garrison_k.

<p>Who is the photographer that took that chicken photo that you are re-publishing from your site?</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em><strong>One thing to bear in mind here, for me at least, is that I'm archiving about 15 years of negatives and the date isn't a readily apparent piece of information.</strong></em></p>

<p>I was in the same boat and I just guessed and got it in the ball park, Andrew. I really like my files appearing in chrono order.</p>

<p>Tim sucker punches Patrick</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00Xo4g</p>

<p><strong><em>I'ld prefer that you no longer send me private messages. You still didn't even tell what your background is in those exchanges after I respectfully asked.</em></strong></p>

<p>Oh boo-hoo. After your full on attack on Patrick's character and selfless contributions, if I wanted you to know who I was, you`d know here in the open forums, first.</p>

<p>And please copy and paste my "messages". Or should i copy and paste my apology (for dragging down this forum) and along with your response to it?</p>

<p><strong><em>Do it!</em></strong></p>

<p>The more you want something after being a fist class jerk, Andrew, the less likely you are to get it. Not sure how you made it through life this far without learning this. I wont speak for everyone but I know I've had enough of myself for a day. See you in the next one.</p>

<p><strong><em>I guess his single image and lack of details about his work or bkgnd, despite repeated requests from myself and others, only to be met with either ignoring the question or subterfuge tells us an enormous amount.</em></strong></p>

<p>It's odd. No. It's funny. You grasping at straws, that is. I mean, when you used to think I was easy pickings a year ago, and bully and belittle me, you couldn't care who "Garrison" is. Lately, I start boxing back and you think this mysterious alias is now some sort of trump card you have over me. Well I hate to let you down as it's no big deal, Andrew. But many here, simply prefer an alias. I know this might be hard for someone like you, Andrew Rodney, to appreciate when your motive here is to selfishly use PN for nothing more than advancing your book sales and blog hits.</p>

<p>Other than answering a question here and there when I can, there's nothing more to "Garrison". You're the only one that brings it up. Perhaps if you don't like how PN runs things, there's the door.</p>

<p><strong><em>On one hand, he considers himself a professional photographer by day...</em></strong></p>

<p>News to me. Anybody else here remember me saying that? I'm no more of a photographer than you, Andrew. I just talk about it and some people assume I am.</p>

<p><strong><em>Interesting that now, he’s OT and trying to talk about stripping out EXIF using Bridge, something posted and suggested long before he arrived. Genius</em></strong>!</p>

<p>How does your one cheap word you offered up (Bridge) help the OP out? Okay, so Steve, the OP, opens Bridge and then what? Big help, Andrew. Besides, you can't use Bridge. Bridge is a browser and you can only start a photoshop script from it.</p>

<p><strong><em>Or should we assume the single image you have posted is representative of your professional photography body of work?</em></strong></p>

<p>I bought it from istock.</p>

<p><strong><em>If you're using Adobe products there's no good reason to not use Adobe's file formats.</em></strong></p>

<p>That's what I thought way back, David. I didn't care for NX1 and was all for dng in 2004. It makes total sense and I still support the idea. But only in theory. But it's been 7 years and dng hasn't blossomed like I hoped. In the meantime, my dng's wouldn't open in the new and improved NX2 or some of the new software like Dx0 that was coming out. It then occurred to me that I might be making a huge mistake. When I started thinking about how much extra effort I was putting into backing up both my nefs and dngs while my nefs were working just fine in Adobe other software (that my dngs wouldn't), I stopped the dng silliness. I don't think anyone has the insight to know what software they are going to use in 10 or 20 years from now and what does Adobe throw out for it's dng conversion? It throws out info that you might find pretty useful one day. And heck, if all the manufactures get on board one day and goes with dng as an iso standard like we hope, then I'll convert to dng at that time. Until then, I'm not in a hurry.</p>

<p><strong><em>Before you kill each other in irrelevancies can anybody tell Steve, the OP, how to remove all EXIF, in LR or Bridge, and preferably as a batch process?</em></strong></p>

