Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 66 of 66

Thread: Using C1 with Lightroom

  1. #51
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Hi Jono,

    I shoot a lot of landscape and family stuff and don't keyword, and have no issues finding my stuff even from several years back.
    I'm interested - how on earth do you find it if you don't even remember that you've taken it?

    Sorry - that sounds sarcastic, I'm interested - and I think that the discussion is useful for others . For example - I took a picture on a beach in cornwall in 2004 of my mate Neil, who I see every year or so.

    it's keyworded 'pednevounder' (beach) 'cornwall' 'friends' 'Neil Brockbank' and filed in a folder:

    2004/06 June/Cornwall/D2x

    I need to find some shots of Neil as he want's stuff for the band website. I don't even remember the day on the beach, let alone that Neil was there or that I took a picture of him. But all I have to do is to bung 'Neil' in the search and it's found (together with a load of other shots I've forgotten).

    I'm sure you can do the same - but I'd love to know how?
    Your system sounds to me EXACTLY what I used until a couple of years ago - the idea of going back to it fills me with horror! But perhaps I'm missing something fundamental here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Here I disagree too. If you output a LR image to CS, as a tiff, or as a jpeg for web, your raw has been converted .
    Absolutely - and it shows as a different version - I'm not disputing it . . . BUT
    For web you send it to the relevant web page and delete it - as you would do for output to clients. The actual mods are held in a version, the output files themselves can then be deleted. In each case the versions used for the job can be held in a special 'project' or 'folder' within the DAM - but with no disk files associated with them - on the other hand the disk files can be re-created easily.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    That out of the way, I can pretty easily pull images from any session or non-sessioned folder together and if I need to reprocess, I just output them to a new output location.
    I can even create a new variant and save it with say a unique name for the project before outputting it, and thus always get to back to any specific conversion for that project.
    But then you end up with lots of versions of files - of course, you can always get back to them - but if it's a new project you'll need to see which one best suits your needs, which can be time consuming and certainly takes up lots of space

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    So in the end, I still don't need LR's specific DAM capabilities. And moreover, don't have to put up with what I view as a lesser conversion tool for my raw files.
    Well, quite agree about lightroom's RAW decoding . . . . so - back to my other question - what's wrong with Aperture?
    Last edited by jonoslack; 21st May 2009 at 01:00.

    Just this guy you know

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    It's called 'snapshots' in ACR. You can save as many versions of your processing as you choose and they are saved into the DNG file (or sidecar file) not into a database. I use it the whole time.
    Hi Ben
    again - see my note to Jack. I'm interested here. I didn't know about snapshots.
    See my description above with respect to pictures of poor old Neil. How would you pick a number of versions shot over the years and pull them together in once place (without creating a new folder with a whole new bunch of files)

    Just this guy you know

  3. #53
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Snapshots are within ACR. You save each version as a 'snapshot' of all the settings but it's all within the DNG or Sidecar file. You don't have multiple copies of the DNG (though you can do that as well using the 'save as DNG' feature in ACR). Basically you have the single file but when you open it in ACR you can view, edit and save all the snapshots you have made. The one that shows up in the preview is the one last viewed. Not sure how it works in LR.

    As for collections, you can of course keyword and do a search to locate all files with that keywording just as with LR. Grouping them together in a collection is a feature of database design and isn't relevant to a system where you are working with the files themselves. You can of course create a new folder, search 'cornwall' and then copy all the files into the new folder. I'm a wedding shooter, I don't need collections as a stock shooter might.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    Snapshots are within ACR. You save each version as a 'snapshot' of all the settings but it's all within the DNG or Sidecar file. You don't have multiple copies of the DNG (though you can do that as well using the 'save as DNG' feature in ACR). Basically you have the single file but when you open it in ACR you can view, edit and save all the snapshots you have made. The one that shows up in the preview is the one last viewed. Not sure how it works in LR.

