Pentax Photo Browser and Lab v.3.61 problems anybody?

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>So, there we go again:<br>

I have re-installed PPBL v. 3.61 again since I have changed computer and it did work great for at least a month, then all of a sudden, it keeps on freezing. I have to Ctr-Alt-Del and terminate the program after having gone through about 10 pictures or so. This started to happen only today.<br>

I also had, today, some intermittent "freezing" sessions with CS4.<br>

One thing I did notice is that there was a Java "update" today as well. Whether this has anything to do with the freezing of both PPBL and CS4, I am not sure but we never know.<br>

I did uninstall the entire PPBL program and re-installed it to no avail: it did the same thing almost immediately. This happened last year as well, and I uninstalled the program but re-installed v. 3.51 instead, and that fixed the problem. I am about to do this again, but first wanted some input from anyone using PPBL v. 3.61.<br>

At the present time, I am using Bridge/CS4/Camera RAW the latter with which I am not too familiar. But it does the job.<br>

Any comment/suggestion would be appreciated.<br>

JP</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I removed both the Pentax applications and every form of Adobe programs from my computer because they would hang or slow things down when they were on there together. I now use neither. I think I had an earlier version of that Pentax Photo Browser, but do not have the disc anymore.</p>

<p>Pretty much, I find that sometimes computer applications will seem to behave as though they are competing for dominance. Assert dominance! Kick them both out of the computer! Use something else! </p>

<p>I did. Now, everything goes just fine.</p>

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>John,<br />So, what do you now use for RAW processing? With having invested heavily in Photoshop, and up to version CS4 ... it would be a real shame to throw it out, but I am willing to kiss PPBL goodbye if that is the solution.<br />Thanks for the reply.<br>

P.S.: I did have a similar problem back in April 09 and posted to that effect. I had no reply at all.</p>

 

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>I would recommend turning off your anti-virus scanner. I have had MAJOR issues in the past of programs hanging or dying mid-session while the virus scanner was activated. In my case, it was trying to pull apart and analyze all new files (and open files) while I was trying to use them. This caused the files to be unresponsive JUST long enough to mess with the program and it would lock. I had also used several anti-virus programs during that time, and ONLY when I finally put the pieces together did I figure it out. YMMV</p>

<p>AVG has a "pause" button or something to that effect IIRC, but I usually just axe the resident program from task manager to be sure. Just don't forget to turn it back on when you're done working! Again... YMMV</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Jacques,<br>

In my five years of Pentax camera ownership I've never installed any of the Pentax applications besides the tethering remote assistant program.<br>

Why don't you just use CS4 and Adobe Camera Raw with Bridge serving as the image browser? I use Lightroom for just about everything, but dip into CS3 now and then. Lightroom and ACR share the same RAW processing engine. I would recommend Lightroom for you, but it would require more $ and another learning curve. That said, it is also important to learn Photoshop as it is the professional standard.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[snik75]

<p>I use FastStone instead of PPB. I do use PPL with no problems, you can link to it from Faststone (which is a free down load).</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Jacques, keep in mind, I'd not suggest that you not use the photoshop application; it's obviously expensive, and you should enjoy that. I'm sorry; I guess what I wrote was more destructive than helpful.</p>

<p>Maybe just keep the photoshop, and remove the others. The Pentax photobrowser probably didn't cost you anything anyway; I think they usually come with the cameras. I don't have a great answer there; but, I would avoid stacking too many graphics application on one computer, as they seem to cause each other trouble.</p>

<p>I do not do extensive processing to begin with; I will use Aperture 2, make some basic adjustments and export, and that's it. I suppose my images show it. I just pretty much refuse to use photoediting applications all around. I'll spend a <em>maximum</em> of five minutes on an image, and then go on to the next one. Really, it's common for me to adjust one and then move on in less than half a minute, not counting the time it takes for the computer to export the group of files.</p>

<p>Aperture 2 has a RAW converter built-in. I don't know about other applications; I imagine that one is very basic (a few adjustments in the RAW tool itself); but, that's what I use for everything.</p>

<p>Further, most of the adjustments I make will be done with some pre-sets. Every one of those "slider" type controls will be set to the center. From there, I may make one or two of them adjusted to 0%, 25%, 75%, rarely 100%. I will tinker with tint and white balance at different settings if I am doing monochrome conversions; to simulate cold-color filtration in variable contrast printing; idea there is to get the picture to look as it would look on the enlarger easel right before printing; then do the monochrome. That's as sophisticated as I get.</p>

<p>You may notice a lack of "7/7"s in my ratings. My refusal to do anything but basic postprocess probably has some to do with this. Rarely will I even trouble with a dust spot; almost never use any kind of retouching functions. And, I know the photos are only so good to begin with; my photos are my photos; next photo.</p>

<p>Aperture 2.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>That "black point" control will be set to either: camera pre-set value, 25% or 50%. That pre-set black point is really my only odd one out. Just wanted to clarify that.</p>

<p>Histogram? I don't use it. I don't understand it. I don't care what it's for. That thing is a totally useless graph to me. I look at the picture, I adjust it, and I move on. Very similar to how I work in a regular darkroom. Once I adopted my old wet darkroom procedures to the digital images, a few months ago, I became much happier with using the digital products.</p>

<p>I refuse to do "what you're supposed to do." I just do what I do and drive on. </p>

<p>The digital black and whites got a lot closer to my film black and whites as soon as I started doing this. I am much happier. </p>

<p>This is why I said, Assert dominance, and get rid of that stuff. A lot of those items are "what you're supposed to do." Am I really expected to do what everyone else does? I don't expect them to do what I do. I just do it my way and ignore the Photoshop bit.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>For the histograms, FWIW, I read tonal curves on film lab data reports, but almost never use the histogram in digital photography. All of my histograms point the wrong way. They're high on the left and slope down to the right, usually; I think this is backwards from how it is supposed to be. I don't care. Or, they'll be a bell curve bulge in the middle. Again, "not caring" over here.</p>

<p>I mention all this so that you can see why I gave you the opposite answer. But, proceed with confidence no matter what you do. Your photos are great as it is.</p>

<p>Your bird photos are awesome. I suggest you stop caring about those programs and just keep on doing whatever you do. Whatever you were doing before, that's going great. Ignore those programs. Get rid of them, and just use the main one for your adjustments; do a simple workaround instead.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I'm sorry I didn't write back in April; I generally ignore the digital photography technical questions because, as you can see, I don't have expertise in that area. I hope you find a good solution to your problem. J.</p>

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>Jeremiah,<br />That is a good idea but it does not (the A-virus) affect any programs I have. I heard of atrocious happenings with Norton which itself becomes often infected. I use NOD32, which is simple, effective and secure.<br />That said, I have re-installed v. 3.51 and ince then, no problem. Mind you, it's only been one day.<br />JP</p>

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>Good point Michael.<br>

I am slowly getting used to Camera RAW from within CS4 and also Bridge, which I have tried only twice. I like the layout, no doubt it does the job. In spite of this, I find Camera RAW not quite on par with Pentax PhotoLab. Does Camera RAW require "Pentax" settings?<br>

JP</p>

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>Nick, I have never heard of this software. I suppose I might give it a go and see what it does.<br>

For the moment, the problem is under control, using the earlier version of PPBL, 3.51. As I mentioned to Michael, I am using CamRaw/Bridge only for a couple of days and I am not sure if I like it ... yet.<br>

JP</p>

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>John,<br>

Thanks for the reply (ies).<br>

As I see it, you are a purist and I appreciate that.<br>

I am not at all worried about what you had first written in that first reply. Don't worry! :)<br>

I do use P.Shop once the RAW images (I shoot RAW 100% of the time) are extracted (from either PPBL or Cam.RAW) mostly to make small adjustments in sharpness and curves, or exposure. I don't even use layers or layer masks, etc ... yet! I am sure I will get into that sooner than later. (Still don't know how to use them properly) The thing is though, using layers and those sort of things supposedly make post-processing more secure and that way, one does not destroy the original pic. That is what I understand with this part of Photoshop. I also use CS4 for monochrome rendition, especially for family/friends portraits. (You will never see those here ... I am not a portrait photographer by no means!)<br>

I have the new CS4 only because I have had Photoshop ever since CS2 which, at the time, was installed on my computer by my son. Upgrades have always been done since. I wouldn't buy the full product outright at the present time because of its very high price.<br>

OK, so I do get your point though and that is very fine by me. I rarely touch photos with things like "eraser, cloning, burn or dodge, ... etc, although I know what they are used for. I say rarely, because I do, once a while remove a gross, unwanted water or dirt spot right where it would otherwise render the pic unacceptable.<br>

The thing I do though is to always review each pic with the back screen of the camera. Using the internal adjustments available, I usually will be able to lightly adjust just about anything on a particular photo, except of course when it is badly over/underexposed with no chance of recovery. Then, I delete a LOT of those pics! I also delete right from the camera any pic which is out of focus, (blurred) or that is not to my liking. And I regularly shoot in continuous mode when out for bird photo. That means dozens of missed shots as well!<br>

I am not sure whether I responded well to your own replies ... but I do appreciate your comments. And thanks for the kind words about my bird shots!<br>

JP</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Jacque,<br>

After reading your descriptions above about how you approach pictures, I think you should make a commitment to developing a comprehensive workflow for your photo processing. Think in terms of process and deliverables. Lightroom or Aperture (for Macs) excel at this in an integrated way. You can also do this with ACR and Bridge and CS4. That means not doing most work in the camera--It's nonsense to make serious judgments about an image based on a low rez jpeg on a 3-inch LCD anyway. Your tools and images deserve more professional attention.</p>

<p>I would recommend you learn more about ACR. Find the latest version and download it. Adobe has a Pentax calibration that I've been using in Lightroom that is excellent (ACR and Lightroom share the same engine). I discount most claims about certain RAW processors creating better colors than others. Color is an artistic judgement that you the photographer decide on, and the tools in ACR, Photoshop, and Lightroom allow you to easily create your own palette and keep it consistent. Some RAW processors will produce more or less shadow detail, but they don't do other important features and functions well--like asset management--so it's a wash overall. You should be able to perform 85-100% of your basic image processing in ACR. Then kick it into CS4 for serious one-offs.</p>

<p>The benefit that Lightroom has is that it is non-destructive--you are essentially working on a database and all changes are just to instructions and not pixels. Photoshop is not quite like that.</p>

<p>Just to share my working perspective, for anything seriously and personally artistic (my bread-and-butter corporate event work are jpegs with very fast turnaround and little post) I post process. This includes exposure management, sharpening, color, dodging/burning/perspective correction, spotting, and cloning. The goal is to have folks not notice the technicals and focus upon the image as a whole. Mentally it is the same as being in the darkroom. And a compleat photographer should understand and be able to work in a darkroom--digital or physical.</p>

<p>ME</p>

 

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>Michael:<br>

I seriously never considered having Lightroom and, to be frank with you, I am not even sure what this software does.<br>

So, if I already have CS4, which "contains" Camera RAW (in my case is version 5) and Bridge, should I also consider Lightroom or is the CS4 sufficient.<br>

What I am trying to do is to have processing consistency, based on the camera specs, in this case K10D and K20D, at the present time. I am quite sure I will be buying the K7 within the next 6 months or so. You mention that Adobe has excellent calibration for Pentax cameras ... does this mean that it does automatically recognize the hardware (i.e: the camera) or does one have to tell the software to "calibrate" ... as you can see, I am not at all organized!<br>

Also, it is high time for me to get more organized because my several-thousands-photos are all over the place, not coded properly for easy retrieval and "grading". That is becoming quite a nuisance actually. Would Lightroom help for that or, again, is CS4/Bridge sufficient?<br>

That said, I agree that the tiny rear screen of the K20D doesn't truly reflect the actual results but I guess I am lazy and do not like being at the computer all day performing PP duties! On the other hand, and as you mention, I should have realized a long time ago that a "more professional" approach is in order.<br>

You comments are very timely Michael, and I appreciate the input.<br>

JP</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>HI Jacques,<br>

Well there are plenty of online resources out there that tell you what Lightroom is far better than I could. In brief sum, Lightroom is a workflow management tool that includes cataloging (digital asset management), image processing, slide show production, printing and web page setup. It does all this in a very unified, integrated way. And it does it non-destructively. Most of the other post-processing solutions out there, including CS4+Bridge, perform these most of these tasks but not in a holistic approach. And they do it destructively. All told the differences in approach are profoundly significant for some of us.</p>

<p>Yes, Adobe applications recognize that your image is from a Pentax DSLR and which particular model. By default the calibration reference point the software uses goes to is an Adobe standard setting, though there is also a "camera standard" and an older ACR version setting that I find inferior. I believe the "camera standard" may be one that Pentax provides to Adobe, but I prefer the one that Adobe has generated. They take each model of each DSLR and perform a standard series of test calibration shots to generate this Adobe standard setting. The version in use (I cannot remember the version no., it's late) since early 2009 has been excellent. You can even create your own with their DNG software that they provide.</p>

<p>I haven't used the latest version of Bridge, but I don't think it is as capable as Lightroom for organizing images. It started off as a basic image browser (something to quickly review images but not file them away with much intelligence) but it's gotten smarter. I still view Bridge as what it is: a kludge between ACR and CS4 to fix process problems that Lightroom has now evolved to solve.</p>

<p>Whatever you use, it is very important to properly catalog your images and do it in a way that will benefit your post processing and vice versa. It will take a long time to retroactively organize thousands of shots, but once you get the basic structure setup (see the DAM book) it's relatively quick to dump new work into it (about a minute per 250 shots for me). The big benefit of image management programs over using only Windows Explorer or the Mac Finder is the use of virtual collections and pointers. You can have a single image appear virtually in multiple collections without having to make any file copies. So a shot of my family at the Washington coast at sunset could appear in a "Family 2009" collection, a "Washington Coast" collection, and a "Sunsets" collection. Each of these could be a virtual one-off from the single file version stored on my hard drive outside of Lightroom.</p>

<p>The whole issue of spending too much time in front of the computer can go a number of ways--depends on your livelihood, and where photography fits into that, and then what standards of image quality you are willing to settle for. It is rare for me to be satisfied with anything straight out of the camera--but I grew up in B&W and then color darkrooms and always see a better way to improve 98% of my shots. But that's purely subjective. YMMV.</p>

<p>ME</p>

 

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>Michael:<br>

Great job you did on explaining the streamlining possibilities of Adobe Lightroom. I have just finished browsing the Adobe web site for details of what this software can do. I totally agree that, having CS4 already, this is the ticket for a better organized flow.<br>

I wasn't sure what you'd meant about the "non-destructive" processing that can be done in Lightroom. Now I understand.<br>

Also, I wouldn't really mind doing retroactive work on my several thousands photos if that means I will end up with a stable, easy-to-use and integrated workspace. I mentioned that I am not the type to spend hours non-stop at a computer, just for fixing a few details in a photo but I am beginning to be more realistic: seldom will I be 100% satisfied with any pic. The few very rare ones which need absolutely no PP can be counted with my ten fingers!<br>

Apart from the price, this is one seemingly very good software.<br>

And that also means that I could finally get rid of this PPBL!<br>

I wonder if I could get a student's rebate!? :)<br>

Cheers!<br>

JP</p>

[graham_powell2]

<p>You could all save yourselves an awful lot of money by using 'The Gimp' http://www.gimp.org/windows/ or if you wish to have something with more simularities to 'Photoshop' them why not try 'GimpShop' http://www.gimpshop.com/ it's all free libre and all excellent.</p>