often), you also need to do things in LR so the program can find the actual images when they're needed in the Develop Module, etc. This remains true regardless of all the acknowledged benefits of Collections and Keywording for the organization and search functions which LR facilitates.

Mark has put his finger precisely upon the inherent weakness of most DAM systems, and certainly Lightroom. In essence, for them to function effectively they require you to pre-determine the folder structure and naming conventions for your entire image storage area in advance, and then adhere to it for the lifetime of the catalogue. Otherwise you will have to synchronise things every time you move, re-name, or delete a file or folder outside of LR. I do a lot of large DB stuff here at work, and for our normal databases this is no problem - the storage areas are pre-named and predetermined, but only the Sys Admins ever see them, not the end user.

Maybe I'm just wierd or something, but I find myself continually changing my mind about file and folder names. I'm always tweaking them, as I find better ways of doing things. Here at work we used Extensis Portfolio as a DAM for our aerial photos, and that was much better in that it keeps an eye on your folders and files, and updates its database accordingly.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2010, 08:52:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John R Smith
Mark has put his finger precisely upon the inherent weakness of most DAM systems, and certainly Lightroom. In essence, for them to function effectively they require you to pre-determine the folder structure and naming conventions for your entire image storage area in advance, and then adhere to it for the lifetime of the catalogue. Otherwise you will have to synchronise things every time you move, re-name, or delete a file or folder outside of LR. I do a lot of large DB stuff here at work, and for our normal databases this is no problem - the storage areas are pre-named and predetermined, but only the Sys Admins ever see them, not the end user.

Maybe I'm just wierd or something, but I find myself continually changing my mind about file and folder names. I'm always tweaking them, as I find better ways of doing things. Here at work we used Extensis Portfolio as a DAM for our aerial photos, and that was much better in that it keeps an eye on your folders and files, and updates its database accordingly.

John

No, you're not wierd - the need to move stuff around happens for various reasons. I'm not sure I would finger this issue as a "weakness" of the LR approach to cataloguing images. The fact that the image previews and search functions can be disembodied from the actual image files themselves allows for very efficient library management and image retrieval. But there is simply that added little thing to remember: after creating the catalogue, if you move stuff, you need to make sure the catalogue knows the new locations. The easiest way to ensure this happens is to do the moving through Lightroom itself. As long as the images have been imported into the LR library, you can then move them to alternative places through LR itself and LR will keep track of the new locations. The search and re-associate manually functions are needed if you make the changes at the system level, not through LR.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2010, 11:39:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
Yes and no. Circumstances arise when you DO need to move stuff around. In the final analysis the images themselves reside on hard drives in folders and those hard-drives and folders have addresses; so if you change the addresses for whatever reason (and it happens to me every so often), you also need to do things in LR so the program can find the actual images when they're needed in the Develop Module, etc. This remains true regardless of all the acknowledged benefits of Collections and Keywording for the organization and search functions which LR facilitates.

Mark,

True that there are occasions where you move image files around using explorer/finder instead of LR.
Setting up folders for an assignment i do that via LR, a folder is then accessible via LR even if there is no image in there that is imported. Good for an admin folder or the folder (i call this the TRASHED folder) where i eventually put my rejected images, by moving them via LR. ( i normally do not delete rejected images).
On the other hand if you need to move an entire volume of image files, f.i. to a new harddrive for given reasons, the explorer (or finder) is the better tool perhaps. For that reason my entire collection of image files is split over volumes (Foto-Volume-1, 2, etc). So i can move such a volume to another disk via explorer (i use Windows XP), and in LR i only have to select the new volume path, and all subfolders are then "found" again by LR. (This can also be used for bringing image files offline, and when the need arises bring them online again).


Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2010, 11:42:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I do likewise when needed.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573


WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2010, 12:25:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
No, you're not wierd - the need to move stuff around happens for various reasons. I'm not sure I would finger this issue as a "weakness" of the LR approach to cataloguing images. The fact that the image previews and search functions can be disembodied from the actual image files themselves allows for very efficient library management and image retrieval. But there is simply that added little thing to remember: after creating the catalogue, if you move stuff, you need to make sure the catalogue knows the new locations. The easiest way to ensure this happens is to do the moving through Lightroom itself. As long as the images have been imported into the LR library, you can then move them to alternative places through LR itself and LR will keep track of the new locations. The search and re-associate manually functions are needed if you make the changes at the system level, not through LR.
I don't find this to be  a problem at all.  You can very easily move things around within the LR library and rename folders as well.  I back up to two external media sources once a week and recently migrated to a new computer.  I transferred the entire LR folder to the new computer, opened up LR and things were a go from the start (the only issue for me was making sure that the myriad of presets were saved and migrated as well).
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2010, 12:48:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Alan, did you migrate between operating systems (i.e. PC to Mac) or within the same family when you up-graded to a new computer?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad