The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Lightroom and other Raw Developers

Terry

New member
I had a total of 10 SD cards in Moab. After each days shoot, I copied the files onto my Laptop, but did NOT erase the cards, simply put new ones in when one filled up. Thus when I got home, I had all the original cards and complete set of back-ups on the Laptop drive. I did not use up all 10 cards in Moab, however, on a longer shoot I would have. That is why I have the 100G external I linked to in the other thread -- plus it makes for faster transfer to the desktop when I get home, AND the file structure is already done.
I got it all but one thing....the little files in Lightroom that have your adjustments, where did they reside? Do they stay with the original files or is there a piece sitting in Lightroom that you had to copy over independently?
 

robsteve

Subscriber
So, the cluge with LR is that since I am putting a "new" processed file back in the original folder on my original image drive (leaving the raw intact), and since my LR library was not directly involved in that operation, I will need to re-import the images on that drive to the appropriate folder in LR AFTER EVERY CS3 SESSION to browse them in LR as processed with the new name... The next problem is if I just use the "save" command in CS3 and not the "Save As", CS3 assumes I want the revised file saved by LR and LR will save it by default into a folder on the LIBRARY drive and NOT on the original image drive in the shoot folder...
Jack:

Can't you just send the files to Lightroom as PSD or Tiff files and then hit save once you have done your work in CS3? It will save the file in the same directory the DNG came from, but with a PSD or Tiff file type. This edited file will also show up in Lightroom without having to import it. You can then choose the PSD/Tiff or DNG version in lightroom. Rather than use file names or directory structures, you can just use the tags to define your files, such as "30x40Print" for ones you optimized for 30x40.

If you then want to make another working file, start with the DNG version and send it to CS3 again and it will create another unique TIFF or PSD file. You then do your work, hit save, go back to Lightroom, select that file and put your description tag into it.

I think the Lightroom tags go into the IPTC fields, so you should also be able to search your regular disk structure using an IPTC aware program such as Photomechanic. A mac my also have this feature built into its OS or one of the iLife type programs.

This system will not work if the RAW file is sent to CS3 via another program rather than Lightroom. In that case, you would have to import the files into Lightroom after you save them in CS3. That of course was the original question of this thread, having Lightroom manage files but processing them with another program such as Capture One.

Robert
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I got it all but one thing....the little files in Lightroom that have your adjustments, where did they reside? Do they stay with the original files or is there a piece sitting in Lightroom that you had to copy over independently?
That's what goes into the actual LR library, wherever you have that set up to reside.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack:

Can't you just send the files to Lightroom as PSD or Tiff files and then hit save once you have done your work in CS3? It will save the file in the same directory the DNG came from, but with a PSD or Tiff file type.
It will only save it to the *same* directory the DNG came from IF the library imported the actual RAW files and they are on the same drive AND you save the file with the same name as when LR exported it. Change the name or use a different directory, and you need to re-import to re-build the library. As I described above, my library folder is on a different drive than my raws and all I've been able to make it do is save the CS3 version back to the Library folder... If somebody knows a workaround, I am all ears.

The big problem is LR is not a browser in the true sense. If it was, it would browse an existing file structure and build it's data table off that structure without the need to import anything. Unfortunately, it needs to do the import to build the library. So if you want a change made on a file to show in LR, you need to do everything inside LR or send it back to LR with the same name and in the same format as the export so it can modify the library. The second you go outside LR to do anything, any changes to your original image files won't show in LR unless you do a fresh import. The good news is LR is smart enough to not re-import duplicates, so it does quickly find the new files and import them.

However! It does not have any form of automated library check to re-import newly added or modified images and you have to do that manually. Neither will it allow an image over 10,000 pixels in any dimension, so a pano stitch of 5 or so M8 images won't re-import into the library at all.

So more than a few issues with it...
 

Terry

New member
That's what goes into the actual LR library, wherever you have that set up to reside.
That is what I was trying to get at, when you get back home with your laptop are you importing the small files into lightroom from the laptop by using the command:

File, Import from Catalog

I'm sorry for being so dense I've just never split the original files from the whole process. Just trying to figure out the commands for combining your main LR library with the new stuff sitting on the laptop. I totally get the first part of simply of copying the originals to the correct place on your hard drive.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Ah, got it. I simply load the raw files only into my permanent file structure then do a fresh import to generate the new libray. None of the processing I did on the road will show up, but I don't care since most of the time it is minimal and done for a rapid or "quick-look" result only. I'm sure there probably is a way to transfer library settings, but I don't know how to do it.
 

robsteve

Subscriber
Terry:

I don't think you can do what you want to do. I think you have to export as a catalog and then use the import a catalog. It may break the files for use later in Capture One, so I would do a small test first.

