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: simonk
The DAM Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 03, 2020, 03:13:28 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
28033 Posts in 5147 Topics by 2903 Members
Latest Member: kbroch
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Lightroom users... on: March 28, 2007, 03:57:41 PM
"Conversion" is the wrong word for what most photographers are doing when they begin to work with a raw image. Increasingly, much, or even all, of the processing (exposure, cropping, etc.) is being done in the raw domain. With systems like Lightroom, a non-raw file (e.g., TIFF, PSD, JPEG) is never generated at all.
Marc, I'm aware of this. Thanks for reminding me. One more reason why I chose Lightroom.  Smiley

Each converter will produce different results.  I believe that you would never be able to get a pixel-identical output from two different converters.
I agree that the results will be different. I was just wondering how visibly different they would be.

I guess I didn't describe my thoughts clearly. Let's say there are 2 hypothetical photo challenges like these:
1. Each of the 5 contestants are given a RAW file (with good exposure) and Lightroom. Each contestant processes and generates their "best" jpeg.

2. Each of the 5 contestants are given the same RAW file and a final "target" jpeg file. Each are given different software to process the file. (Let's pretend that each person is very familiar with the given software). The goal is to make the RAW file to look like the target file.

I'm pretty sure that all 5 photos from #1 would look different due to how each photographer thinks looks the best.

But, how about in #2 situation? This is what my original question attempted to ask. My thinking is that all 5 contestants should be able to generate outputs that look practically the same (of course, not pixel-identical). Couldn't they?

Are my thoughts too simplistic?  Embarrassed

Simon
2  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Lightroom users... on: March 28, 2007, 12:47:19 PM
Hi there,

I'm very new to this RAW conversion process. So I have a beginner question: Would it be foolish for me to think that most of these conversion software are the same, in terms of conversion capability?

If I have a camera RAW image and have a clear idea of what the converted image would look like, couldn't each of these software let me generate the final image I'm looking for? Could one say something like "I got this image out of Bibble and there is no way I could get the same result using Lightroom"? I tried several softwares (e.g. Bibble, DxO, Lightroom, etc.) and found that the thing that stands out the most is how easy or difficult it is to achieve that final image with each software (e.g. user interface). Are they really that obviously different?

I'm waiting for my Lightroom to arrive, but I was just curious.  Smiley

Simon
3  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Best way to learn Lightroom on: March 26, 2007, 06:09:22 PM
I'm a big fan of video tutorials at lynda.com. They recently came out with a Lightroom tutorial: http://movielibrary.lynda.com/html/modPage.asp?ID=364
Peter's DAM video is also available there. It's a very nice tutorial, by the way. I learned a lot.
It only costs $25 for a one month subscription to view ALL of their videos! One of the best deals around, I think. (I'm not associated with them in anyway. Just a happy customer).

Have fun!
Simon
4  DAM Useful Stuff / DAMuseful Video training / Same video training at Lynda.com? on: February 07, 2007, 08:15:20 PM
I was pleasantly surprised today to find DAM video training by Peter at lynda.com. It appears to be the same video. I think it's a great idea to reach more people about DAM practice. Since I periodically subscribe to lynda's training, this is a big bonus!  Grin

Peter, thank you very much for offering this at lynda.com.
5  Software Discussions / iView MediaPro / Re: iView + DxO Bundle for $229 on: December 12, 2006, 04:17:56 PM
It's interesting that you bring this up, nuzz. I was just browsing Amazon during my lunch break and found that they sell iView Media Pro 3 for only $119.99! I might just buy it.

What would really be neat is if iView could be bundled with Peter's new Video  Grin
6  Software Discussions / iView MediaPro / Re: iView + DxO Bundle for $229 on: December 12, 2006, 02:09:13 PM
Thank you for your insight, Michael.

So, Bibble doesn't fit DAM workflow very well, huh? I was so happy to find out that it can use my NoiseNinja pro plugin. Sigh...

