Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 19 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What are you wishing for in LR5 ?  (Read 59590 times)
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2650



WWW
« Reply #280 on: March 30, 2013, 05:42:31 AM »
ReplyReply

1.  Ability to export keywords in something other than alphabetical order.  There are many reasons this would be beneficial, but the specific one that comes to mind is Alamy.
It would be interesting if you could come up with those other reasons, if there are any. To my knowledge, Alamy is the only one that people ever mention.

4.  User created fields.  Again this would be useful for many reasons, but having another "memo" type field that performs like the caption would be wonderful.  Also, being able to create film photography related fields. 
Couldn't agree more. Look up my Big Note plug-in which you can expand if you're (slightly) technically-minded. But this shouldn't be left to plug-ins - no other serious photo cataloguing program lacks custom fields.

John
Logged

David Hufford
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



« Reply #281 on: March 30, 2013, 07:12:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I'll try one. It's a minor irritant, but I'd like a way to select a photo for the top of a stack and keep it there until I decide another should replace it. Right now, if I make a virtual copy or send a tiff to another application, it moves that to the top of the stack. Drives me nuts which I suppose explains a lot.
Logged

*Never fall in love with anything that can't love you back*
mburke
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« Reply #282 on: March 30, 2013, 07:47:19 AM »
ReplyReply

How about being able to delete just one history step. I haven't been able to figure out how to do that.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2650



WWW
« Reply #283 on: March 30, 2013, 07:51:07 AM »
ReplyReply

There's no great point doing so, so I wouldn't spend too much time trying to figure it out.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #284 on: March 30, 2013, 07:59:55 AM »
ReplyReply

There's no great point doing so,
YMMV, this has been asked for many times before and could be useful.

For anyone particularly keen to drop a single process setting, it's partially possible by saving the develop setting of the image without the setting you wish to omit, then clearing all the history back to import, then pasting the previous develop setting back.
Logged
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #285 on: March 30, 2013, 09:53:35 AM »
ReplyReply

It would be interesting if you could come up with those other reasons, if there are any. To my knowledge, Alamy is the only one that people ever mention.

Another one is Smug Mug... for whatever reason they don't seem to fully index beyond a certain number of keywords (I've just discovered this in trying to base a smart collection on keywords).  Some of my images would not be recognized for the keyword.  The only difference I can see thusfar is that those images have more keywords.  Granted I'm still looking into this one.

Another is just the way Lightroom sorts in the keyword list (which is slight different but still alphabetical).  There are some parts of the hierarchy I would like to keyword first, second, etc.  Sure I can use underscore, asterick, etc. to make it work but why not just let it be user ordered.

In my mind, I would think Lightroom could write the keywords just as they are laid out in the hierarchy and in that order.  Maybe that's more difficult than it seems.


Quote
Couldn't agree more. Look up my Big Note plug-in which you can expand if you're (slightly) technically-minded. But this shouldn't be left to plug-ins - no other serious photo cataloguing program lacks custom fields.



John

I do use your Big Note plug-in.  The field size is limited however.  I'm familiar with some programming, I've used VB and SQL a lot (almost every day).  I've looked at the code and I can't determine how to set the field type and/or size property.  I've looked into it a little but the answer didn't come up quickly.  If I could figure that out it would be perfect for my needs.  As you said however, why have to use a plug-in for that purpose?  There are many other fields that would be great to use as well (film type, lens, etc.) for film photography information.  Currently I use analog exif or exif tool for that, but it's a separate step in the workflow.  If you would be willing to give me a clue how to change the field size (amount that can be stored) I'd be eternally grateful Smiley
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2650



WWW
« Reply #286 on: March 30, 2013, 10:06:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I do use your Big Note plug-in.  The field size is limited however.  I'm familiar with some programming, I've used VB and SQL a lot (almost every day).... If you would be willing to give me a clue how to change the field size (amount that can be stored) I'd be eternally grateful Smiley

I don't think there's a limit on the amount that can be stored in the field, John, but the file MetadataPanel.lua has a line which sets the size of the field:

{ formatter = 'uk.co.beardsworth.note.jbNote', height_in_lines=15 , topLabel=true },   

MetadataDefinition.lua contains the field definitions, and you can add extra fields by duplicating the one that's already defined and changing its id. You'd also have to add the field's id to the MetadataPanel. But beware, my background was also in VB and SQL and I started figuring out Lua by messing around with custom fields. It's a slippery slope with a sticky end.

John
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2650



WWW
« Reply #287 on: March 30, 2013, 10:10:52 AM »
ReplyReply

YMMV, this has been asked for many times before and could be useful.
No, it's mostly because those people imagine it's more than a mere log of what you've done.
Logged

John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #288 on: March 30, 2013, 10:36:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think there's a limit on the amount that can be stored in the field, John, but the file MetadataPanel.lua has a line which sets the size of the field:

{ formatter = 'uk.co.beardsworth.note.jbNote', height_in_lines=15 , topLabel=true },   

MetadataDefinition.lua contains the field definitions, and you can add extra fields by duplicating the one that's already defined and changing its id. You'd also have to add the field's id to the MetadataPanel. But beware, my background was also in VB and SQL and I started figuring out Lua by messing around with custom fields. It's a slippery slope with a sticky end.