<p>Good point, Scott. I thought it was answered. I never need to do this. Thinking about it, I can only "strip" it by 'save for web' or by making a new document and then pasting the file on top of it. You can also alter exif by making new templates and leaving as many fields blank as possible, but it is not "stripped". If making a new blank template is accepted, that is easier.</p>

<p>For batching, the only way I can think of is from Bridge, go Tools>Photoshop>Batch and this is where you'll need to point to an action. If you don't have an action made, then one will have to be made. That's easy enough by getting an image open in PS, then record action and then File>Save For Web & Devices, most important is to check off the metadata box that says "none". Save the file as if you were doing it for real. Stop recording action. Go back to Bridge, select all the photos you wish to run it on and Tools>Photoshop>Batch and you should see your action. It may take a few goes to work out the kinks and I suggest you do it with copies just in case something goes wrong.</p>

<p>Are you drinking and watching hockey? Your advice is</p>

<p><strong><em>But once you understand the pro’s and con’s of any workflow move...</em></strong></p>

<p>So lets hear some of the cons to dng conversion?</p>

<p><em><strong>I found it strange when I had my 2¢ with Patrick a while back that you mysteriously showed up out of the blue to take his side much later in that thread where no one else seemed to care one way or the other.</strong></em></p>

<p>Well, it wasn't mysterious at all, Tim. It was topic of most active threads so, like most, I clicked. And it wasn't about "sides". You full on attacked Patrick and more than myself said so. The thread was closed, it got so bad.</p>

<p><strong><em>but when will we get some background on who you are?</em></strong></p>

<p>Does that matter? I'm sorry if it does. I'll start to post pictures if it somehow validates words?</p>

<p><strong><em>All I know about you is from your exchanges with Andrew in past threads that went off topic just like clock work over similar contentious subjects.</em></strong></p>

<p>And it's just with Andrew. If you're interested in a bit of history, Andrew, out of the blue last August, just started picking on me and belittling me. Suddenly every post was picked apart on semantics and lexicon in threads with down right ridiculously simple topics. At first I was a gentleman about it asking if there was something to clear up so the forum could be at peace, but I heard nothing back from him. It carried on to Oct or so until I got tired of it and I wrote PN over it. I still hear nothing back. You'll notice, Tim, that 99% of the time it starts with Andrew copying my words and starting it. I could post 6 threads right now were he has showed up a weeek after the last post, copied my words, and then argued. But you're right, it's childish and I should just be more adult.</p>

<p><em><strong>But once you understand the pro’s and con’s of any workflow move...</strong></em></p>

<p>Can you walk the talk? Lets hear a few of your reasons for not converting to dng then?</p>

<p><strong><em>...the writings of a confused poster.</em></strong></p>

<p>(not sure what i can say about someone that spends so much time in discussion with a "confused poster"?)</p>

<p><strong><em>Case closed.</em></strong></p>

<p>Always is with propaganda.</p>

<p>If you back-track, you'll notice that we were nicely off-topic all by ourselves, Brad, JDM, and myself. Does that help?</p>

<p>Your DNG bias. And it is technically correct. I don't understand your point or why being correct has anything to do with being biased. It's easy to be correct and biased. It's called propaganda. Regardless, it's a pretty poor article though. Anyone half skilled in digital photography would get a chuckle and see right through it as almost everything in your article that you attempt to show as a strength for DNG, also applies to NEF or CR2 files. For whatever reason you mention "metadata editing" like it only applies to DNG and not other native types of raw. And I have no idea why your "strength of dng" article would even mention Lightroom vs. Photoshop?</p>

<p>If you re-write it, maybe put in there that DNG contains a jpg and sometimes this is know to be helpful. That's pretty important to some dng'rs that isn't available to the native-raw-xmp-sidecar crowd.</p>

<p><strong><em>There’s a slew of functionality for dealing with my raw and rendered images LR provices that Bridge+ACR don’t.</em></strong></p>