What I do when on a trip is similar to what Jack described.

1) Import to Lightroom on the Laptop, selecting the back up to option so the files go to both the laptop and an external drive.

2.) When I get home I will take the external drive and import all the files into my desktop system. I do not import anything I might have done to them on the laptop, just start from the fresh files again.
 

Terry

New member
Thanks Jack and Robsteve!

That was the crucial step! I haven't imported my Moab stuff from the Laptop because I couldn't decide if I wanted to start again from the untouched external hard drive copy or if I wanted to import my Moab Lightroom Catalogue from the Laptop to the desktop and preserve the changes we made to some of my shots in the workshop (for instance we cropped quite a few shots to make up for some less than ideal framing :D).
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
You bring up a lot of additional issues with using lightroom as the core of a workflow. Isn t a basic that you should never import the images into the lightroom catalog? Keeping the raw files outside of lightroom and often on a separate drive ..keeps the lightroom database from bloating and as jack mentioned ...you can always change you mind .
 

Mitchell

New member
This is a great thread, not the least of showing me I'm not alone in trying to get a handle on this stuff.

Does any one have an opinion on how well Aperture handles these image management issues compared to LR?

Thanks,

Mitchell
 

robsteve

Subscriber
You bring up a lot of additional issues with using lightroom as the core of a workflow. Isn t a basic that you should never import the images into the lightroom catalog? Keeping the raw files outside of lightroom and often on a separate drive ..keeps the lightroom database from bloating and as jack mentioned ...you can always change you mind .
Keeping the files in a normal directory tree on the hardrive is probably the best way to do it.

To get back to Jacks problem, Lightroom will allow you to create subdirectories on the hard drive and then move your edits there.

I think you can also edit the file names it uses when processing the files out to Photoshop. Let me play with it for a little today and see if I can figure out a workflow.
 

robsteve

Subscriber
I think I just figured the workaround to having the edited tiffs or PSD files in another directory.

First off, under preferences, you can set a naming scheme for exporting photos to CS3. In my case I set it to prefix "print" to the file name upon exporting to photoshop.

You can then do the edits in photoshop and then save the file.

Going back to lightroom in the Library view, right click the folder and select "create subfolder inside". Here you can create your normal working folders. If you do it this way, you will not have to do an import to see them.

Next, highlight your files you want to move (the psd you just saved) then right click the folder you just created and choose "Move selected photo to this folder"

The only thing a bit odd about this is if you select the parent directory you see the thumbnails for not only that directory, but any subdirectorys of it, such as the one you just created. It will look like your file hasn't moved, but if you select it and choose "show in Explorer" you will see it is in the new directory. If you just want to show the print directory, select that rather than the parent directory. You could probably get around this by making a parent directory above both the raws and the prints, such as:
MOAB/
MOAB/Raw
MOAB/Print

You would then just select the RAW directory to see only the RAWS, the print to see only the prints.


Robert
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Rob:

Makes sense, but sure sounds more complex than it needs to be. For me, just browsing directly the print folders in my basic file structure is easy enough as-is, and also easy to find them from inside third party programs like my RIP. I don't think I need my print files in LR since I'm not likely to use LR to make further adjustments on them anyway. Maybe nice to be able to browse them inside LR, but frankly has not been a big issue for me yet...

Cheers,
 

LJL

New member
This is a great thread, not the least of showing me I'm not alone in trying to get a handle on this stuff.

Does any one have an opinion on how well Aperture handles these image management issues compared to LR?

Thanks,

Mitchell
Mitchell,
Aperture allows something a bit different, but useful I think. I do not import the originals into Aperture. Instead, I create a folder/file structure similar to what Jack and other are describing. I keep that on an external FW portable drive while on the road. I then import things as "referenced" files into Aperture. That basically brings in a higher resolution image, if you choose, and all of the edits stay in the Aperture Library (like LR, I think), but the original RAW files are still in the folders I set up for them. This permits me to access those files easily with C1, Bridge/ACR, or other RAW developer options, should I so choose. I can store those converted/edited files in sub-folders, and selectively import files or referenced files into Aperture from those folders also.

When I get back to my office, I can copy the external drive files to my main system, and then re-establish the links to Aperture. I can also export the Aperture project folder to another Aperture Library if I want, so that I can access it with another machine, if I choose. That way, any of the edits (versions, IPTC info, etc.) will be saved and can be used. Also, since I kept the originals in their own folder structure, and kept subfolders from other app work (C1 or ACR), I can still access those files too.

In the end, my bias is thinking that Aperture may allow a bit more flexibility than LR for this stuff, but since I really do not use LR, I cannot say for sure. The one key that I think is important, at least for how I work, is to keep the original files in their own folder/file structure. That does not lock me into any app (Aperture or LR). With some of the new features in Aperture, I think one can even save IPTC edits directly to the RAW files now, making all of that effort more portable. Aperture seems to have a "cleaner" export option for masters and versions, if one needs that also.

Bottom line, both LR and Aperture are great programs, but they are a bit different for DAM, and overall file access flexibility, I think. The key for me is the ability to keep the originals in their own folder/file structure and work on referenced files in Aperture. As long as you are connected to those source folders, you can do everything and not balloon your file storage on your laptop, for example, as you will only be saving the small instruction sets in the library, plus smaller image files for viewing. If you are not connected to the original source files in Aperture, you can still do edits to IPTC data, create book layouts and other stuff, and then have all of that sync when you reconnect. That is a sweet option for being able to do some cataloging stuff without having to have all the files with you all the time.

Not sure if that helps answer you question or not.

LJ
 

Mitchell

New member
Thanks LJ. That is helpful.

I'm using LR. I've been very disorganized up til now, but at least I've had the sense to store originals in their own files. I am redoing my whole file structure. I'm also trying to figure out a backup routine.

I'm wondering about Aperture because some seem to like images out of it better, and I remember someone saying they thought Aperture file handling was better.

Best,

Mitchell
 

LJL

New member
Thanks LJ. That is helpful.

I'm using LR. I've been very disorganized up til now, but at least I've had the sense to store originals in their own files. I am redoing my whole file structure. I'm also trying to figure out a backup routine.

I'm wondering about Aperture because some seem to like images out of it better, and I remember someone saying they thought Aperture file handling was better.

Best,

Mitchell
Mitchell,
You are welcome. I think the best thing one can do is to have some sort of organization and file structure that makes sense for them OUTSIDE of any application or program, as those things can and will change at some point.

As for a back-up routine....I keep at least two copies of everything, and three of the RAW originals, one stored offsite for safe-keeping. That is a lot of storage need, but HD prices are low and that still seems to be the best way to keep things right now, as you can always roll things forward with format changes whenever they come along.

With respect to RAW conversion and edit features of Aperture versus other things.....there may be some differences that favor one over another, but most of it is personal taste, followed closely by how things fit into a workflow. I happen to like how Aperture handles reds and yellows for my shooting over ACR, for example. I did not like how Aperture handled my 1DsMkII files before, but think it does much better now. However, for the vast majority of my polo and equestrian event shooting, I use Bridge/ACR/PS in my workflow, simply because it has the tools I need readily available (Noise Ninja plug-in for handling those shots that were in borderline light conditions, but I have to have; or getting specific crops for routine printing, using masks and filters that Aperture and LR do not have, etc.). I do not love the results, but when I am shooting and processing several thousands of shots from a single day, I can develop a consistency that is important. The processing may not be stellar on each shot, but the overall consistency I have in that workflow for that volume is, and that is important for folks buying smaller prints throughout the season.

If your machine can run it, download the trial version of Aperture 2.0 and play with it for a bit. It has some highlight recovery and color channel adjustments that seem to offer a bit more flexibility than others. RAW conversion in all of the apps has gotten a lot better recently, so none are truly that bad, but there are lots of subtle differences. I like C1 for some things, but not all. I like Aperture for some features, but not others. I use ACR the most by volume, but am not thrilled with some color renderings. RAW developer does some really interesting things too. None is perfect for all things. I think the trick is finding the ones you can use comfortably and regularly for your preferred workflow, and then filling in the gaps with other tools as needed.

LJ
 

Mitchell

New member
LJ,

Thanks alot for your responses. I have already downloaded Aperture 2, but haven't had a chance to work with it much, but it looks promising to me.

I agree with all your backup methods and developing a routine to accomplish that is what I'm after. I'm getting there.

Best,

Mitchell
 

Maggie O

Active member
Aperture 2 is now on my machine and it looks good, but mother of god, will it EVER be done processing thumbnails and previews?!?!?!?

We're on day two of this now.
 

LJL

New member
Aperture 2 is now on my machine and it looks good, but mother of god, will it EVER be done processing thumbnails and previews?!?!?!?

We're on day two of this now.
Maggie,
You must be importing high res previews, I guess. Hoping not to get flamed here, but "All good things come to those that wait" :angel:

LJ
 
Top