I'm just a typical amateur/hobbyist shooter doing mostly family stuff and events. I just can't justify buying Photoshop CS2 (yet) for bridge/ACR usage. I can do most of image editing stuff on PSE 3 with plugin curves and channel mixer tools. Will PSE 3 ACR work for DAM workflow? Is anyone using this route?

I guess I'm kinda stuck now without a RAW conversion software appropriate for DAM. Argggh. This wasn't supposed to be the conclusion.... Cry
7  Software Discussions / iView MediaPro / Re: iView + DxO Bundle for $229 on: December 12, 2006, 12:10:58 PM
Hi Alan,

Thanks for putting things into DAM perspective. I enjoyed playing around with DxO trial version. I still haven't incorporated the entire DAM workflow. All I've achieved so far is to create buckets to hold my originals and derivatives. I just began experimenting with RAW image editing. I only have Photoshop Elements 3 and have been playing with IDimager lite. I wish there was Bibble & iView bundle, because I liked Bibble's trial version quite a bit.

Have you by chance tried IDimager? A while ago, I briefly tried iView's trial version and remember that I liked the way things looked (e.g. gui). Are the differences between the 2 products like night and day or can they do the same things but just the gui are different? If you didn't own iView today, would you still buy it, especially not knowing what MS Expression Media may bring?

And then there is Lightroom. The market is so confusing for an amateur photographer. Or is it just me?
8  Software Discussions / iView MediaPro / iView + DxO Bundle for $229 on: December 11, 2006, 11:14:43 PM
I posted this in the previous thread "iView Media Pro becoming Microsoft Expression Media" and thought that it would benefit everyone if posted on its own thread. Sorry for double posting. Just trying to help.
-----------------------------------------------
I just found out today DxO and iView are offering a bundled deal until Dec. 31. I couldn't find anyone posting this info...but, sorry if you're already aware of this.

The deal is iView MediaPro v3.1 + DxO Standard = $229. Go to dxo.com and follow the bundle link. They have $219 and $349 bundle as well.

I think if you're in the market for both of these products, it's quite a deal. Plus you get Expression Media upgrade for free, too. I'm currently considering to take this offer.

Hope this info helps someone  Smiley
9  DAM Stuff / Migration Issues / Re: JPEG Originals and folder dates on: September 23, 2006, 08:55:25 PM
In terms of JPEG and camera RAW files, I'm quite the other way around from Mike777. I usually shoot JPEG. I shoot JPEG+RAW for what I feel are important events (e.g. weddings, birthdays, etc.). I don't have RAW workflow yet, so I just put RAW files in their own folders and don't do anything with them. When I get really good at this digital photo processing stuff, those RAW files will be there for me.

I thought about what was discussed in this thread and what I read from the book. I finally decided to procede with the following scheme. It will allow me to follow Peter's DAM structure without "having to let go" of the old way, for now. When I'm ready, I would have already been following Peter's way. It's sort of like what Mike777 is doing. I created 4 types of bucket-holding folders.

The bucket folder names follow this general naming rule: BirthOfFile_MediaTypeOfBucket_MediaID#_OptionalDate.
My folders look like this now:

Photo Buckets
     Original_01
          ORIG_DVD_001_2001      (this is my comfort bucket of untouched camera original files)
               20011005 Sea World
               20011031 Halloween
               .....
          ORIG_DVD_003_2005
               20050617 Sam Birthday
                    RAW                    (I don't know what to do with these camera RAW file now. So, they just sit in here Smiley )
               .....
     Metadata_01
          META_DVD_001_2001     (this is my version of Peter's RAW_001_2001 folder)
               Sea World
               Halloween
               .....
     Scanned_01
          SCAN_DVD_001             
               Mom Dad Wedding
               .....
     Edited_01
          EDIT_DVD_001               (this is my version of Peter's DVD_001 folder)
               Mom Dad Wedding
               .....

