To clarify my second part, Chuck - to my understanding, the directory
listing reflects where you choose to place a particular file in your chosen
hierarchy of directories. The FAT, by contrast, reflects where on the disk
the files are physically stored by the disk operating system, a location
over which you have no direct control, and of which you generally have no
inkling. Of course you would never confuse the two.
The comparison with Lightroom is simply that Lightroom's library is no more
than a sort-of FAT, telling Lightroom where to find the original image file
for each of the images in that library. The files can be anywhere you
choose to put them before ot after "importing" them to Lightroom (or it can
be anywhere that you opt to have Lightroom put them). Your own directory
structure can be preserved, and you can leave Lightroom to keep track of
that directory structure - just as you leave a DOS to keep track of its own
FAT. You do not (I assume) even think about which disk sectors are occupied
by any one of your images, you leave it to the FAT. Same should go for
Lightroom's library!
Now, as for *your* second part, Lightroom does notice if you move images
from their original locations, it flags images that are no longer found
(although it preserves its own previews of them), and it provides a facility
to filter all "missing files", for you then to update Lightroom's library
with the new locations. But I think it would be much much simpler to use
Lightroom's own database for such organization (of course, I would say
that!). I am puzzled that you are content to use a simple flat-file database
(the DOS directory structure) when you could have the equivalent of a
relational database. Sure, if you want to use keywording you have to apply
the keywords, but you *do not have to* (LR tells me I have 17770 of 25000
images without keywords, what shame). Even without keywords, you can easily
sort/select on EXIF data, so the facility is already there to reproduce your
directory structure AND to apply the modification you are thinking of when
the time comes. And if it doesn't do what you need, make another
sort/select.
Not that I am trying to convince you to change (I think your comparison of
Lightroom with Adobe Camera Raw in Bridge is absolutely correct) - I simply
want you not to 'misunderestimate' the database capabilities of Lightroom
which are available without having to change your own existing
filing/sorting system outside Lightroom.
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 24 March 2012 23:48
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] How'd they do that?
The first part of your reply tells me I should look at Lightroom more
closely then. The second part of your reply I don't understand at all...
perhaps because I would never confuse a directory listing with a FAT.
But, since I've been considering a change to my structure (adding "year
directories to encapsulate all the entries for a given year since the simple
linear list is getting too long at 880 entries) I'm wondering what I'd have
to do in Lightroom when it could no longer find the structures I told it I
created.
Chuck Norcutt
On 3/24/2012 10:34 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
> Eh? If you have neither desire nor need, you don't have to use
> anything else - Lightroom is perfectly happy for you to "add" your
> images to its
> catalog(ue) *in their existing locations*. You do not have to "move"
> them, you don't even have to "copy" them, nor "copy as DNG" although
> you can do any of those if you choose.
>
> If I didn't know you better I might suggest that you are confusing a
> directory listing with a file allocation table!
>
> Piers
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 24 March 2012 12:35
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] How'd they do that?
>
> My existing file structure consisting of folders named:
> yyyy-mm-dd - long, descriptive event or subject name suits me just fine.
> I've been using it for about 10 years and have no desire or need for
> something else.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> On 3/23/2012 2:13 PM, Jez Cunningham wrote:
>> What is it about the 'catalog' that irritates you?
>>
>> On 15/03/2012, Chuck Norcutt<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> But that means I have to tackle Lightroom and its silly
>>> requirement that I use its catalog system which I do not want to do.
>>> It's why I own Lightroom but don't use it. It would be nice to have
>>> an integrated solution.
>>>
>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/15/2012 10:28 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>>> Thanks. My PSE is a long expired trial version. I don't think PS
>>>> does slide shows but Lightroom probably does. I'll have to check
>>>> that and whatever other imaging related software I have.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/15/2012 9:54 AM, Jez Cunningham wrote:
>>>>> IIRC even Photoshop Elements does it (with music...)
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 March 2012 14:48, Chuck
>>>>> Norcutt<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The other day I saw (briefly) a slide show playing off a DVD
>>>>>> directly to a TV projector with no intervening computer. The show
>>>>>> was in the Ken Burns style with slowly changing images and
>>>>>> zooming in/out and panning back and forth on each image during
>>>>>> its play time. Somebody here ( don't know who) must have made it
>>>>>> since the photos were of a local event no more than a couple days
old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to be able to produce slide shows also that run off a
>>>>>> DVD with no intervening computer required. A number of the
>>>>>> elderly folks here either don't have a computer or, even if they
>>>>>> do, don't know how to use it other than for a few limited things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Ken Burns style is OK but I'm really just interested in
>>>>>> software that can get still images into video format and write it
>>>>>> to a DVD. Most folks here do have a DVD player and know how to use
it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone know what's available?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>>>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> --
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>
>>>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|