John

Thanks John, I've been looking some more since I posed my response earlier.  I can change the height in lines, in fact I did, hoping that might possibly be the answer.  As I suspected, that part of the definition just formats the size of the box in the lightroom panel. 

The storage limit is somewhere around 500 characters, it SEEMS to be 502 with spaces or 420ish without.  I tested by filling up the text box with characters till it wouldn't take anymore.  Interestingly, if you go over the limit it removes the entire paragraph as opposed to just that character that is over.  I got around that by hitting ctrl ENTER at the end of each line.  I'm still looking, but thusfar I can see nothing that determines the maximum length of the 'string' data type.  If I had run across a data type of 'memo' I would have just changed the type, but far as I can tell lua doesn't support that like SQL.  The only text based field type I can see is 'string'. 

I do appreciate your response, thank you Smiley
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2650



WWW
« Reply #289 on: March 30, 2013, 11:49:23 AM »
ReplyReply

You're welcome. I can't see any documentation of a limit. One guess is that specifying dataType is optional, so I wonder what happens if it's not set. Maybe try that?
Logged

John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #290 on: March 30, 2013, 01:34:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I read somewhere that the datatype will default to string.  Tried it anyway just to see, got the same behavior as I had before so it didn't make any difference.  I also learned when you change the data type you have to change the version number Smiley
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2650



WWW
« Reply #291 on: March 30, 2013, 02:39:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I also learned when you change the data type you have to change the version number Smiley
And isn't the error message so helpful? Not. I warn you, fiddling with this stuff endangers your sanity.
Logged

cmi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


« Reply #292 on: March 30, 2013, 08:11:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok this is not so strictly for Lightroom but for Camera Raw (since I work more with Bridge), a version-mixer for the snapshot-panel would be cool, where you could mix several snapshots weighted on percentage like layers. I sometimes do that in Photoshop, blend 2 or 3 different versions to create a final master.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5416


WWW
« Reply #293 on: March 30, 2013, 08:19:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry to be a wet blanket (again) but the structure of the way settings are set and applied would not work for the concept of "blending" between different settings. Aside from the structure of the settings, the fact that snapshots can store multiple Process Versions would make blending between them completely impossible because the various PVs use totally different algorithms that could never be blended...sorry, not gonna happen.
Logged
cmi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


« Reply #294 on: March 31, 2013, 04:48:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Too bad, but good to hear that so frankly from someone competent.

Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520


« Reply #295 on: March 31, 2013, 05:25:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I suspect that about 95% wished for here isn't going to happen which is good because it will prevent bloat and possible slowdowns to the software. At the risk of being called an Adobe fan boy I trust they will make good decisions - mostly - and I am looking forward to the new version.  Smiley
Logged

John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #296 on: March 31, 2013, 01:41:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I suspect that about 95% wished for here isn't going to happen which is good because it will prevent bloat and possible slowdowns to the software. At the risk of being called an Adobe fan boy I trust they will make good decisions - mostly - and I am looking forward to the new version.  Smiley

I tend to agree with you regarding the potential bloating but, at its core Lightroom is/was supposed to be an image management/raw processing tool (as I understand it).  I'd personally rather see those capabilities improve or become more efficient over things like a book module getting more complex.  It's not that I don't appreciate that it has it, but I think when you step that far away from the core purpose I think it's easier to use a tool designed specifically for that.  If bloat becomes a problem I'd rather see something like that go vs. not improving image management functionality or something to do with processing images.  Of course I'm just one opinion/mouth out here. Smiley
Logged

Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044


« Reply #297 on: March 31, 2013, 05:42:04 PM »
ReplyReply

One of the advantages of Lightroom's design is that it not a single monolithic program.
Each module can function independently of the others - its point of reference is the database (catalog).
Obviously making each module too large and complex will impact on performance.

Although it is not sexy I feel that there is a lot of work to do in the Library module.
The Develop module is excellent.
Several of the output modules are not as functional as they could be but this is also where there is a serious risk of bloat.

Tony Jay
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1666


« Reply #298 on: April 01, 2013, 01:58:29 AM »
ReplyReply

One of the advantages of Lightroom's design is that it not a single monolithic program.
Each module can function independently of the others - its point of reference is the database (catalog).
Obviously making each module too large and complex will impact on performance.
Execution time and perceived "sluggishness" are complex things. But I agree that adding a "module" to some software should only affect its harddrive/memory footprint and development cost, not necessarily slowdowns in other (unrelated) areas of the program.

-h
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #299 on: April 01, 2013, 04:39:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Sigma XF3 raw processing --- SPP is awful(at least compared to LightRoom)

SPP does what it sets out to do (convert sigma foveon raw files) very well indeed, IMO, and it has a simple and functional user interface. Lightroom won't take on Sigma raws until Lightroom engineers are satisfied they can do as good a job, or better, and that may be quite a high bar to jump.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 19 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad