I have both Aperture and Lightroom accessing the exact same raw images
in an external (to them) file structure without issue, of course if I
were to move folders in one then the other would get fooled so I don't
do that and anyway I have a logical structure which I want to keep
control of. Each library tracks its own changes leaving the raw files
intact I don't often create version copies and have never looked into
where it places them but neither system clash as far as I know.
On 03/07/2014 10:54, Piers Hemy wrote:
Can't answer your fundamental question, Chris, but Lightroom does indeed act
as you describe, import - non-destructive edit - output. It isn't restricted
to that workflow (and one eventually discovers how flexible it can be). And
it does provide DAM - in my view that is its fundamental offering, together
with an interface (to the same raw converter as used by Photoshop) which is
designed for photography rather than graphic arts more generally.
Piers
Nathan's question (concerning the size of his Fuji .raf files converted to
Raw) prompt me to ask, "why bother".
With Aperture, and probably its successor, I import new images to the
Aperture library, leaving the originals in my filing system (folders for
each year) where I can edit them (the versions, not the originals) and
output them as I desire: to a website, to email, to FB (rare), to Photobox
for printing or to the printer. Chris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|