    As for collections, you can of course keyword and do a search to locate all files with that keywording just as with LR. Grouping them together in a collection is a feature of database design and isn't relevant to a system where you are working with the files themselves. You can of course create a new folder, search 'cornwall' and then copy all the files into the new folder. I'm a wedding shooter, I don't need collections as a stock shooter might.

    Thanks Ben
    I understand about snapshots - clearly an analogy for 'versions' in LR and Aperture.

    Collections - I understand you don't need it - pretty much as I suggested in my original comments - if your work consists of discrete events then it isn't important, but it's one of those things which is fantastic when you get used to it.

    However - saying that it 'isn't relevant if you're working with the files themselves' is , I think, a matter of opinion. If you want to use a file multiple times in different contexts, then it's very relevant. Remember too that just because you have a database doesn't mean you aren't working with the files themselves.

    Just this guy you know

  5. #55
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    I meant 'not relevant' in that it would be impossible to implement outside of a database system. Not that it's not relevant to users.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  6. #56
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    I meant 'not relevant' in that it would be impossible to implement outside of a database system. Not that it's not relevant to users.
    Hi Ben
    Thanks for that.
    Perhaps these posts should have been in another thread entitled "To be Dammed or not to be Dammed" or something like that.
    I think that there are some important concepts around which aren't necessarily well understood - at least as far as they relate to different workflow and software. Mind you, maybe nobody cares either

    Just this guy you know

  7. #57
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I'm interested - how on earth do you find it if you don't even remember that you've taken it?
    SNIP
    it's keyworded 'pednevounder' (beach) 'cornwall' 'friends' 'Neil Brockbank' and filed in a folder: 2004/06 June/Cornwall/D2x
    Well first off, if you took it in 2004, it wasn't keyworded by LR then because LR wasn't even a product yet. You had to at some point go back, spend an enormous amount of time and energy to get ALL(?) of your images into LR's library and keyworded, no?

    In my case, I simply look in 2002, 03, 04, 05 and 05 for the "June Cornwall" folders and browse images for my buddy Neil. (And I guarantee you that took me less time than you spent keywording all those old files when you imported them into LR the first time!) When I find them, I edit them saving the variant as "Neil's Website" and output them all to a dedicated project folder. Note that the variant is not a separate file, just a sidecar set of adjustments like ACR's snapshot, though the new project folder contains processed files.

    Absolutely - and it shows as a different version - I'm not disputing it . . . BUT
    For web you send it to the relevant web page and delete it - as you would do for output to clients. The actual mods are held in a version, the output files themselves can then be deleted. In each case the versions used for the job can be held in a special 'project' or 'folder' within the DAM - but with no disk files associated with them - on the other hand the disk files can be re-created easily.
    and
    But then you end up with lots of versions of files - of course, you can always get back to them - but if it's a new project you'll need to see which one best suits your needs, which can be time consuming and certainly takes up lots of space
    I can do the same with C1 under variants, although I prefer to keep the actual processed versions in their dedicated project or subfolders. I repeat, for my uses, storage space is cheap, so I do not worry a bit about having to add hard drives to my array or even having differing versions of the same file in different project folders.

    Well, quite agree about lightroom's RAW decoding . . . . so - back to my other question - what's wrong with Aperture?
    I don't know, I've never tried it. Bottom line is C1 works so well, I don't look anywhere else -- EXCEPT I do continue to use ACR for files not supported by C1, like the G1's for example.

    Again, not saying my system is the best, only that it works for me and I do not care one iota about LR's DAM features -- especially because it is not universal, but also the time required getting the files all keyworded. I get all the keywording I need by proper naming of my session folders to begin with (). Moreover, I find a basic ability to search by metadata probably more valuable when in conjunction with the session and that is somewhat universal.

    Cheers,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Well first off, if you took it in 2004, it wasn't keyworded by LR then because LR wasn't even a product yet. You had to at some point go back, spend an enormous amount of time and energy to get ALL(?) of your images into LR's library and keyworded, no?
    HI there Jack - well, you could have keyworded in metadata before lightroom, but that's not the point.

