Lightroom seems too intrusive, suggestions?

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by dave_redmann, Dec 14, 2013.

  1. I have almost always used the raw conversion software that came with the cameras, but recently, wanting more advanced lens corrections and other enhanced tools and flexibilities, I decided to try Lightroom. Unfortunately, it seems difficult to work with, although that may be due to my ignorance, which I hope you can cure.
    First, I absolutely do not want Lightroom interjecting itself as an organizer of my images. I want to (1) open a (typically raw, but sometimes TIFF or JPEG) file for working on, by using a fairly normal Open-type dialog box; (2) when I'm done, I want to use a fairly normal Save As dialog box to choose a name, location, and file type for my edited work; and (3) close the file and have Lightroom forget it exists. However, Lightroom seems to insist that I add images to its catalog before I can work on them, and the export process is painfully cumbersome if I want to, e.g., create two or three different versions with differing names that mean something to me.
    Second, Lightroom appears to refuse to apply a lens profile to a TIFF. I ought to be able to apply any lens profile on my system to any file I want. But when, for example, I tried to apply the Sony DT 16-50mm f/2.8 SSM lens profile (which applies just fine to the raw files) to a TIFF I created in Sony's Image Data Converter, the profile is not available.
    With so many of you seemingly so happy with Lightroom, I figure it must be me. But so far, I've found it an officious nuisance. Please tell me why I'm wrong / how to make it behave. Thanks!
     
  2. I do find a few of Lightroom's characteristics a bit annoying. Overall I'm satisfied enough to keep using it for my photo editing needs, which are pretty minimal. It helps give my photos a consistent appearance even when I switch between five different digicams among three different brands. The white balance, noise reduction, basic color/tone adjustments, etc., all suit my needs. And it interfaces well enough with the external editors I occasionally use. Overall it's a very good value.
    But for organizing I'm still ambivalent about it even after a year.
    For organizing chores, Lightroom feels painfully slow and cumbersome compared with Picasa. Picasa is much quicker and more efficient for sorting through photos, finding misplaced photos, and deleting unwanted photos. Occasionally when I'm frustrated with Lightroom's interface I'll use Picasa and deal with the mess later - Lightroom doesn't play nice with attempts to circumvent its interface for deleting photos, so it leaves the dreaded "?" boxes.
    Lightroom's video viewer is also too sluggish to be useful. Again, Picasa is much more efficient for quickly reviewing my video clips, including the short videos created by the Nikon V1 motion capture mode (which is occasionally useful for stringing together a sequence of short slo-mo clips).
    Most aggravating of all, Lightroom's tagging is inconsistent compared with everything else I've tried. If I tag photos in Picasa, Windows Explorer, Irfanview, etc., each recognizes the other - it's standardized. But not only does Lightroom not consistently recognize tags/keywords applied by other standard Windows tools, the tags/keywords I apply in Lightroom often aren't recognized outside of Lightroom.
    That tag/keyword inconsistency is enough to make me hesitant to fully commit to Lightroom as a photo organizer, even after a year with LR4. And I'm still on the fence about upgrading to LR5, even though the clone/heal brush editing tool is much better.
    Adobe seems to expect users to adapt to the Lightroom way of doing things, and even after a year the fit still isn't entirely comfortable for me. Overall it has the feel of a product that tries to impose its own sort of operating system rather than fully integrating itself into the Windows way of doing things. Granted, Windows isn't perfect and has its own quirks. But at least when I switch between various other Windows based photo editing tools, they all respect and cooperate with Windows file handling, for better or worse. Lightroom just feels odd, non-intuitive and cumbersome, like switching between two entirely different operating systems on the same computer.
     
  3. It's simply the wrong product for your demands. Try something else...
     
  4. "It's simply the wrong product for your demands. Try something else..."​
    I'd be tempted, but it's just too damned good as a basic photo editor. I really do appreciate the consistency it gives me between my Nikon, Olympus and Ricoh digicams.
    But for the first time since the 1980s working with CompuGraphic typsetters and Xerox's publishing system, I feel like I need a meatspace workshop or other tutorial to fully grasp Lightroom's organizing system. I've watched a few video tutorials by various instructors, but some of it still doesn't feel intuitive to me.
     
  5. Here Lightroom is showing its ancestry and "running home to mama" -
    You want a pure, non-mischling image editor.
    Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, either with Adobe Camera RAW
    or try GIMP, it's free and has a steep learning curve (for me anyhow), but did I mention that it is free?
     
  6. Tried 'em. I prefer the workflow of tools like Lightroom and Picasa. I don't have much need for a pixel level editor. Usually I'm working on several images from the same session and find it easier to maintain consistency when using tools like Lightroom and Picasa.
    My only serious gripe is the organizing, particularly the inconsistencies between Lightroom and every other Windows photo editing/file organizing tool treats tagging and keywords. And there may be some obvious step I'm overlooking to resolve that problem, but after a year I haven't found the trick.
     
  7. à chacun son goût
    just responding to the OP's desire to avoid LR

    I go back to Photoshop 2.5 so I have a hard time imagining anyone preferring anything else.
     
  8. I experienced the same frustrations with LR! I have been using PS and Bridge for organizing since it came out, so I have all my files sorted in folders just how I like them. I signed up for the PS CC $10/month and I find the new ACR tools really great. Much better noise control than my CS4 version. I ended up deleting LR altogether, since I don't need it for raw conversion or file handling. Unlike Lex, I do a lot of pixel level editing, and I find the global controls for shadows, highlights, color balance, etc. to be superlative as well. DXO optics pro seems to be pretty popular too.
     
  9. The OP has brought up so many issues from being sluggish and cumbersome to not being able to use it in
    a way that was not intended in the design of the program. Really, I think he'd be happier using something else.

    For myself, I cannot imagine using anything else. It's a delight every time I use it...
     
  10. LR is an amazing product but it is not the tool for you. It would be best for you that you use another tool.
     
  11. My son uses LR so I have tried all the versions up to LR4. I had exactly the same feelings about it as the OP. I'm a Nikon guy so I use CNX2 and PSE.
     
  12. Unfortunately there's no way to use Lightroom by avoiding its workflow, that consists in importing and organizing photos
    inside its catalog.

    Anyway, Lightroom uses the Camera Raw engine to develop/edit RAW files (and also TIFF and JPEG ones). If you open
    the same RAW file in Photoshop, the Camera Raw plugin will show up automatically with the very same
    developing/editing tools you find in Lightroom, and you'll be able to work with the usual open/edit/save workflow. Remember that while
    with RAW files Camera Raw opens automatically, with TIFF and JPEG you must explicitly choose it in the "open file"
    dialog box of Photoshop.

    Camera Raw is not Photoshop, it's the RAW processing engine that runs before the developed image is passed to it.
    Then you can choose to do also a pixel by pixel editing or just save the Camera Raw developed/edited photo.
     
  13. Unlike Elements which I have in addition to LR3, LR cannot open an image file for editing without first making it part of its organizer. With Elements, you right click on the file and open in Elements and edit away. However, I like the flow and ease of editing of LR so I'm stuck too with making images part of their Organizer before I can edit it.
    But you can name saves to whatever you want so I don't know why that's a problem. Also, you can create as many virtual copies each edited differntly with no need for a final JPG's or TIFs unless you want them. You can even make a virtual in the middle of an edit and have two copies to edit differently afterwards. And name them all differently.
     
  14. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Picasa is much quicker and more efficient for sorting through photos, finding misplaced photos, and deleting unwanted photos​

    I suspect there are features you aren't using. I find it blazingly fast for sorting and deleting. I don't misplace photos, so I'm not sure what the options are.
     
  15. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    It's simply the wrong product for your demands. Try something else...​

    Good advice, just find something else, although it does sound like you are unfamiliar with a lot of its features. However, putting things into a LR catalog or collection changes nothing. It's just a way of accessing images.
     
  16. "First, I absolutely do not want Lightroom interjecting itself as an organizer of my images. I want to (1) open a (typically
    raw, but sometimes TIFF or JPEG) file for working on, by using a fairly normal Open-type dialog box; (2) when I'm done, I
    want to use a fairly normal Save As dialog box to choose a name, location, and file type for my edited work; and (3) close
    the file and have Lightroom forget it."

    Organizing your images in a searchable database is a prime function of Lightroom. I suggest you use Adobe Camera
    Raw + Bridge instead.

    The export process can be automated . Just creat a user preset.

    As to your lens profile issue , Sony is embedding their lens profile correction info into the in-camera produced TIFF and
    JPEG documents. For Lightroom to come back and apply a second profile would probably do more harm than good.
    Shoot raw instead.
     
  17. Try Making export presets with the settings that you need for your typical photo uses. You may not be able to export them to the folder where your file came from with out opening the export file dialogue box, but if you don't mind dropping them into a folder and then moving them later you can export with just a right click and chose the preset you want or use the keyboard shortcut to export with the previous file. I'm not sure but check your exif info on your tiff files to see if lens information is still included. It may be stripped out when converting to tiff. Lightroom will import your files without actually moving them on your hard drive. It just records the location for future reference. As far as differing names on exported files you can do it through the export dialogue box but its a bit cumbersome and easier with Windows Explorer. Check out the Lightroom Facebook page and YouTube has many tutorials that are very helpful. Lightroom's file system works well for me as it organizes by date taken. When I need to find an older photo I can narrow down the location pretty quickly by knowing when the photo or one from the same shoot was taken. Its not perfect but it works. Also your keywords that are applied in Lightroom are searchable in Windows explorer.
     
  18. Wow, seems like I hit some nerves. Thanks all! Now to elaborate:
    Re: 'Try something else.' What? I've always heard that Lightroom actually has the most powerful raw conversion processing of the Adobe products, even having a couple of features that the version of ACR that comes with Photoshop CS does not (and whose cost I could not justify anyway); and that the version of ACR that comes with Elements does not have all the tools, like curves. The Adobe products have much more sophisticated lens correction that, e.g., GIMP (which I use), and a much wider range of lens profiles and other plug-in tools than anything else.
    As to Sony and the TIFF issue: on some cameras (not my A580) with some lenses Sony applies lens corrections to the JPEG's. What I want to do is (1) use Image Data Converter to create a 16-bit TIFF, because for the time being at least I can get better results, especially with tools like its Dynamic Range Expansion; and then (2) use Lightroom to apply (a) lens corrections, (b) perspective control, and (c) probably noise reduction to the 16-bit TIFF.
    00cEip-544189784.jpg
     
  19. >>> Re: 'Try something else.' What? I've always heard that Lightroom actually has the most powerful
    raw conversion processing of the Adobe products, even having a couple of features that the version of
    ACR that comes with Photoshop CS does not (and whose cost I could not justify anyway);

    Yes, try something else. Among other things such as how profiling does not work the way you want it to, according to
    your original post you find Lightroom sluggish, painfully cumbersome, and *absolutely do not want*
    Lightroom imposing any organization.

    Why keep on trying to use a product that does not meet your needs? That makes no sense...

    >>> Wow, seems like I hit some nerves.

    No. Makes no difference to me. Just wondering why you insist on using a product you've put through its
    paces, are not happy with, and in the end does not meet your requirements.
     
  20. CaptureOne Pro, 60 day trial, you won't go back if you learn to use it.
     
  21. There's nothing so special about Capture One Pro 7 that it's "try once, use forever" - and in image quality terms, Lr still has the upper hand over Capture One in several important areas, like highlight recovery and noise reduction. And if you use the Lightroom price-compatible version of Capture One ("Express"), you're forced to import into a catalogue, just like you are with Lr.
    (Yes, I use Capture One - and Lightroom 5, and Photo Ninja, and DxO Optics Pro 9).
    Photo Ninja and DxO Optics Pro are catalogue-free - the former sounding closest to Dave's requirements, workflow-wise - but my best advice to Dave is just get used to Lr: I'd prefer it without a catalogue too, but I don't let it bother me - I import, I process. The fact that Lr has a record of what I've imported is something I simply didn't think about - but with that said, I've come round to its benefits.
    Simply put, it's too good a converter not to use.
     
  22. Lightroom is not intended primarily as a simple 'raw convert then save as tif/jpg' program, though it contains those functions.
    Also, the raw conversion of LR has always been the same--or practically the same-- as the contemporaneous version of ACR.
     
  23. Also, the raw conversion of LR has always been the same--or practically the same-- as the contemporaneous version of ACR.​
    Very true - but Lr's a lot cheaper to keep current with.
     
  24. Brad is right. He wants something else. As some have mentioned photoshop or elements or one of other such programs.
     
  25. Depending on budget, given the way of working described in the OP, I'd go to either Photoshop Elements, PaintShop Pro or Photoshop - they do "open file, work, save file".
    While like most people so far, I do appreciate having a catalog (and for this reason with some other, switched to CaptureOne 7 Express some time ago), I do find that more often than not I am still working per folder (import), and that the catalog-features are more for a later date to add organisation. CaptureOne at least still gives me a normal view of my file system hierarchy, and that allows me very much to work the way the OP describes. In the background, things also move into a catalog, but that's hardly invasive.
    As for the image quality, maybe Lightroom is better, but for all I've seen most certainly not leaps and bounds better than CaptureOne - in fact, I think for the cameras I use, it's mostly a matter of preference. Every time I use Lightroom, I am slightly turned off by the lack of speed, plus the split in the 4 areas (esp. library versus development). The UI of CaptureOne to me is far more direct and faster. But, this is largely a personal preference, for sure.
    In the end, it's hard to decide for any of us what works for you - preferences for a User Interface, workflow etc. can be highly personal. I'd download some trial versions and try for yourself.
     
  26. "Try something else" really means you know what you want in addition to what it is you don't want. I moved from Lr 3.6 to ACDSee Pro 7 about 7 months ago. I wanted to get away from what I considered an intrusive database centric organizer WITHOUT losing excellent photo management capabilities or losing excellent raw conversion. I think I found it in ACDSee Pro 7.

    I have also tried CaptureOne , DXO Optics Pro, and Corel Aftershot Pro. Each of them had some nice features, but none of them really met my needs and expectations the way ACDSee Pro does. Below, is my recollection of my impression of the other products. Subsequent versions haven't been examined so things might have changed and my impressions and recollections could be just plain wrong.

    CaptureOne and ASP both try to span the space between a photo browser based organizer and a database oriented by creating a smaller database in each folder in which you store photos. So, folder level operations are quite good and sophisticated. Both seem to allow you to simulate the management freedom of a browser based system by being able to move records between folder level databases reasonably quickly and fix database orphaned photos relatively quickly. I thought the simpler flat file database of ACDSee was faster, and the simpler to deal with, and the "behind the scenes" database manipulation that was hidden from the user was a potential problem. It might be the problem in practice that the database administrator in me fears, but I do see the potential for failure in this area. I particularly liked CO's raw conversion, and ASP's noise control, but I disliked the user interface of either.

    DXO Optics Pro uses a different model from an earlier era. I thought the raw conversion was very good, but It has no organizational capabilities at all. Instead, it allows you to open a folder, view a thumbnail image of a photos and select it for raw conversion. DXO's goal is to create the best raw conversion it can so you can then pass it back to the organizer or editor of your choice. It is NOT a workflow tool, just a very good raw conversion tool. The user interface is better than CO or ASP, but then it does less and can afford to be simpler and "cleaner". The tools it has are quite innovative and easy to use, but I didn't see any significance between it and ACDSee Pro.

    My goal isn't to promote any one piece of software, but to promote the idea that making sure you know what you want and that you have tried to match what the software can do with what it is you want. (Not everyone does that, it seems)
     
  27. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Try Photoshop which will allow you to have Bridge + ACR. Check out a vid on Adobe Bridge at Adobe Tv
     
  28. Haven't tried it but just curious how long it takes for LR to catalog/import? in OS X an entire Picture folder having over 3000 images within named subfolders some having jpegs but most Raws.
    Since I haven't found a good explanation to the benefits or reasons of LR's cataloging system over how Bridge generates thumbnails on an as needed basis just clicking on each image subfolder within Picture folder and double clicking to have it open immediately in ACR, I've given LR its own folder (within Picture folder) of images.
    The whole process of just wanting to view and then select specific images to work on quickly seems to require importing but not quite sure if that's the same as opening or whatever is going on when I want to get to and edit images and don't want to wait for an entire folder of image thumbnails to appear or require an importing command with a nest of preference options to get through.
     
  29. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Haven't tried it but just curious how long it takes for LR to catalog/import? in OS X an entire Picture folder having over 3000 images within named subfolders some having jpegs but most Raws.​

    Depends on speed of the computer and speed of the disk.
     
  30. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Also, speed of import isn't necessarily important, you can begin working on photos as soon as they are imported, i.e., you don't have to wait for them all to be imported.
     
  31. Thanks for the feedback, Jeff.
    Mainly trying to get a handle on how LR caches thumbnails in Library mode.
    LR's simple save command in Develop mode is real handy and takes getting used to the quick convenience compared to ACR's requiring "Export Settings To XMP" which doesn't have a keyboard command. LR just doesn't give any indication the same function is happening just hitting (Command-S). The XMP symbol will show up much like in Bridge except you have to switch back to Library mode to see it.
    Is it wise to just import the entire Picture folder (160 folders) into Library mode or will it choke the computer? I'm on a 2010 MacMini with 8GB of Ram. I want a way to back out if it does make LR UI come to a crawl.
     
  32. I've always heard that Lightroom actually has the most powerful raw conversion processing of the Adobe products, even having a couple of features that the version of ACR that comes with Photoshop CS does not...​
    Not really. In terms of the raw processing engine, if the two are on version parity, they are identical. You can move from LR to ACR and back, render from either etc. There are some small differences (for example, more sample points in ACR). If you don't like the DAM portion of LR and want it's raw processing functionality, use Photoshop which has ACR. Going to cost you more, going to provide a pretty powerful pixel editor too (Photoshop <g>).
     
  33. Incidentally, since my whining about the keyword/tagging inconsistency
    between LR, Windows Explorer, Picasa, etc., I finally found an article
    that clarified the problem. I'd mistakenly assumed all could read the
    same sidecar data, but 't'ain't so. I'm willing to revise my expectations
    and workflow to suit Lightroom. But I sure wish there was a better way to
    use Windows Explorer to search raw files that I'd keyworded in Lightroom.

    I'm going to add some RAM, faster HD, and a video card to my desktop PC,
    and hope that'll boost the speed of sorting through files and handling
    video through Lightroom. Overall I like LR and reeeaaally don't want to
    go back to Nikon software.
     
  34. I pretty much agree with what Brad offered below.
    "No. Makes no difference to me. Just wondering why you insist on using a product you've put through its paces, are not happy with, and in the end does not meet your requirements."

    All I would add to that is since I like LR I want to see enough satisfied users to ensure that it isn't canceled due to lack of interest. As for the odd peron that doesn't like it, move on, that doesn't bother my nerves at all. All of the so called organization of your images that LR does is for LR's use internally to make it easier for the user to navigate his library. LR has no effect on your image organization outside of the app.
     
  35. I'd mistakenly assumed all could read the same sidecar data, but 't'ain't so.​
    Plus there's lots of proprietary stuff only the host raw converter that wrote the metadata understands. Keywords should be pretty cross app savvy. You may want to look at DNG for embedding all this stuff. On Mac OS X, I can access from the finder a good deal of embedded metadata. I can open the DNG in Apple's free Preview and see my keywords for example.
     
  36. I can open the DNG in Apple's free Preview and see my keywords for example.​
    Can you use Apple's Finder Search (Command-F) on the desktop to find an image using keywords? Or is this specific to how all this metadata is written in the DNG format that Macs seem able to read. If all this attempt to manage image databases through keywording metadata entries is hobbled by proprietary encoding, what's the point of being so fastidious.
    Heck I can't even do keyword/tagged image searches in a PN and Google Image search and I certainly can't do the same on my own Mac hard drive. It's why I gave up keywording in Bridge and I'm not going to bother with it in LR either.
    To heck with standards if everyone's going to do their own thing.
     
  37. Can you use Apple's Finder Search (Command-F) on the desktop to find an image using keywords?​
    Nope, at least I haven’t figured that out even though there IS a token for Keyword in the search. It does find the keywords in rendered images but not DNG. Yet Preview does show the keyword within the Inspector from a DNG. More Apple inconsistencies among app's. So the Keyword is accessible outside LR.
     
