On 1/9/2017 3:40 PM, Nicholas Travers wrote:
Moose thank you for sharing details of how you work with image files.
As Chris mentioned, in lightroom you can 'edit in photoshop' with any image
and either choose to use any acr edits from LR's develop or to do that as
opening it in PS (been a while since I have done the former).
When you finish in Photoshop the image is saved as a .tiff or .psd and
added to the lightroom catalogue (saved wherever you want it saved).
Yes, I know all that.
LR then still allows you to use the develop module to apply some adjustments if you still need to make minor changes
later,
I know that, too, BUT, I have never wanted to do, nor see myself wanting to do in the future. Apparently millions love
LR as an image editor - I DO NOT.
or to open the whole file in PS and continue your extensive layer based work.
Of course, but how is that better than hitting the "e" key in FS? Either takes me to the same place, a PSD file open in
PS. (BTW, Alt-1 through 9 open the selected file(s) directly in DxO Pro, Olympus Viewer 3, SilkyPix, LR, Rawtherapee,
PTLens, etc. )
Sounds like FastStone is working for you, but if you already have one foot in the door to use the maps of LR I would
think converting to useing LR would be a good idea.
I would say it's more like I have one foot out the door of LR, and the Maps capability and metadata summaries keep me
from leaving.
(I have never used faststone)
Which means you have no meaningful opinion as to how it compares as a file browser. It's easy to use a tool and find it
OK, when one doesn't know about a better one.
I'm not saying you WOULD find FS better, just that you can't know without trying it. Nor am I pressing you to do so. I
find it odd that you would be pressing me to use LR, when I've used both and found my own preference.
My preference is a matter of personal taste. I find LR ugly, clunky, slow, clumsy, and so on - AS A FILE BROWSER. As I
don't use it as an editor, using something I don't like as a browser seems silly to me.
You can mitigate some of the slow rendering times with LR by having smaller
catalogues or using small preview sizes.
I don't want more, smaller catalogs. It negates the usefulness of Maps and the metadata summaries. I can see where Maps
doesn't mean much to most photographers. But I've been geocoding my images for over ten years, and find it a fabulous
way to find images I want. Should I keyword 100,000 files? Sure, it would be useful. Am I likely to? No. Knowing where
is a huge help. Know anyone who wants to be an unpaid intern to an amateur photographer? :-)
I can not just mitigate, which implies that there is something else more valuable to keep me there, but avoid, by not
using it.
I personally use LR's SmartPreviews for all my files
I don't even know what that is. I'm glad it works for you. But based on what
follows, it's of no interest to me
and have the actual RAW files stored externally which I access only when I need to do deeper PS work that LR can't
take care of.
Here we come to a nub of the matter. There is NEVER any of my editing work that LR can take care of in a way that
pleases me. If I work on a Raw file, I ALWAYS do what you refer to as deeper work. All my image files are on a HDD
internal to my desktop (with separate back-up, of course.)
I don't say you, or anyone else, should work this way, but it's my way.
Frank S. Moose
PS: I enjoyed many of the images on your sites.
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|