    Yes - I went back and spent a lot of time and energy keywording old files (in Aperture). I used to do a month a session, which took about an hour (for around 1000 shots), so, I guess that means 12 hours a year (if you see what I mean). Not an enormous amount of energy, and of course, nowadays when 'importing' images into lighroom or aperture (wrong word as I always leave them in their original position) you can apply generalised keywords to the shoot, and then specifics if relevant.

    If you shoot any stock, or, indeed, if you want to produce a book of your sister's grandchildren for their Christmas present, then it's a huge and wonderful resource.

    Of course, keywords can be exported and saved in metadata, so if you change software then you don't have to repeat the procedure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post

    In my case, I simply look in 2002, 03, 04, 05 and 05 for the "June Cornwall" folders and browse images for my buddy Neil. (And I guarantee you that took me less time than you spent keywording all those old files when you imported them into LR the first time!)
    But you have to remember that such a file exists - it means that to be sure of finding them, you have to 'know' every file in your library. If you don't atually remember what pictures you have of Neil, then you're going to have to look through your entire library, folder by folder.

    But even if you do remember the file - what if there are 20 more you need, you'll have to remember all of those as well, and perform the same sort of search.

    I'll accept that finding one picture of Neil will be quicker than keywording all those pictures - but if you add in the time for finding pictures of Venice, Aunt Cynthia and Joey Bogdavitch's jewellery, then I'm going to start gaining on you!
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    When I find them, I edit them saving the variant as "Neil's Website" and output them all to a dedicated project folder. Note that the variant is not a separate file, just a sidecar set of adjustments like ACR's snapshot, though the new project folder contains processed files.


    and

    I can do the same with C1 under variants, although I prefer to keep the actual processed versions in their dedicated project or subfolders. I repeat, for my uses, storage space is cheap, so I do not worry a bit about having to add hard drives to my array or even having differing versions of the same file in different project folders.
    I think that the 'variants' concept is well covered by quite a lot of programs now, My point having got my 256 (already rated) pictures of Neil, I can simply drag them to a web album and output them complete to a folder to ftp to whatever website. . . . then delete the output files leaving the web album with Aperture, which takes up virtually no disk space (although I recognise that isn't so important).

    What's more, my Aperture library (and it's the same for LR) is on a small external hard drive which I can take with me, or take from one computer to another. All the files are referenced there with full screen thumbnails, so that if I'm away from home / office, I can still do a quick search and bring up a slide show or gallery - of course, Aperture and Lightroom are not alone in this ability - but there aren't other options which do everything.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    I don't know, I've never tried it. Bottom line is C1 works so well, I don't look anywhere else -- EXCEPT I do continue to use ACR for files not supported by C1, like the G1's for example.

    Again, not saying my system is the best, only that it works for me and I do not care one iota about LR's DAM features -- especially because it is not universal, but also the time required getting the files all keyworded. I get all the keywording I need by proper naming of my session folders to begin with (). Moreover, I find a basic ability to search by metadata probably more valuable when in conjunction with the session and that is somewhat universal.

    Cheers,
    Well, the proper naming of session folders is important to me as well - in fact, I use your method as far as that goes, but the keywording is universal if it's stored in the ITPC data.

    Whilst I'll agree that keywording is a pain, I can't agree that you can find pictures you've forgotten without it.

    'I do not care one iota about LR's DAM features' sounds awfully like 'I have absolutely no need for autofocus'!

    Whatever - Jack - I'm continuing this discussion because I think that it's relevant for people who haven't tried LR or Aperture to understand that there is a level that you can't go to with C1 or CS4 and ACR on their own.

    I'm not saying that my system is best either - and, with a nod back to the original title, I use C1 for some files not supported by Aperture (notably the D-lux4) - I output them as tiff files and import those into Aperture, it works fine, but it's an extra step and an extra file.

    Just this guy you know

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    I'm going to stick my nose in again--at risk of having it snapped off LOL--but I just remembered 2 things that might be of relevance to some--for LR and I'm guessing for Aperture (I happen to be one of those awful 'PC folks').