  38. "You may want to look at DNG for embedding all this stuff."​
    Hey, that worked. Thanks. Windows Explorer can find keywords in Lightroom-created DNGs.
    That does lend some value to the process of archiving original camera raw files, while using LR to create DNGs for the keepers.
    One reason I hesitate to do that is because photo viewers outside LR don't automagically pull up the edited JPG embedded in the LR-created DNG. Instead I'm seeing the camera's default JPG. But there may be some solution I'm overlooking. I'd like to see the embedded edited JPEG when I view the DNG in Windows Explorer or other non-Adobe viewers/browsers.
    If I only used Lightroom for every photo oriented task it might be easier. But routine web tasks make that impractical. For example, if I want to upload a photo to photo.net, Flickr, email, etc., Windows Explorer handles that by default. No problem if I only want to see the JPEGs. But occasionally I want to see the raw file associated with the JPEG. Windows Explorer doesn't recognize the keywords I've associated with the raw files in LR, or with my Nikon NEFs in Nikon's own software (which is still too cumbersome for my taste, although I keep it handy for viewing some specific data such as AF sensor markers, flash and image mode settings).
     
  39. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    That does lend some value to the process of archiving original camera raw files, while using LR to create DNGs for the keepers.​

    But it's still not enough to sell me on converting my native camera raws to another non-standard proprietary format
     
  40. One reason I hesitate to do that is because photo viewers outside LR don't automagically pull up the edited JPG embedded in the LR-created DNG. Instead I'm seeing the camera's default JPG. But there may be some solution I'm overlooking. I'd like to see the embedded edited JPEG when I view the DNG in Windows Explorer or other non-Adobe viewers/browsers.​
    Have you looked into the DNG conversion dialog box where it gives options to embed full rez thumbnails? Not sure if LR gives the same dialog box as ACR's save to DNG. Not sure if that would override the default incamera jpeg either, just throwing it out there.
    It's odd the way OS's deal with reading and generating thumbnails for files that have been altered by third party image editing apps. I get the same weird thumbnail previews in OS X saving out of Photoshop to tiff or jpeg but it might be that they're not color managed. They're too small to tell.
    All this stuff sounds more and more complicated the more we talk about these workflow gotchas between apps and OS's.
     
  41. FWIW, this article about metadata handling on dpbestflow.org helped answer some of my questions, more efficiently than anything else I'd read recently. Gives me a better handle on how I need to approach metadata more effectively without going daffy with frustration.
     
  42. But it's still not enough to sell me on converting my native camera raws to another non-standard proprietary format.​
    DNG is not a non standard proprietary format! It's fully documented, has a free SDK for anyone who wishes to read or write that format cost free. It's fully standard in LR and other Adobe products and more. It's based on TIFF, another open, non proprietary file format. Nothing proprietary about it, unlike the native camera files (NEF, CR2) that are proprietary until someone takes time and effort to hack the few new tiny proprietary metdata tages that serve no purpose being proprietary in the first place! Proprietary for a few months while frustrating anyone hoping to access their raw data in their converter of their choice while Adobe and everyone else waste time & money making those few proprietary tags understood (and thus not proprietary).
     
  43. Have you looked into the DNG conversion dialog box where it gives options to embed full rez thumbnails? Not sure if LR gives the same dialog box as ACR's save to DNG.​
    The question becomes, what do you want to do with the thumbnail, where was it generated? Raw files have to provide some preview as it's raw unrendered data. The initial preview is from the camera, based on the camera's ability to create a JPEG. It's useful so you can see something on the back of the camera or later, on your computer such you see you are viewing an image of a car, not the side of a barn. Unless you intend to use the manufacturer's raw converter, what you see here may not have any actual basis on the color and tone you can and want to create in your raw converter.

    As soon as you bring the raw into LR or most other raw converters, that JPEG from the camera is tossed away, it's useless and the converter builds it's representation of the raw data. So at least at this point, color and tone is based on the initial rendering instructions of the converter although that may be a far cry from what the photographer will end up by rendering the image as they prefer.

    As for DNG, well where it's useful is one can embed a rendered representation into it. And it's not a tiny JPEG preview, depending on the preferences, you can end up with a decent sized rendered version within the DNG. Make a big print if you have to. Overkill for viewing thumbs, great if for some reason, you've done a lot of work in LR/ACR, you've saved the rendered JPEG and you need to suck it out.
    Pertty sure OS X is color managing the thumbs, they look correct to me but again, where did the thumbs come from? On Windows, if that part of the OS doesn't understand color management, the thumbs will be off. But you can still see the image is a car, not the side of a barn.
     
  44. Andrew, you glazed over the main point both Lex and myself were concerned over regarding seeing consistent thumbnail representation of edits applied to the DNG file to show both in ACR/LR/Bridge AND the OS desktop.
    How do you address Lex's point quoted here?...
    One reason I hesitate to do that is because photo viewers outside LR don't automagically pull up the edited JPG embedded in the LR-created DNG.​
    I'm assuming Lex is referring to jpeg representing the edits applied in LR. Can converting to DNG and editing it override the incamera jpeg from showing up in the OS UI?
     
  45. Andrew, you glazed over the main point both Lex and myself were concerned over regarding seeing consistent thumbnail representation of edits applied to the DNG file to show both in ACR/LR/Bridge AND the OS desktop.​
    ACR, Bridge, no problem, use the Update DNG preview command. Finder doesn't seem to be so smart, at least under 10.9. I need to ask Adobe if this command should update a Finder icon (as Photoshop can do). Doesn't seem to.
    I'm assuming Lex is referring to jpeg representing the edits applied in LR. Can converting to DNG and editing it override the incamera jpeg from showing up in the OS UI?​
    It always does I believe. That is, you can actually see as you import the images into LR, once they appear, you see them show up, then they change their color and tone appearance. LR is 'removing' the camera JPEG and creating it's own, based on whatever settings are applied within Import. (outside the Finder). It sure would be nice if the update affected the finder thumbnails. Maybe there's a way to force this.
     
  46. Tim, got it (but it's WEIRD)!
    I CAN see the updated edited thumbnails in the Finder but only if I use Cover Flow. Command I, other Finder views don't update unless I move to Cover Flow and (?) back. There can also be a delay with the Finder updating the new preview. Give it a few seconds and it should update in Cover Flow.
    Seems like a bug that other previews outside of Cover Flow don't update. I was certain that I did see an update after awhile. IOW, I had to go to Cover Flow, then to another 'icon view' and there was an update. But it seems a bit inconsistent.
     
  47. http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php?topic=4935.5;wap2
    Guess it's been a 'bug' for awhile. So, Cover Flow seems to be the answer.
     
  48. Thanks, Andrew. This thumbnail preview inconsistency within Mac OS X may not just be relegated to DNG's. I don't use DNG's so I don't have any to test.
    However, I opened a folder of some color managed sRGB images I upload to the web and Get Info (Command-I) shows the CM preview but Cover Flow in OS 10.6.8 shows a compressed low rez version that doesn't have the same tonality and color but can't recognize what space it's rendering from. See the screengrab below.
    00cF9q-544264484.jpg
     
  49. The DNG's update and show the edits with Cover Flow, that's the good news.
    I did examine some JPEGs with embedded profiles and even an image in Lab and the Finder preview (Command I) and the images themselves in Photoshop appear to match, best I can tell.
    Pretty sure lots have changed in video path's and such since 10.6.8, not necessarily for the better.
     
  50. The OP has brought up so many issues from being sluggish and cumbersome to not being able to use it in a way that was not intended in the design of the program. Really, I think he'd be happier using something else.
    For myself, I cannot imagine using anything else. It's a delight every time I use it...​
    +1 for everything that Brad said above.
    Lightroom has its own way or working, and it's not Open, Tweak, Save. If you want to Open, Tweak, Save, try Photoshop Elements.
    There's a reason why LR forces you to import files into a catalog. Processing in LR is non-destructive. It never writes changes to your original file. Why is this useful? So you can review and redo (or cancel) changes. So you can process multiple versions of a file and compare them, or process different versions for different uses (print, web, blog, etc.).
    You can set up presets with your importing and exporting preferences, and you can save an unlimited amount of presets. So, if you want to remember how you exported a file for your website last March, you can go back to the preset that you saved. Don't try that with Open, Tweak, Save programs.
    I can understand if LR isn't right for you. But once you get used to the fact that you need to import images into catalogs before processing, LR offers an amazingly powerful toolkit for processing and organizing image files. You could even create a catalog called Quick Tweaks if you want to. Put everything into one catalog, or have a different catalog for every project, or anything in between.
    I would HATE to go back to any other workflow, and I use PS only when absolutely necessary.
     
  51. Lightroom 4 forward I have taken too. I gave Lightroom 3 a go while still using ViewNX/NX2 and other third party archiving tools to manage the mass of data from my shutter happy hands. I was never satisfied with the management of my workflow.
    Lightroom 4 was a breath of fresh air. You can adjust/edit images in RAW without compromising the original file. If it needs more work you export the basics (RAW+Lens adjustments+colour & tonal balances) in your preferred format. No more duplication of RAW images (as was with View NX/NX2)
    I recently took time to weed out all the duplication and buckshee JPG's etc. from my master archive (having backed the whole thing up to an external HDD). I've managed to create a lot of disc space on my working Data drive. The Sync functions in the Library mode sorted out all the gaps and a few additions.
    Editing images, easy to follow controls. Degree of adjustment with each is good.
    Exporting, this is where lightroom still annoys me a little. it would be great if you could generate multiple instances of the same file at different sizes/resolutions. A batch export function would also be great, leave the software to churn out the final output while you go do something else. (I've not explored the Export presets or as Catalog functions yet but these may offer a solution)
    Reading your original post Dave, it strikes me that like myself you have a way of working you are happy with. For a long while Lightroom sat beside Viewnx2 when it came to editing/processing. Then I gave up to the complete workflow solution Lightroom offers. It's taken some learning and I have much still to get to grips with withing LR but overall it's been worth it. Sometimes you just have to give in and make the change. My folder structure is much the same as when using the old method. I've found no major issues in exporting individual files, if anything it has made me more deliberate in what I do.

    So as a result of LR I have less software on my machine, Less Data and it's made me focus more on what I'm doing.

    Oh and it's a great archiving tool with the ratings and Keyword functions, though using it on an established archive means it has major gaps and will take (a long) time to populate. As above I cannot see me going to any other solution so it's become a long term project which will yield results as I continually stumble across images that I forgot I had.
     
  52. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    DNG is not a non standard proprietary format!​

    Removing your double negative, you've said dng is a standard proprietary format.
    It's fully documented, has a free SDK for anyone who wishes to read or write that format cost free. It's fullystandard in LR and other Adobe products and more. It's based on TIFF, another open, non proprietary file format. Nothing proprietary about it...​

    Blah blah, to most of us lay-people, dng is just another non-standard proprietary raw format by another corporation wanting their fingers in our data. Great intentions with dng, but it didn't work and wasn't adopted. In 20 years, this will all be in the review-mirror as a "remember that software company Adobe and all the money we used to spend to alter our files? I wish I could open my dng's..."
     
  53. Blah blah, to most of us lay-people, dng is just another non-standard proprietary raw format by another corporation wanting their fingers in our data.​
    You (lay-people) need to understand what proprietary means! There is nothing proprietary in the DNG format. Nothing. It is fully documented. DNG like TIFF are not proprietary, have fully open specifications, cost nothing for any company to use. But I've told you this over and over again, you prefer to hear Blah blah, despite actual facts! Blah, blah in your head are facts you wish to ignore, and that's absurd. The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument.
    Definition of PROPRIETARY

    1 : one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something; specifically : proprietor 1 2 : something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker; specifically : a drug (as a patent medicine) that is protected by secrecy,patent, or copyright against free competition as to name, product, composition, or process of manufacture.​
    Now in your mind Eric, Merriam-Webster's definition is probably wrong. Figures. Another reference to aid you in your use (or lack of) the term proprietary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
    Proprietary software or closed source software is computer software licensed under exclusive legal right of the copyright holder with the intent that the licensee is given the right to use the software only under certain conditions, and restricted from other uses, such as modification, sharing, studying, redistribution, or reverse engineering.[1][2] Usually the source code of proprietary software is not made available.​
    You want the DNG source code (SDK)? It's available and for free!
     
  54. Com'on, Eric, do you have any evidence that Adobe is not going to be around at any point? Don't misunderstand, I'm not going to argue whether or not using dng is a good or abad idea, that's a personal choice, IMO. But, unless you can say that it will definitely be a dead format, and/or that Adobe will be likewise, your comments are just a rant. Besides, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that we will be giving money, in some manner, to some software company to better edit our images. I don't know what difference it makes if that company is Adobe, or another company. Or, are you saying that corporations are inherently evil, and we should not be giving them any money for any reason?
    OTOH, time marches on, and so does technology. You might wish that all of your old software would work on a modern computer, but it won't. Kodak is all but a dead issue, so is everyone that ever spent a dime on Kodak products a fool for having done so?
    Not everyone has your attitude WRT Adobe, some of us a perfectly happy.
     
  55. Com'on, Eric, do you have any evidence that Adobe is not going to be around at any point?​
    He doesn't, he can't but that will not stop him from making absurd remarks. Doesn't matter any more to DNG or TIFF if Adobe ceases to exist. Both are openly documented formats anyone can use. A meteor could strike San Jose tomorrow and hundreds of product if not more could open a TIFF while fewer products could open a DNG. That's primarily because TIFF's been around a heck of a lot longer, any image editor worth it's salt can open a TIFF, TIFF is a rendered format where DNG is mostly raw data for the fewer raw converters out there. And if people who don't know what they are talking about stopped making false statements about DNG, it might be better adopted by end users.
    But, unless you can say that it will definitely be a dead format, and/or that Adobe will be likewise, your comments are just a rant.
    Not everyone has your attitude WRT Adobe, some of us a perfectly happy.​
    You nailed it, yet another DNG rant! Eric has decided that DNG isn't for him, that's great. Why he continues to bad mouth it and with incorrect statements about the format is ranting. Why I keep pointing out his silly POV is simply so others who may be on the fence about DNG at least get intelligent and fact based data points. With Eric, (and you can find all his posts on the subject here), one gets the idea is parents were killed by a DNG file or something.
     
  56. I've tried to educate Eric on the term proprietary, let's see the difference in an open format like DNG.

    DNG:From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    The launch was accompanied by the first version of the DNG specification,[2] plus various products, including a free-of-charge DNG converter utility. All Adobe photo manipulation software (such as Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Lightroom) released since the launch supports DNG.[3]
    DNG is based on the TIFF/EP standard format, and mandates significant use of metadata. Exploitation of the file format is royalty-free; Adobe has published a license allowing anyone to exploit DNG,[4] and has also stated that there are no known intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements for DNG.[5] Adobe stated that if there was a consensus that DNG should be controlled by a standards body, they were open to the idea.[6] Adobe has submitted DNG to ISO for incorporation into their revision of TIFF/EP.[7]


    4:
    DNG Specification Patent License

    Digital Negative (DNG) Specification Patent License

    Adobe is the publisher of the Digital Negative (DNG) Specification describing an image file format for storing camera raw information used in a wide range of hardware and software. Adobe provides the DNG Specification to the public for the purpose of encouraging implementation of this file format in a compliant manner. This document is a patent license granted by Adobe to individuals and organizations that desire to develop, market, and/or distribute hardware and software that reads and/or writes image files compliant with the DNG Specification.
    Grant of rights

    Subject to the terms below and solely to permit the reading and writing of image files that comply with the DNG Specification, Adobe hereby grants all individuals and organizations the worldwide, royalty-free, nontransferable, nonexclusive right under all Essential Claims to make, have made, use, sell, import, and distribute Compliant Implementations.
    “Compliant Implementation” means a portion of a software or hardware product that reads or writes computer files compliant with the DNG Specification.
    “DNG Specification” means any version of the Adobe DNG Specification made publicly available by Adobe (for example, version 1.0.0.0 dated September 2004).
    “Essential Claim” means a claim of a patent, whenever and wherever issued, that Adobe has the right to license without payment of royalty or other fee that is unavoidably infringed by implementation of the DNG Specification. A claim is unavoidably infringed by the DNG Specification only when it is not possible to avoid infringing when conforming with such specification because there is no technically possible noninfringing alternative for achieving such conformity. Essential Claim does not include a claim that is infringed by implementation of (a) enabling technology that may be necessary to make or use any product or portion thereof that complies with the DNG Specification but is not itself expressly set forth in the DNG Specification (for example, compiler technology and basic operating system technology), (b) technology developed elsewhere and merely incorporated by reference in the DNG Specification, or (c) the implementation of file formats other than DNG.
    Revocation

    Adobe may revoke the rights granted above to any individual or organizational licensee in the event that such licensee or its affiliates brings any patent action against Adobe or its affiliates related to the reading or writing of files that comply with the DNG Specification.
    Any Compliant Implementation distributed under this license must include the following notice displayed in a prominent manner within its source code and documentation: "This product includes DNG technology under license by Adobe Systems Incorporated.”
    No warranty

    The rights granted herein are provided on an as-is basis without warranty of any kind, including warranty of title or noninfringement. Nothing in this license shall be construed as (a) requiring the maintenance of any patent, (b) a warranty or representation as to the validity or scope of any patent, (c) a warranty or representation that any product or service will be free from infringement of any patent, (d) an agreement to bring or prosecute actions against any infringers of any patent, or (e) conferring any right or license under any patent claim other than Essential Claims.
    Reservation of rights

    All rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
     
  57. So this is how the conversation went:
    Joe: I just bought a new DSLR, but the editing software that comes with it sucks.
    Pete: Hey, I can write better editing software, would you buy it?
    Joe: Sure, but what if I later replace that DSLR with a newer model, will the software work then?
    Pete: I can write and upgrade to the software, create a newer version with more features. Of
    course you'd have to pay for the upgrade.
    Joe: Greedy bastage!
     
  58. Carl, ROTFL at that one! Touché!
     
  59. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    It'd be naive for me to think that a software company that is around in the infancy of digital
    photography, will be around when it matures. I definitely feel better that I have stopped hedging my
    bets with dng and assuming I will be using adobe for an additional 20 years. It wouldn't surprise me
    in the least if Apple or Google upped their game one day and made Adobe redundant. Google, with
    picasa and nik, could easily do so tomorrow.

    dng will be a useful standard for the lay-people when it is accepted like a tif and jpg. Until then, dng
    is an obscure format that the big players will not adopt to. That fact alone, should be grounds for
    caution when considering the conversion to dng.
     
  60. So you save your images how Eric? TIFF (owned by Adobe but open). PSD owned and controlled by Adobe and not an open format. JPEG, another open format but oh so limited.
    Assuming you save as TIFF which is the most logical archival raster format, be happy that DNG is the same deal. If you are optimistic you can open your TIFFs in years coming, you'll have the same ability with DNG. I know you don't want to accept these facts but facts they are. A DNG is a TIFF. For that matter, the proprietary camera raw file you use is also based on TIFF. It's all those proprietary bits of unnecessary data that make it messy.
    As for Apple, I hope you're joking. Aperture hasn't seen any love in a long time. As we've disucssed, Apple's Finder is buggy enough whereby viewing thumbnails is hit or miss. I did submit a bug report to Apple about this, we'll see if this gets fixed but don't hold your breath. The photo market that Apple has it's radar on isn't one that produces raw data but rather, the images that come off their cameras. Don't know about Google, but so far, they haven't done much either in this space other than purchase product.
     
  61. dng will be a useful standard for the lay-people when it is accepted like a tif and jpg. Until then, dng is an obscure format that the big players will not adopt to.​
    Right, Adobe isn't a big player....
    Right, the format as it stands today isn't viable because X number of people don't use it.
    It IS entertaining to see how your mind works and you attempt to connect the dots.
    So how many users, or lay-people, whatever that defines, must use DNG to make it usable by virtue of not being obsure? You came up with those number how?
     
  62. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    wow. there's more in there that I didn't say, than I actually did.

    dng will remain insignificant until canon and
    nikon etc start outputting dng. It was a nice thought coming
    up with the idea of a universal and archival raw, but it never flew.

    back to work and converting nefs into $'s
     
  63. dng will remain insignificant until canon and nikon etc start outputting dng. It was a nice thought coming up with the idea of a universal and archival raw, but it never flew.​
    Right, more interesting thinking on your part. Let's see, Nikon and Canon don't output TIFF's, so that format must be a loser too. I guess your answer to my question Eric is you save all your images as JPEG. Nikon and Canon love that format too, so it must be the best choice. At least that's my assumption of your POV since you will not answer the question and based on what appears to be your criteria for a useful file format.
    back to work and converting nefs into $'s​
    Right, if you convert them, they are lousy images that can't possibly make $.
     
  64. DNG flies quite nicely actually and it's lovely not having to deal with XMP sidecar files.
     
  65. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Don't assume I'm like Andrew and speak without experience. After nearly ten years of doing dng, I know exactly how they fly. Today, it's lovely not having to wait as I duplicate my raws to dng, and then drag my original nefs, sidecars, and dngs from hard drive to hard drive. Crashplan works quicker too as the tiny xmp is uploaded as opposed to the whole dng over and over. If you want to fly and save yourself time and a headache, stop converting to dng.
     
  66. After nearly ten years of doing dng, I know exactly how they fly.​
    Considering that:
    1. DNG hasn't been around 10 years... (depsite your use of 'nearly')
    2. For years you've said you hate and thus don't use DNG...
    Your BS factor has now notched up to a new level! Congratulations.
    Considering that you must archive all those $ images of yours in JPEG (you couldn’t possibly use TIFF or PSD, both are owned, controlled by Adobe and behave exactly as DNG will based on your silly premiums that at least two of us dismissed that you can't 'open' your files in the future), your opinions and their lack of fact based origins seems crystal clear. And probably most here with the exception of you sir.
    Don't assume I'm like Andrew and speak without experience.
    Based on your written history here, I assume your experience is based on flat earth mind set, especially when your points are dismissed with facts which you always conveniently ignore. So telling Eric!
    Let's see Eric, in terms of my experience vs. yours, YOU started with Photoshop 1.0.7 in 1990? You were doing Photoshop work on your photography with clients like Apple, GTE, Forbes, Dinsey? You wrote your first article on digital imaging back in 1994? I dont' recall seeing your name posted as a technical editor on any such magazines as mine was for two publications, can you point out such merits? You've been a beta tester for Photoshop since version 2.5, an alpha tester since Photoshop 5? You were an alpha tester for Lightroom before it shipped? You've been on the speaking circuit for the likes of Adobe, Imacon, Epson, X-rite, GretagMacbeth? You wrote what book on digital imaging?
    Can't find anything about your bio other than your facebook link here and a few of those hugely money making JPEGs.
    Does anyone actually take Eric seriously or is this just more of his verbal diarrhea?
     
  67. Well, I happen to know Eric is a very very good photographer, and does earn his living from it, if that's what your asking.
     
  68. Well, I happen to know Eric is a very very good photographer, and does earn his living from it, if that's what your asking.​
    If that's directed at me, no, that's not what I'm asking. I asked him a boat load of questions about his stance on DNG, what format he saves his data in etc, however, few if any he answered.
     
  69. Right, if you convert them, they are lousy images that can't possibly make $.​
    and..
    Can't find anything about your bio other than your facebook link here and a few of those hugely money making JPEGs.
    Does anyone actually take Eric seriously or is this just more of his verbal diarrhea?​
    Did I misconstrue what you said? Wow, if I did, I will slit my wrist in shame. Or do you believe your sarcasm doesn't suggest that you don't believe Eric makes money off his photographs. You know I really respect your knowledge and background in digital photography, and I sort of like your irascible personality (which I don't expect you to give a fig about) But when you go after someone you really are a bit of a bollux. :)
     
  70. Did I misconstrue what you said?​
    Yes but please don't slit your wrists, I'll try to further explain the sarcasm! Eric wrote:back to work and converting nefs into $'s. The implication is that somehow, the file format is somehow connected to the quality of the image and it's worth which of course it isn't. Eric has a problem with DNG, that's clear. He doesn’t want to use it, fine as I said. Doesn't matter a lick if the image is a JPEG, a DNG, a TIFF unless you're Eric, DNG=Bad.
    In terms of asking about his bio, did you miss his statement: Don't assume I'm like Andrew and speak without experience.
    Since you seem to know Eric, maybe you can answer my question about how he archives his images. Why? That silly statement he made: In 20 years, this will all be in the review-mirror as a "remember that software company Adobe and all the money we used to spend to alter our files? I wish I could open my dng's..." Two of us have called him out on this nonsense. That's why I have to assume, until you or he answers the question, he archives his money making images only as JPEG. If instead, like most of us, it's TIFF or (for Eric's argument worse, PSD), he's full of poop! As I pointed out using facts about the technology (which could be wrong, someone point to the errors), a DNG and TIFF will suffer no such problem opening up 20 years from now based on his faulty premise. Do you really believe based on what you know about this topic that Eric's statement has any basis in fact? That he hasn't answered this and other questions about how he has formed this concept, it's impossible to understand his POV, it doesn't appear to have any basis in facts. It smells of FUD!
     
  71. It's a real shame photonet doesn't have a "Like" button for comments, like on Facebook...
     
  72. I do know Eric for years here from p.net and some emails we have from time to time. To be up-front, I do consider him a friend. To be fair, I don't think he is correct about dng's. My main experience with them is I like to use a Ricoh GRD 4 and it outputs its "raw" files as dng's. I've never had any issue with them in any program I used. LR, photoshop, Aperture or Cap 1.
    I really don't know how many prefer to use dng as their standard format or how it's caught on with photographers. I only have used if for use with Ricoh. I suppose it not out of the question that if it does happen to be (and I'm not saying it is) an insignificant percentage that perhaps the format could be abandoned in a few years as there is the already popular tiff format. But I have no way of knowing and it is now one of the "standard" formats. For me, I've always exported all my keepers as tifs, but it sounds that dng may have some advantages.
    In any event, I am familiar with Eric's work and I happen to know he is long standing professional photographer and that whatever method he uses to turn raw files into $, works, as I know he makes a living from his photography and has for many years.
    Now I have to go and get some stitches!
     
  73. Does anyone actually take Eric seriously or is this just more of his verbal diarrhea?​
    No, I don't think anyone of us take anything as serious as you do when it comes to opinions about photography workflows, but I hope the PN administrators take you, Andrew, seriously enough to realize you've "jumped the shark" in the personal attack department on making your point in hopes this thread gets shut down.
    I and others have recently had our comments removed by PN moderators on far lesser offenses, so I'm a bit perplexed why this one is being ignored.
     
  74. No, I don't think anyone of us take anything as serious as you do when it comes to opinions about photography workflows...​
    Got nothing to do about an opinion about workflow Tim. It's about facts concerning a file format. I'll say for the umpteenth time here, I don't care if Eric or anyone else uses DNG or not. But if they are going to dismiss the format with technical foibles, then ignore the facts about the technology, I'll call em out. IF there's anything technically, factually incorrect in my arguments about the format directed towards Eric, please point them out so we can all continue to educate ourselves.
     
  75. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Thanks Barry. Cheers Tim, thanks to folks for standing up! And, lol, Brad, your "fb like" comment, I'm certain it was intended to follow Barry's comment. I'm FB friends with one, two, three, four, five posters in this thread and these five know my personal and professional life inside and out...if they chose. If in fact I was bs'ing...I'd certainly be called out.
    I'm not sure why he gets a pass either. Perhaps this is why only a dozen people visit here?
    Let's see Eric, in terms of my experience vs. yours, YOU started with Photoshop 1.0.7 in 1990?​

    I'm happy you're smart enough to glean info off of the internet and from Adobe users manuals and then regurgitate it back to us, the ignorant. Man, do I wish I had that time to spend in my armchair reading cool geeky stuff! But, that's all you do. After all these years, there's still no indication that you enjoy photography as a hobby, or have to do it as a profession. You can talk monitor specs and icc profiles all you want, but it's not photography experience. You can only earn that insight by making photos.

    Wiki says 9.3 years ago, not 10, that dng was released. Opps, my apologies. I can't keep track of time like I used to. And for the record, I still export dng for my "work for hire" material.
     
  76. >>> And, lol, Brad, your "fb like" comment, I'm certain it was intended to follow Barry's comment.

    Yup...
     
  77. After all these years, there's still no indication that you enjoy photography as a hobby, or have to do it as a profession.​
    Indications are there if you look, but it doesn't matter. I could be flipping burgers or producing covers for Vouge and neither would change your incorrect statements about DNG and other file formats or dismiss you silly predictions that have no basis in fact.
    Time to move on. We've been here before. You can call DNG proprietary despite the facts presented to you. You can ignore the request to understand how you archive your files probably because they would make your previous statements even more foolish. You seem to prefer to ignore your incorrect statements by implying how much money you make on your images, or attempt to dismiss my photograph abilities but really Eric, how does that address the technically incorrect statements you've made? It doesn't. The longer you ignore them and make this about us (which I took in stride after you started getting personal), the more evidence you provide to others here you are making this a personal, not technical decision.
    For those lurking, my goal isn't to prove one of us is making more money or shooting more/better images! That has nothing to do with the debate although I can see why you prefer to go that way. It's about technically correct facts concerning file formats. If they see your rants and FUD about DNG, at least they have a counter argument based on facts, something you hope they will ignore for obvious reasons. IF all you said was: "I've tried DNG and it didn't work out for me" fine. To dismiss the format based on misunderstanding and FUD is a diservice to those here which hope to gain some better understanding of the issues.
    Your point about CrashPlan and sidecar files and the time for backing up is spot on sir! Technically correct, a disadvantage of the format. That is a very good and correct counter argument for DNG (although perhpas unlike you, I have CrashPlan backup while I'm sleeping so no big deal). We could both go after Adobe with a suggestion that DNG save the metadata in the container AND as a sidecar in such a way that only the sidecar files updated after the initial back up of the DNG. But the differences is, I'm looking to make this format and the industry in general better, you'd prefer to bitch about it and do so with false statements while attempting to be insulting by suggesting only you and not I have pertinent experience. Which again has nothing to do with the facts of the argument you continue to ignore for good reason, you don't really have a leg to stand on.
    If in fact I was bs'ing...I'd certainly be called out.​
    You were!
     
  78. Perhaps this is why only a dozen people visit here?​
    Yeah right. Not fair to our PhotoNet hosts and unless you can specify where you got those values, more guessing on your part.
    Why don't you take your DNG stance over to Luminous Landscape which gets 1.1 million unique readers each month; 3.5 million page views from some 50,000 people a day**. Start a post that DNG is a proprietary format and you'll be unable to open them in 20 years.

    **those stat's come directly fromMichael Reichmann. I go out of my way to avoid making such figures up.
     
  79. Perhaps this is why only a dozen people visit here?​
    If this was a conference and Dave asked his question and all of a sudden people decided to have a personal feud throwing insults at each other in front of everyone, they would be asked to take it outside... but as it is, we are the ones leaving! Even Dave left the thread he started...
    I was interested in this thread as, I too, find Lightroom confusing and was looking for some insights. The hijacking of the thread left me with a bitter taste and not wanting to get in this mess... Thanks guys!
     
  80. I was interested in this thread as, I too, find Lightroom confusing and was looking for some insights.​
    Happy to oblige.
    For free, you can't beat Julieann Kost of Adobe. Her video's are short but to the point.
    http://jkost.com/lightroom.html
    For a little money, the best video tutorials on the planet are from George Jardine. He used to be the Lightroom evangelist for LR at Adobe. His video's are very, very through! Worth every penny. There are a few free video's so you can get an idea of his style.
    http://mulita.com/blog/
    For a reference book, the best is from the "Lightroom Queen". This is the kind of book (or PDF depending on the purchase) you go to for finding out some specific command or feature in LR. Indispensable!
    http://www.lightroomqueen.com
    Lastly, this one's cheap <g> but covers Lightroom Organizing strategies:
    RetouchPRO LIVE "DAM Lightroom
    http://www.retouchpro.com/index.php?page=arrentals
    2nd video listed.
     
  81. ...and 10 years later, veterans of the "DNG vs. ?" wars were still a little twitchy. When asked by the younger generation, "Was it bad, Pops?", ol' Pops could only mumble "You weren't there, man. You weren't there."
     
  82. If this was a conference and Dave asked his question and all of a sudden people decided to have a personal feud throwing insults at each other in front of everyone ... ! Even Dave left the thread he started...
    I was away for a few days, and my limited access made it difficult to keep up with all the developments (secure access only through a smartphone makes it hard to follow and reply to anything so lengthy). Some good information was provided--thanks to those who did! But given all of the tangents and acrimony, I think I will post a follow-up in a separate thread.
     
  83. Perhaps this is why only a dozen people visit here?​
    Actually Eric, your interminable "biased, unfounded personal opinion about DNG presented as incontrovertible fact" outpourings are a bigger turn-off than most...
    Blah blah, to most of us lay-people...​
    You don't get to speak for ""most of us lay-people", Eric.
    If this was a conference and Dave asked his question and all of a sudden people decided to have a personal feud throwing insults at each other in front of everyone, they would be asked to take it outside​
    Actually Line, all Andrew is doing is giving the lie to some of the nonsense Eric is spouting: this forum might be read by others, and facts matter. Eric's "contributions" are anything but fact.
     
  84. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    totally agree my opinions are not fact, Keith. can you point out, preferably without the ad hominem attacks, where the confusion is?
     
  85. Opinions based on fact are useful....
    What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion​
     
  86. "totally agree my opinions are not fact, Keith. can you point out, preferably without the ad hominem attacks, where the confusion is?"

    Well, I'm not Keith, but since you asked. Perhaps if you had added an IMO, IMHO, JMO, or just said that your remarks were your opinion when you first offered them, instead of waiting for 9 pages of replies, we would not have seen any confusion. That's JMO.
     
  87. Is this the Monty Python Argument Clinic thread?
     
  88. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    No kidding. Ministry of Silly Threads

    Perhaps if you had added an IMO, IMHO, JMO, or just said that your remarks were your opinion when you first offered them​

    Sure, just like we all do...
     
  89. You asked, I merely responded , and yes, I identify my opinions as such. YMMV
     
  90. Actually, Eric, your remarks were not supported by the facts. Then, after that was pointed out to you in numerous replies, you want to say
    how silly it is of people to contradict your erroneous comments.We can all see who being silly here, Eric, gave a look in the mirror.
     

Share This Page