Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Latest posts of: JoeThePhotographer
The DAM Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 11, 2020, 06:19:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
28033 Posts in 5147 Topics by 2904 Members
Latest Member: kbroch
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14
31  DAM Stuff / Hardware Discussions / Inexpensive Blu Ray Media on: August 09, 2010, 09:21:01 AM
I've seen blu ray media for $1.50 per disk (Verbatim) and some even closer to $1 per disk (Memorex).

All of these inexpensive disks use LTH, which means that they use dyes and are made in converted DVD manufacturing facilities, hence the reduced cost.   Two drawbacks of LTH technology is that it is not compatible with every single burner (Verbatim has a compatability chart on their website) and is rated to burn at a slower 2X.

Besides the obvious compatabilitty and speed drawbacks, should these inexpensive LTH be mistrusted for archiving tasks where reliability is arguably more important than speed and compatability?

I haven't moved to Blu Ray yet, and the primary reason has been the cost of media.  At these prices, I can actually afford to move forward with a blu ray burner purchase, assuming these inexpensive disks are reliability.

Joe
32  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Lightroom 3 is not faster on: July 14, 2010, 06:28:45 PM
In fact it's noticeably slower than LR 2.7 on my system (Quadcore with 8GB RAM and an average SATA drive).

Browsing through my catalogue is frustratingly slow now.  Anyone else experience this? 

Joe
33  Software Discussions / Choosing Software/Other DAM Applications / Re: Bridge or Lightroom? on: June 26, 2010, 02:52:42 PM
Thank yuo Neil, that's very helpful.

I own LR and CS5, so I will use LR for cataloguing, viewing, processing and so on.  I don't have the funds to buy anything else, even Image Ingester.

I was wondering for the initial image ingest, what's better Bridge CS5 or LR2/LR3?

Joe
34  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Two related questions on: June 16, 2010, 11:59:16 PM
Thank.  That's very helpful.  I've actually been looking for some kind of a guide for photographers looking to shoot some video.

Joe.
35  Software Discussions / Choosing Software/Other DAM Applications / Bridge or Lightroom? on: June 16, 2010, 11:58:11 PM
What are the pluses and minuses of using Adobe Bridge CS5 versus Lightroom 2/3 for ingesting photos (and video) from a DSLR?

Joe
36  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Two related questions on: June 10, 2010, 04:28:37 AM
By "move" I'm just saying that once they're dumped by Import into the same folder as the stills, I'm not sure I see a benefit from moving them to another folder.

Bob mentioned one advantage to having them in separate folders.  The other is size.  Videos are much larger so you end up with lopsided folders if you mixe photos and videos (remember they're limited to 23 Gig).  I think this is the reason Peter recommended separating them out.

Of course, I am not even sure LR3 has the ability to separate them out, unless you're back to doing it in two steps which is not much better than using two programs.
37  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Two related questions on: June 10, 2010, 04:24:42 AM
I almost never shoot video... so no expert here... but it seems to me that with video you are going to be more likely to be viewing/editing the files in a variety software outside of Lightroom.  I would imagine much of that software would work nicer when browsing a folder that doesn't contain piles of unneeded stills as well.  For simply browsing within Lightroom it shouldn't matter what folder the videos are in.  You should still be able to view them in order and without the stills if that's what you choose.  That part of the beauty of working in a DAM app.

Is it easy to view them in order if they're in different folders?

Can LR3 easily import them into different folders if they're coming off the same card?

I find the new import window to be overly confusing.
38  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Two related questions on: June 10, 2010, 04:00:18 AM
In one way, I'd ask what you'd do if you switched your camera from raw to jpeg during the day? Would you move the jpegs? Obviously not. So although I don't shoot video (moving pictures will never catch on - you heard it here first) I would keep the workflow simple and keep videos in the same folders.

As for metadata, you can add metadata to videos in LR and it can search for the files - but I don't think it can write metadata back to the videos. That said, I can see why you'd want to do so. Is there an Exiftool for video formats? Maybe a plug-in author could do something.

As with photos, you want other programs (specifically Adobe Premiere and OnLocation) to read the metadata info. 

I don't follow you re: moving videos.  I'm not looking to move existing videos; just wondering whether it makes sense to dump (new) videos and photos in the same folder so that I can see them in sequence.  If I shot RAW and jpeg, I certainly would import them into the same folder, but that analogy is not 100% on point.
39  Software Discussions / Media Pro & Expression Media / Re: Getting Started with EM2 on: June 09, 2010, 03:37:46 PM
The LR3 beta is good until June 30.

It sounds like the path of least resistance is LR2, possibly LR3, forgetting about EM2 because it's way above my head. 

The main attractions of LR3 are tethered shooting (which is more of a novely for me than anything else) and the abilitiy to catalogue video (I'll have to try it for myself to see how well it works---I found the import window to be rather confusing, and I'm not sure how adaptable it is; I'm not sure it's needed if Bridge CS5 is available).  The other improvements to the RAW engine I can do without since I have Photoshop CS5.

Joe
40  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Two related questions on: June 09, 2010, 03:31:39 PM
Bob,

From a DAM persepctive, does it make sense now to dump photos and video in the same folder?  It seems it would make it easier to see the flow of a shooting day, since typically photos and video are used on the same subject.  Or can I/should I have them in separate folders and have LR3 sort them by time as if they were in the same folder?

How well does LR3 handle video imports?  Does it do metadata for video?  Can you search for movies the same way as for photos? Can Adobe Premiere read the metadata written by LR3?

Joe
41  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Two related questions on: June 08, 2010, 08:01:58 AM
(1) Now that LR3 supports video, would it make sense to import photos and video into the same folder?  For the past year I've had them separated.  In fact, can LR3 separate photos and video?  I am currently playing around with the beta.

(2) I have LR2, Expression Media 2 and Photoshop CS5 and Premiere Pro CS5.  I am trying to resist also buying LR3.  Can you see the combination that I have working efficiently?

Here is what I'd like to do:

Use EM2 to ingest and catalogue photos and video.
Photoshop CS5 to edit and print photos.
Premiere Pro CS5 to edit video.
Bridge to browse eveything.

I am not sure where LR (2 or 3) fits into all of this.

I have never used EM2.

Thanks for your input.

Joe.
42  Software Discussions / Media Pro & Expression Media / Re: Getting Started with EM2 on: June 08, 2010, 07:44:04 AM
If I do end up buying LR3, Adobe, should pay you a fee, because I'm trying very hard not to.

This never occured to me before, but can Bridge be used to import files from a card?  I suppose not, because that would also require changing names and applying metadata, which seems beyond what a browser would do.

Btw, how long before the LR3 beta 2 expires?

Joe
43  Software Discussions / Media Pro & Expression Media / Re: Getting Started with EM2 on: June 08, 2010, 05:01:02 AM
You know LR3 is now out?

Yersterday, I download and install the beta.  And today it's out, with no fanfare or hoopla.  Crazy. 

So I'm better off with LR3 than LR2 + EM2, I take it?  How about Adobe Bridge CS5, can it import photos and videos better than LR2?

Joe
44  Software Discussions / Media Pro & Expression Media / Re: Getting Started with EM2 on: June 07, 2010, 10:58:09 AM
Yes John, I was trying to get you a shot.  What kind do you like?  A shot of brandy?  I see you're more focused on LR3 than EM2 right now!  I'll probably end up with LR3 eventually any way, so I will drop my resistance at the outset and just go with the flow.

Joe
45  Software Discussions / Media Pro & Expression Media / Re: Getting Started with EM2 on: June 07, 2010, 10:46:09 AM
Thanks John.  I was looking for feedback to decide whether I should even start learning about Expression Media, which I have never used before.  Is it worth the learning curve, are there pitfalls to watch out for, does it really enhance my LR experience (I am not a heavy metadata user--I know metadata is great but I am lucky when I have enough time to download my pictures).  Support of video files in LR3 (assuming the price is acceptable when it comes out), removes a good deal of my incentive to use EM2.  Wondering whether EM2 there is still any incentive at all.  I would not have even thought of EM2, were it not for the recent sale to Phase One which enabled me to acquire it.  When is LR3 expected to arrive?

Joe
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!