    I just had interest in seeing all the shots I've ever made with my Canon 85 f/1.8. My library is always available with all folders from 2000 shown--just as you two do them--year/month/date-event. I've organized them like that for quite some time--don't remember how long, but when I switched to that organization, I went back and set the earlier folders up like that (I had always organized by month/year so it was easy to reorganize). I used to use Imatch similarly to the LR library module.

    For a little background--when I initially imported my folders, I imported from the original sources (my HDs are set up by years--each one has a separate drive except for 2000 and 01 and I also choose to import and copy to these drives also) so my library reflects exactly (on the left) what my Bridge/tree directory looks like (IF I had all drives connected--or my one very large backup drive which is kept offsite). BUT--for one simple thing. When I don't have the other HDs connected (years prior to 2009--my current drive), then I have nothing shown in Bridge. However, full size thumbs for my entire library are always present and available to be searched. My library is backed up on another small drive so easy to carry with me as Jono says.

    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.

    I sort of ran the 2 points together--so---
    1) my entire organized library is always shown exactly as organized and is available to do many things with--collections, searches, etc.--whereas it is not using Bridge (or C1, DPP, etc.) because I have only my current 2009 drive connected (others may have their entire library/folders always connected though);
    2) there are other ways to search besides using keywords though they probably wouldn't help find Jono's friend Neil unless he remembered the year/month or perhaps the camera/lens without a longer search--but if it was important enough, I suspect I could find substantial number of files by some of the metadata info without keywords.

    Now, I'll back out of here and just watch from the side. I've used many many RCs from the beginning--and when I was shooting textiles I chose C1 for use with my Canons (reds in particular were an issue with other RCs). Now I choose LR primarily because of the library and printing modules--but also very much like the develop (RC) module in 2.3. It also allows me to process all my cameras--other RCs don't. I think this is such a personal decision that I wouldn't come down on any side--I've worked with several workflows over the past 9 years but right now LR suits me best with occasional forays to one or 2 of my other RCs--very occasionally--and easy roundtrips to PS if I need.

    So--back to the more knowledgable group here.

    Diane
    Last edited by Diane B; 21st May 2009 at 11:04. Reason: typo

  10. #60
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Nice post Diane and sure if the library solution is what works than it is always a good thing. LR and Aperture certainly have the advantage of there library system. I never use this type of system myself so for me and others like me that develop there own library setup these two programs mean very little to us, since we don't take advantage of that part of the software. From a purely RC point of view than things get different in regard. Now you touched on Canon Red. LOL man did you hit a sore spot with me on that one. Canon always stank it up with regard to RED and it's true color. Now things maybe different not sure but back in the day C1 was the only one that rendered RED in those files. In my experience with all the camera's that have hit my hands which is frankly way to many and all the RC out there my bottom line is I always had less tweaking to do with C1 and achieved much better results coming out of the can into C1 without a lot of work and rendered color and detail better and not too mention noise levels. LR was horrible at noise with many of the camera's now that may have changed in recent times but I am still a firm believer in learning one RC and REALLY learning it to maximize the file and your workflow. 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. Since software changes often it seems to learn one and know it well than on updates you can adapt much easier. But that is me and others see some advantage too using more than one. If i can't get what I need out of C1 than I will turn to PS to finish it but this really is rare when I am running production images. When I want to really work something than I will finish in PS. But for me I do things differently for certain types of work load and most folks don't have to deal with that. It does come down to personal choice and no true right or wrong RC but some are better than others in the quality of file and some are easier on the workload issue. 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
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  11. #61
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Diane B View Post
    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

  12. #62
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    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
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  13. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina western foothills
    Posts
    1,860
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    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')
    Last edited by Diane B; 21st May 2009 at 12:06.

  14. #64
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpetersonci View Post
    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.

    ,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  15. #65
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    You can of course search metadata using Bridge just the same as with keywords.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  16. #66
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Using C1 with Lightroom

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    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
    Last edited by jonoslack; 21st May 2009 at 14:53.

    Just this guy you know

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •