Using C1 with Lightroom

[dougpeterson]

So--to make a long story short about the 85 f/1.8--I simply went to metadata search, chose all dates, all cameras, 85 f/1.8 and I got every shot every taken with that lens. The metadata search is one reason why I like LR--though I am keyworded--sometimes just generically (when I import) and often more deliberately.

That is pretty neat and clearly one of the big benefits of a full DAM program. However, on a Mac you can accomplish the same goal with slightly less elegance/speed using a standard spotlight search (which allows metadata including camera, lens, and ISO etc etc) as criterion. If your workflow requires you do this kind of search every day then clearly this would be a stupid workaround. But for many/most photographers finding an image by camera/lens/iso etc is a rare occurrence and the extra few minutes to do it by the Finder are negligible.


Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

 

[Guy Mancuso]

On my end is just finding a job I shot for a client. Just really need the date info, so not a big deal. But I agree if your picking all ISO 400 images or some Exif and/or meta data like that than a full DAM program is a nice choice

 

[Diane B]

SNIP
Some folks like to jump around and that is fine but it seems to me counter productive on your learning abilities and just too much to take in and not become a expert at one of them.
SNIP
My motto on this is pick your poison and stick with it, learn so much about it that you can almost write the program. LOL

I pretty much agree. I started way back with whatever the heck Canon's RC was--then Chris Breeze developed Breezebrowser--then along came C1 (as I recall--might have things out of sequence)--maybe then the RAW plugin for PS 7 that you had to buy separately, and RCs started to explode--PSCS with RC/ACR included (I didn't like it)whatever his name was (sorry) that left C1 to develop RSP, then bought by Adobe, Bibble, etc.--and somewhere in there Canon came out with DPP. But--I did try the beta for LR--still was using C1/PS with Imatch--and RSP. The workflow suited me at this point, I moved along with the upgrades--still not entirely sure, but have now moved almost entirely to LR (I do round trips to PS--and have been a long user of PS since PS3, so I didn't have to learn anything new--don't use ACR)--and 2.2/2.3 cinched it. That's just me--and, as I said, its personal.

Can I squeeze one more thing in?? Because my library is set up exactly as my organized folders are on my harddrives, I can also easily find things by dropping down my year--or month--folder and seeing the folders names--and I do still have the other options of a DAM. For those that don't organize or import in a manner similar--then this could be totally irrelevant.

Diane (back to 'watching')

 

[Jack]

However, on a Mac you can accomplish the same goal with slightly less elegance/speed using a standard spotlight search (which allows metadata including camera, lens, and ISO etc etc) as criterion. snip for many/most photographers finding an image by camera/lens/iso etc is a rare occurrence and the extra few minutes to do it by the Finder are negligible.

Precisely my point -- I can already search metadata directly via spotlight.

,

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

You can of course search metadata using Bridge just the same as with keywords.

 

[jonoslack]

Precisely my point -- I can already search metadata directly via spotlight.

,

Sheesh - maybe if I had called my mythical person Dolores instead of Neil it would have seemed more interesting.

How would you find Dolores in your metadata unless you had put her in there? Of course you could do that in C1 or bridge, but it's much more difficult, and the results much more difficult to deal with. Even Doug does his processing in C1 and then uses Aperture as a DAM (which is what I do with cameras not well supported in Aperture)

Anyway, I get the feeling I'm being irritating here, and I certainly think I'm beating a dead horse.

Just one last word on this.

My father was a fantastic photographer - he specialised in photos of Artists, and had a large library - lots of which was digitised into year etc. Everything was meticulously organised, but not on subject beyond 'Opening at Tate Gallery StIves 20th January 1994'. For example, it was very likely he had photographs of Barbara Hepworth from the early 50's until her death, including her sculptures and her studio.

When he died we really tried to make sense of it all, what was identifiable for specific subjects went to the archive concerned, but after family meetings the vast majority of it was simply put into landfill. Only some albums of prints remain.

When he was taking these shots, they were of friends and acquaintances who were very much alive, and they didn't seem so important. When he died lots of these people were 1. famous and 2. dead.

I'm not aiming for immortality (and I'm hoping to be around for a bit), but anyone who can use Aperture slightly would be able to find family or other photographs easily and quickly.

We all want the best out of our RAW files (isn't that why we're talking about C1). Organisation is much less sexy (like my mate Neil), but it seems to me to be at least as important to make the most of one's library.

I think it's tragic to recommend to people a system which will be like my Dad's - when there is something so much better available.

Right - that's me on the subject unless I'm asked a question - I realise I'm not getting through