I also decided to use "DVD" to only mean the media type, as in CD and Blu-ray disk, not Derivative files. Although Peter explains the reason behind this DVD name, it was confusing for me while reading the book and confusing when I tried to organize my buckets. When I feel comfortable with the catalog software and this whole process, I can just ignore my ORIG_DVD-series buckets (as if I never created them in the first place). The only drawback is that I will be basically doubling the disk space. But I think that's a small price to pay.

Simon
10  DAM Stuff / Migration Issues / Re: JPEG Originals and folder dates on: September 22, 2006, 12:01:57 AM
Doug, thank you so much for taking your time to help me. I think you know what's going on in my head.

This is a big leap. Or more correctly, a decision whether to leap or not.

You are absolutely right. I'm still not used to the idea of calling modified JPEG as original, even if it's just metadata change. Since I've already created DVD-sized buckets of my camera originals, I'll just burn them to several disks. After that, I should feel free to play around with metadata, knowing that I can always go back to those disks if I mess up. I'm not sure why I didn't just do that in the first place.

By the way, thanks for the Downloader tip. I'll check it out.

11  DAM Stuff / Migration Issues / Re: JPEG Originals and folder dates on: September 21, 2006, 11:28:01 PM
There's no need to consider the addition or change of metadata to a JPEG to require the generation of a different file. 

Peter, I must have confused you by using "DVD" terminology earlier. I was referring to multiple physical DVD disks (not DVD as for Derivatives) named "RAW_001_2005" that contain original JPEGs with different metadata.
Although I'm still fuzzy on details of this DAM process, I'm really enjoying it. Thank you for writing this wonderful book Smiley
12  DAM Stuff / Migration Issues / Re: JPEG Originals and folder dates on: September 20, 2006, 11:15:19 PM
Hi Peter,

Thank you for detailed explanation. I'm still a bit hung up on this original JPEG issue. The book implied that a JPEG file is an original as long as the image is not modified or recompressed. I somehow didn't want the original file to keep changing many times, even if it's just the metadata, not the image itself. Wouldn't that mean my archived DVD contents (e.g. RAW_001_2005) will keep changing, possibly ending up with multiple versions of RAW_001_2005 DVDs?

Quote
2. If the dates in the folder names are helpful to you, by all means, use them.

I would suggest using Cataloging software to group the images into useful combinations, rather than depending on folder structure to do this.

I think I'll try your method of folder organization. I've just begun playing around with IDimager, so I might actually end up liking it that way. Thanks!

Simon
13  DAM Stuff / Migration Issues / JPEG Originals and folder dates on: September 20, 2006, 01:00:05 AM
I finished reading the book and created DVD-sized buckets for all of my JPEG photos. I need help in clarifying some lingering questions.

1. Before I began the DAM process, I used to confirm my JPEG as original by comparing the file date against the created date. When I began adding "unrated" labels using IDimager Lite, I noticed that the file date changed. Is this file with different date still considered as an original? I could not find this info in the DAM book. Is this how it's supposed to be or is there a way to add metadata and still keep the original created date?

2. I mostly have family events, candid diary shots, and some wedding photos. Also, I have a lot of repeat photo location, like my local park for my daughter's photos. I see that Peter organizes photos in folders without dates. My old-style folder names contained dates. Would keeping the date info in the folder name cause problems? This is how my folders are orgained right now.

RAW_001_2005
     20050304 Local Park
     20050307 Home
     20050415 Local Park
     20050418 Home
     20050518 Local Park

Is there a better way to organize this? According to Peter's book, it would look like this.

RAW_001_2005
     Local Park
     Home

But, wouldn't it be confusing because all the events are now shuffled up? I guess I still want a way to quickly locate the photos using a file browser. Or, am I missing the whole point of DAM software? How are others handling this type of issue?

Thanks for your help.
Simon
Pages: [1]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!