The DAM Forum
June 12, 2021, 05:20:52 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2
1  General / General Discussion / Re: Partitioning Clarification for two internal drive setup on: April 06, 2007, 11:20:26 PM
Hey Daniel, I may take you up on that sometime Smiley 

BTW, checked out your gallery, very nice stuff in there, gorgeous and colorful.
2  General / General Discussion / Re: Microsoft's New HD Photo Format.... comments??? on: April 04, 2007, 11:49:35 PM
I personally don't like it.  I'm not sure about the licensing restrictions of HD Photo vs. DNG, but I'd much rather vote for wide(r) spread use.  It's there, it's out there, it's even supported in camera by the Pentax K10 and (IIRC) the Leica M8.  Photo HD just seems a bit too potential for evil or subversion from MS. 

Of course, I'm not sure what the benefits of it vs DNG are, maybe there's something that DNG just can't do that it can do better.  It's a bit hard to tell with reading various pages (ie:, but if PhotoHD gave you the lossless/RAW qualities of DNG with the layers / masking that you get with PSD or TIFF files, that *would* get me a bit excited.  It'd be great to store your originals and derivatives all in one place, instead of having to import a RAW file and then save your derivative either in multiple formats or with multiple layer masks in a PSD/TIFF (as per Peter's suggestion in the DAM Book).

I suppose in the end it really doesn't matter which is "better", but which has better marketing Smiley

3  General / General Discussion / Re: Partitioning Clarification for two internal drive setup on: April 04, 2007, 11:38:42 PM
Hey Daniel, just wanted to go back to the partitioning if that's not resolved yet.

I'd recommend against partitioning the 500G disk, simply because it's not as flexible and if your originals partition fills up, you end up shooting yourself in the foot for expandability.  Also I don't think partitioning is nearly as important these days as it once was.  I remember back in the day having different partitions for..... well, some good reason at the time, while nowadays I try to get as little partitions as possible, simply because files expand so much and so often that I'd rather do my disk organization by folder.

The scratch disk should go on the drive that photoshop is NOT on (from what I've read).  Even if that means it goes into the disk with the source images, I *think* that you're trying to avoid the churning of the system/photoshop disk conflicting with the disk cache.  I'm not sure if when PS is doing stuff it's reading from the source disk or from it's own memory cache or the os memory cache.

Anyway, I think that disk corruption and filesystem corruption isn't the issue that it used to be and you don't need to partition data and OS off for those reasons, now you put them on separate disks for speed.

Anyway, hope that helped (assuming you hadn't found out adequate answers on your own Smiley

4  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Cant import large files in LR 1.0 on: April 03, 2007, 11:32:16 PM
According to the lightroom book this is due to the inability of 32bit processors to access more than that number of pixels at a time.  Something like that. 
5  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Lightroom importing iview fields - any issues? on: March 14, 2007, 06:45:21 AM
Hey Peter, I do, perfect, thanks muchly.... I think I actually came up with that solution for something a while back, never connected it to this challenge though.

Off to Tag!

6  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Lightroom importing iview fields - any issues? on: March 12, 2007, 08:13:09 PM
Anyone have any suggestions (or scripts) to convert the people field in iView and copy it into the keywords field?
7  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Lightroom importing iview fields - any issues? on: March 12, 2007, 05:35:34 AM
I've got my iview catalog of a recent trip (my first foray into proper keywording, etc) and have all the 'people', locations, etc fields filled in nicely.  I synced (sunc?) the files and then imported them into lightroom 1.0.  For the most part they were transfered in properly, however the one big thing that seems to be missing is the 'people' fields from iview.  I know that lightroom doesn't have a dedicated 'people' field... is there a way to transfer this over?

I guess the obvious solution is to convert the people fields to extra keywords..... unless anyone knows of a better way?  Alternatively is this maybe a falling down of lightroom?  Does aperture have this?  I personally found the people finder and location finder in iview absolutely kick ass, while I love lightroom that might be a deal breaker.

Also, does anyone know how well the two work together?   If I save keywords in one do they transfer over to the other, or do both programs consider themselves the masters of their domains as far as keywords and data.


8  General / General Discussion / Re: Dealing with Multiple Photography Focuses on: February 26, 2007, 11:06:01 PM
Yea, that's one of the options I was looking at.  It doesn't "feel" very elegant though.   Also this could potentially screw up the DAM workflow and cataloging.  Do you separate images into separate catalogs (not sure if you can do this in lightroom) or keep everything in the same catalog and then separate them inside the catalogs with keywords or some other way.

The thing that I mainly stumble on is images that fall into both categories, which is why I currently put everything into the same catalog.  Maybe color coding or something....
9  General / General Discussion / Dealing with Multiple Photography Focuses on: February 26, 2007, 09:21:11 PM
I'm not sure if there's an elegant way of dealing with this issue, but I was wondering how others deal with different focuses of photography.  IE: Personal, artistic, work, etc.  Personally I have pictures that I take that are snapshots and some that are (or try to be) "photographs".  Sometimes I'll take a bunch of shots and some are simple snaps of family or friends and others are far more artistically oriented. 

I like the bucket system, and don't really want to break out into two directories on my file server where I create a new directory for snaps and one for artistic stuff, but on the other hand I'd like to be able to go into Lightroom (or whatever I end up using) and be able to focus on just one or the other.

Is this a simple matter of a 'personal' keyword or is there something nicer to deal with this.  How do others, especially professionals, deal with this?
10  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Lightroom 1.0 Released on: January 30, 2007, 07:01:52 AM
Thanks guys.  I basically fall into that category (don't have a huge investment in iview) and am still feeling my way around the DAM work.  Hopefully LR1.0 has a trial version released (soon? Smiley that I can dig into and see if it matches up or if I should continue using / playing with iview.
11  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Lightroom 1.0 Released on: January 30, 2007, 12:43:35 AM
So Lightroom 1.0 was released today, or at least announced to be available Feb 19/2007.  Peter/all, do you think this'll replace iview for you or change your workflow at all?  It doesn't look like LR has changed a lot since beta4, so I assume that the majority of changes are going to be correcting some of the horrible performance we saw with beta 4/4.1.


Personally I'm pretty excited about this, it looks like a product like this may help remove some of the oddness and separation between cataloging program and editing program I've found using Peter's workflow from the book (sorry Mr. K, I probably need to buy the DVDs to actually *see* what's going on or something) Smiley

12  Software Discussions / Bridge/ Camera Raw / Re: Add / remove keywords in bridge on: October 20, 2006, 05:08:08 AM
Thanks Peter (if that is your real name Wink

Just making sure I wasn't missing something obvious!

13  Software Discussions / Bridge/ Camera Raw / Add / remove keywords in bridge on: October 20, 2006, 12:13:32 AM
This is a bit of an odd question, hopefully I can describe it properly.  I'm keywording in bridge and have occasionally have to add a keyword to many files, some of which already have that keyword applies. When I select the files the keyword in question in the bridge panel it has a bar in it ('-') indicating that it's applied already to some of the files.

I can't just click it to apply the keyword to all files that don't have it already, and I don't see a "good" way to get around this.  My question is, can I somehow set that to all? 

So far I've had to do silly / odd things like do a search for all files in the folder that don't have the keyword, and apply it then.  Not a good way.  Pointers please.

14  General / General Discussion / Re: bucket dir / derivative dir naming on: September 19, 2006, 03:54:04 PM
Thanks Peter.

Great book by the way!
15  General / General Discussion / Re: how to fill the buckets on: September 18, 2006, 11:28:58 PM
Unless I totally misunderstand (always a possibility):

The point of the buckets is that they are collections of files suitable for backup. Once a bucket is filled, it is backed up to the permanent archives and then "frozen". If the bucket data on disk is lost it can simply be restored from that archival backup. Restoring from the archive will not lose any work because nothing in the bucket is allowed to change—no editing of files, no renaming of files, no adding of files—after the archival backup is made.

There is no particular relationship between RAW buckets and DRV buckets. A particular Raw file might even have derivative files in more than one bucket, if those derivative files were created at different times. Obviously (at least I think that it's obvious), you rely on your cataloguing program to make this organization usable.

Hey Doug, thanks for the reply.  So what about ongoing works in progress?  I tend to either keep whatever I'm working on in a WIP directory under the current shoot/date/bucket... so with the bucket system it'd go like:

Day 1 (working on an image)

Day 2
Backup the DVD_123 dir

Day 3 (back to working on the image)
 - copy DVD_123\ajb_fileWIP.psd to DVD_124\ajb_fileWIP.psd
 - continue working on the file

So now I have 2 files with the same name (or at least the same state of editing, ie: half done?  That seems bad for cataloging or workflow Sad  Or would the workflow be not to backup until you're done working on images?  This seems bad for the reason that you now have non-backed up images.
Pages: [1] 2
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!