<p>I'm really happy for you and that you prefer LR over <strong>Bridge + ACR,</strong> but that has nothing to do with the browser, <strong>Bridge</strong>, or what is (was) being discussed. What's being discussed is the slew of functionality (or not) that PS has over LR. I'd be keen to hear what you have to say on this as I'm aware of what can be produced in PS nor do I feel it can be replaced by LR. Yet. So, is there an image you can make in LR that can't be done in PS? </p>

<p><em><strong>But once you understand the pro’s and con’s of any workflow move, make up your own mind.</strong></em></p>

<p>How about an unbiased article on the matter to begin with, instead of pointing to a clearly biased one? As less and less people are converting to dng, a balanced article or two should be easy to find?</p>

<p><em><strong>Then put the dng files...</strong></em></p>

<p>You don't need to convert or use dng in this particular case. I would just ignore dng all together and un-check the convert box</p>

<p><strong><em>The day I started using Lightroom, Bridge was abandoned.</em></strong></p>

<p>Bridge is a browser. You may as well compare Finder to Lightroom. And it's probably your loss for dismissing the best browser in the world.</p>

<p>I love Bridge. It's the first thing I open up after booting. MS Word, video, excel, book-keeping, Bridge is not biased and shows every file on your OS and then (cool) opens it if you wish. You can drag and drop folders or files all over the place with it, and without worrying about a "database". It's so wonderful, Adobe should sell Bridge as a stand alone product. LR doesn't even show other Adobe products and when people like me have a work flow that requires Indesign, Illustrator, Acrobat, and Dreamweaver etc, this is were Lightroom, falls short. LR doesn't even show/play al my video files. It's even picky about that. Bridge? It doesn't care. A double click opens it in your default player, or, like a great tool Bridge is, allows you to drag it into another Adobe product.</p>

<p><strong><em>But processing tools have evolved greatly and today the only time I drop into photoshop is to put a stroke around an image.</em></strong></p>

<p>Brad, if you buy the donation-ware Mogrify plugin, it does strokes. And better watermarks than the stock LR. Drop them $10 (or whatever you wish) and you can stay inside LR for strokes. http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrmogrify2.php</p>

<p><strong><em>Jeez, why is it that for Lightroom users particularly, this clearly IS an ideological issue?</em></strong></p>

<p>Seems to be a correlation with Mac users, too? Kidding...</p>

<p><strong><em>Yes, I know what LR and Aperture do, but are you aware that PS and Bridge are for more than just image editing, too?</em></strong></p>

<p>Certainly are. Brushes in PS are more accurate and refined for starters. I start files as smart objects and do as many adjustment layers as possible. Using History states in LR doesn't compare for me. Filters and plugins are not available for LR, either.</p>

<p>But I love LR for virtual copies. It's easier to work with collections than in Bridge. It's quicker than Bridge for applying keywords and viewing your images with keywords. The publishing is cool too. I like LR for making and saving and then applying presets. Mogrify plugin has a ton of features as well. Although Bridge/PS is my go-to and brick-and-mortar software, I couldn't do without LR.</p>

<p>I wouldn't blame Costco? They haven't done E6 in years, if at all?</p>

<p>It still is called x-processing and is usually done like you have, with E6 film to C41. But it has to be exposed right when going into this commitment, and then usually a push in development. I'd gather your "negs" are pretty dense and under-exposed and will be very tough to rescue. Also, even on a good day, Velvia is horrible to try and print after x-pro. I never scanned it.</p>

<p><strong><em>I presume Bridge would be the way to go, but I've never had the need nor done the act.</em></strong></p>

<p>JDM, you've never used Bridge? Or, you've never made a metadata template and applied it in Bridge?</p>

<p>I think these new changes have something to do with us slowly moving to cloud use, Jim.</p>

<p>Thanks for the link and info, Jens. I'll check it out. I'm all for alternatives and doing what I can to move away from Microsoft and Adobe like monopolies.</p>

<p> </p>