Clumsy workflow ?

I'm looking for a better way for a particular workflow I've settled into.
I import a bunch of images and then quickly sort my keepers by assigning a 5 star rating. I then create a project smart album of all 5 star rated images - which I look at as the images that I want to keep - and therefore 'tweak'. I then proceed with image adjustments / tweaking directly on the images in this smart album which creates new versions and stacks. So far, so good.
Now, at the end of this, all I really want left in this smart album is my adjusted images. At the moment I'm opening all stacks, and then manually deleting the duplicates I don't want.
This seems a little clumsy - especially the step where I'm manually deleting the duplicates.
Any thoughts on how I might streamline this further ?
Thanks.

I can think of two things you could consider.
1) You don't need the smart album for 5 star images -- you can just filter the project to show 5 star images by clicking on the magnifying glass (where queries are done) and select 5 star images.
2) It seems like you have the preference set to create new versions from adjustments. If you don't set that preference, then you can modify the version right there, and therefore don't need to delete the duplicates. If you need to see the master, then just press "M".
Hope that helps.

Similar Messages

Colour Management - who does what - Some thoughts now the smoke is clearing

First up, thanks very much to everyone who contributed their ideas and expertise to my recent query here, when I was seeking help for a problem with colour management issues when printing a magazine I edit. I have a ton of suggestions to work through and study but the smoke is slowly clearing and it raises some interesting points which I think are worth recounting.
First of all, I have been editing short run magazines now for 25 years, at first part time and later on a professional contract basis. I am not a trained graphic designer nor a trained printer. I did start out training as a graphic designer, many years ago but gave it up for a career in IT (as a networking specialist). That was full time until 10 years ago, although I did some freelance writing and editing in my spare time.
And yes, I did start originally with scissors and cut and paste, and moved on through black and white with spot colour and Pagemaker software to full colour and InDesign today. One thing which may be different about my experience to most of yours is that I am a PC user and always have been. All my editing and graphics work has always been done on a PC - Pagemaker was our DTP package of choice for a long time and we supplemented this with Corel-Draw (which has a range of graphics handling options). All my software is legal and I always register it and keep it up to date. I have used the same graphic designer for quite a few years now and whenever we upgrade our software he goes and gets trained on the latest release.
Around 10 years ago I was offered the chance to edit a specialist short run magazine (not the current one). This was a chance I took and gave up the day job and became a full time freelance. Editing is not my main or only source of income. I am also a freelance writer and photographer and heritage consultant and I have a specialist image library.   I sell my own sell my work - articles and pictures - to the national and local press. I also write books (non fiction) on commission. The magazine editing is really an extension of my interest in historic landscapes. I have never had any complaints, or problems, with the freelance work, photos and archived images I sell. Clients include national newspapers here in the UK, national magazine groups and my books are available in national bookstore chains. I supply my work digitally, naturally, and it includes photos I have taken myself and items which I have scanned into my library of historical images and store on line. No reported colour management issues there.
I have always enjoyed a good relationship with my publishers and printers because I seek to be as professional as possible, which means delivering my stuff on time, to the required standard so that minimum intervention is required from them. This does assume that I have a clear brief from them on what they need from me.
Recently this approach has not been enough to avoid colour management issues with the short run magazine I currently edit. I have been wondering when and where things went astray and date it back to the upgrade to InDesign two years ago. However it may have its roots in my earlier decision to use PCs not Macs for my work.
Until 4 years ago I had used the same printers for magazine editing for many years. They were a well respected firm specialising in short run magazines. They were not far from where I live and work and if there was a problem I would go over and discuss it with them. They were happy, and competent, to handle Pagemaker files generated on a PC and convert my rgb images to cmyk if there was any concern about the colour balance. On a few occasions I paid them to scan a photo for me. However 4 years ago the owner decided to retire and shut up shop. I needed to find a new printers and it had to be someone who specialised in short run magazines and could meet the budget of the charity I edit for. Also someone who could handle copy generated using Pagemaker running on a PC. I chose a printers I had used briefly in the past where I knew some of the staff and was promised PC based Pagemaker would not be a problem. I even got this in writing. I started to send them proofs generated using Pagemaker v7 on my PC.
I soon found that although they had agreed they could handle Pagemaker on a PC in fact they had only a few PC based clients and were using a single ageing PC running Pagemaker to proof their work. In fact nearly all their jobs were Quark based. I was also told we had to supply CMYK images although not given any further requirement so I now did the conversions from rgb to CMYK using my PhotoPaint software. (There are quite a few settings in Corel for the conversion but there was no guidance by the printer on which to use so to be honest it did not occur to me that it might be a problem).
Now of course I understand that the drive to get customers to supply CMYK images was a Quark driven requirement back in the late 1990s. I did not and do not use Quark so knew nothing for this. I did have some early colour problems and font incompatibilities with the new printers and was pressured by their senior Graphic Designer (who designed for their own contract clients) to upgrade to InDesign and provide them with a .pdf, which I was assured would solve all my problems. The .pdf would be the same as the final printed magazine because "it would not require any further intervention by the printers".
I expect you are collectively throwing up your hands in horror at this point, but I think he was speaking genuinely. The creation of a .pdf using InDesign, is widely promoted as the ultimate answer to all printing issues.   I have encountered it recently with a lot of printers' salesmen and my friend, who edits a learned journal, has just been told the same thing by her printers, to get her to upgrade to ID. Incidentally she also uses a PC.
So we upgraded our design process in house to InDesign and our graphic designer went on a course, two courses in fact. When we came to produce our first .pdf using ID, the printers' Senior Graphic designer came on the phone and talked our designer through the ID Export function. I think he may at that time have told him to create a preset profile with MPC and the defaults, but to be honest I don't recall. We were never sent anything in writing about what settings we needed to match theirs. I continued to have intermittant colour management problems but put this down to my photos. Things came to head with the most recent issue where the colours were badly out on the cover, supplied by a press agency and taken by a professional photographer. The printers seemed to have little or no idea about possible causes.
Initially I thought that part of the underlying cause must lie in some mismatch between what I was sending the printers and what they expected to receive so I asked them to specify what I should send. All they said was use Profile preset as MPC setting and accept the defaults which accompany it.
So I came on here looking for a solution. A lot of people were keen to offer their own experience which I really appreciate. However the messages could be conflicting. Some of you suggested it was the underlying cover photo which was at fault, some that it was my monitor which needed better calibration.
Many of you here said that part of the problem, if not the whole problem, was the way I was generating my CMYKs for the printer and I should use Photoshop to do this. You also mentioned a number of possible colour management settings which I should try.
At times the advice seemed to change tack. There were suggestions that the colour management issues I had were nothing to do with the printers, that it was up to me not them. Quite a lot of you said I needed to be better informed about Colour Management issues. I agree, but I had never had any previously (maybe good luck, maybe good support from my previous printer) so I was not even aware that I needed to be better informed. Some of you mildly chastised me for not finding out more and doing more to manage my own colour management with the switch to ID. To which I can only say if I had needed to train up, I would have done. I did not realise I needed to. Nor was my designer aware of the issues as colour management was not really covered on his ID courses which were about typesetting and design.
Some of you even seemed to hint that unless I was prepared to use an expensive high end printer or effectively retrain as a print specialist or get my graphic designer to do so, then I probably shouldn't be in the magazine editing game at all. OK maybe that is a bit harsh but you get the drift.
The fact is that printing is much more accessible these days to all sorts of people and in particular to people with PCs. My brother lives in a large village in an isolated area and produces a village magazine which has been a great success. It is in black and white with spot colour but he would like to move to an all colour issue. He is a bit nervous of the colour management issues as he has no experience of graphic design and is his own designer using a low end entry level design package. He too uses a PC. The printers reps all tell him the same thing they tell me, that all he needs to supply is a .pdf using InDesign.
Somewhere I feel a black hole has developed, maybe back in the 1990s with Quark 4.11. A lot of printers standardised on that, and set up a work flow and prepress dependent on CMYK images as provided by the clients. They assumed the the clients would doing their own colour management. This approach also assumes everyone is using Quark on a Mac with the full range of Adobe software. When it became possible to generate .pdfs using InDesign, this was held out to users as the Holy Grail of magazine printing, even though their workflows and prepress were still based on Quark 4.11 principles. Any underlying colour management issues the clients now have to tackle themselves.
So now we have the situation in which I find myself, having to learn from scratch a good deal about colour management issues so that I can tell the printers what is needed for my magazine. Meanwhile all the printing salesmen, the ones I encounter anyway, are still busy pushing the InDesign to .pdf as the "be all and end all" solution. Some re-education is needed for all parties I think.

I am glad to see that the sun is peeping through the clouds.
I apologise for my Aussie-style straight talk earlier, but as I said before it was not directed personally at you but in the direction of others whom you epitomize, repeating a conversation I have had many times over the last 10 years or so where respectable, well-meaning photographers, designers and other contributors refuse to accept that colour management is being thrust upon them.
It is a simple fact of life, there is this 'new' thing that has butted into the very root of our trades and changed the most basic principles of printing and photography. We expect that this kind of thing does not happen but the industry we now work in is not the same one we trained in twenty years ago.
Many printers are still struggling with the same conflict, so many tradespeople cannot accept this change.
This is exacerbated by the fact that colour management is so complicated to learn and implement and confounded by the fact that the default settings and a clumsy workflow often yield acceptable results with incorrect, generic settings, hence the old 'use InDesign and make a PDF and it will be ok' route.
When the chain of colour management includes the photographer, the photographer's client, the designer, the other designer maybe, the prepress person, and the platemaker, and a single incorrect click by any one of those can kill the CM it is not surprising that in the end when someone is looking back to see where it fell over they usually never find out.....   They will meet someone who says ' I never touched it, I simply opened the file and scaled it and closed it'. And that person will be a reputable photographer or designer (and CLIENT) who has no idea they just broke it. So what do we do? We go with the generic setting that seems to yield adequate results therefore avoiding the confrontation.
You need to understand the situation of the printer who took his business through the 'early' days of colour management, we had all kinds of very reputable sources supplying incorrect files, we did not have the expertise yet to be able to address the entire workflow, it would have meant training photographers and designers all through the best design houses and national institutions, because they blamed the printer. Only in the last few years have I seen these people coming around to the fact that they bear responsibility for implementing their own cm and maintaining it through their own work.
Sadly, many high end sources are still not there, and I mean HIGH end! Probably the ones that don't even visit this forum because they want to keep blaming the printer... They tend to live with the poor quality reproductions and just pull up the worst ones and fiddle with those and try to avoid the 'elephant in the room'.
I am sorry to say that it was not practical for a printer to reject mismanaged files for fear of losing clients who would happily accept less than perfect results in order to avoid the painful truth that was being told to them. The best thing we could do was to gently make those clients aware that their workflow was imperfect and hope to show them how we could help... Many print shops do not have someone knowledgeable enough or patient enough to do this, or the boss does not understand the issue either and tries to work around it to keep his jobs flowing in the expectation that all those experts in the chain will eventually tame the thing.
The many experts on this holy forum are waaaaayyyy ahead of the printing industry in general and photographers and designers in general in their understanding of colour management workflow. I have seen first hand how reputable local industry people and trainers alike are spreading misinformation and bad techniques, when I discovered these forums back in about 2002 I found that they opened up a whole new galaxy of knowledge and facts that actually worked and made sense, unlike what I had been told locally.... This forum taught me what the Adobe text books did not, the Tech' teachers did not, local 'experts' did not!
I tell all interested people to join these forums and learn to discriminate between the good and bad information.

Apple is right to let Aperture go

After at first being a little surprised at Aperture’s demise it occurred to me that Apple is right to do this. Continuing to develop an app with small market share on an operating system with small market share makes little sense. It is better for them to admit defeat and try something better then continuing to go down the wrong path.
The technology landscape has changed a lot since 2005 when Aperture 1.0 came out. There are different ways to access files such as sandboxing and iCloud drive. These technologies will become an important way to get photos between a Mac and an iOS device. Tagging files in Aperture was helpful but relying on the tagging system built into the OS would be a much better solution (someone else just mentioned this recently and I strongly agree.) If a new pro photo app made it’s tags available to the Finder and Spotlight those tags should show up along side similarly tagged files that were created in other programs.
Also Aperture’s competition from Adobe is fundamentally flawed. An all new pro app could address the problems that Adobe’s photography apps have. Anyone who has used Adobe’s solutions should be well aware of their shortcomings.
1. Photoshop, which came into being in the 1980s, was not built around technology like raw and therefore requires a rather clumsy workflow.
2. When a document gets exported to Photoshop the user is presented with a confusing array of choices as to how that photograph should be handled. Each option with it’s own series of advantages and drawbacks.
When a photo gets brought back into LR after being edited in PS it creates a new copy. If that photo then gets edit a second and third time it just keeps creating more copies of the image. The same problem can be said of adobe camera raw.
4. I always thought it was a little odd that you have to export an image from LR in order to use it in another app. App’s like LR, Aperture, and Photos are file navigation programs so why do I need to bring a photo from one navigation program (Lightroom) into another navigation program (the Finder) in order to work with it? Yes, I realize that at times you may need a smaller resolution file of an image like for a webpage but why can’t I just make a smaller version from within the photo navigation program and keep the images all in the same app? Doesn’t make sense to me.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Modern apps like Pixelmator are similar to PS except they can handle raw directly from within the app. It seems like it would be possible to team up with Pixelmator so that a raw photo could go between the two apps while keeping all their settings in tact and not requiring users to make unnecessary duplicates of exported files. For an example you could change the brightness in Apple’s Pro app and then it would still stay at the same setting in Pixelmator. And then if you changed the brightness again in Pixelmator the adjustment bar setting would be brought over to Apple’s Photos.
Since Pixelmator didn’t exist when Aperture 1.0 came out the two companies were not able to unify their two products. When you start over with a new product considerations like this can be taken into account. One of the things I hate about Adobe’s photo apps is the way that a lot of modern technology like raw feels very tacked on (because it is.)

Well there are standards and they are the IPTC/exif metadata. Across all OSes. And even after Apple adopted Mavericks tags it still uses keywords in its photo applications. And no mav tags in iOS either (but you CAN read IPTC/exif data in photos in iOS). Tags are in extended attributes, and hence may be inaccessible in another filesystem.Even Apple Mail doesn't use them. You have to put the tag in the form of x-tag or something into the header info (BTW, if you like tags, as I do, check out MailTags. It does this and more).
If you photo apps don't read standard IPTC/exif data something is seriously wrong. Also you don't have to dig through hundreds of criteria to search for photo metadata. The stuff is already indexed; the categories like aperture, caption, etc are ways to narrow searches. All your LR keywords would be in the Spotlight index, assuming you enable Spotlight on the volumes where they reside, and that you wrote the keyword metadata to the files.
I think you have a stronger point re tagging/keywording in regards to XMP sidecars. Yet another area for improvement. If you add keywords to a RAW in Aperture or LR they are not gonna write that keyword to the RAW unless you apply some force. The standard way of doing that is by using XMP sidecar files. And short answer is that for some Spotlight indexes the XMPs via the rich text mdimporter; for some this means modifying that same importer. In either case, if Spotlight finds the keyword it can only point you to the sidecar, not the companion RAW. Since a tag is in the extended attributes, it sorta isn't in the RAW, but Spotlight would send you to the RAW if it were tagged. So allowing THAT kind of tagging in Aperture, LR or whatever would be great IMHO.
And I'd like to ADD tags from Aperture. But I'd always want it to be in addition to photo keywords and other metadata. Just like captions, filenames, and other stuff is separate. I can still search for them at the same time if I want. Or ignore them. And you may already have the "wedding" problem: that word may in the content of files, or in a filename, or in an email header, or a web url, or whatever. Even without photo metadata you sometimes have to tell Spotlight to ONLY search tags and ignore other criteria.
Since you like tags, check out Leap. I use it to keep lots of stuff together that have tags and keywords, and other searchable attributes. Even email. All in one place. And HoudahSpot; it has templates you can set up for just photos and it displays all the photo metadata in one panel.
And although I'd like to see it happen, non-destructive editing can be a problem because edits have to be stored somewhere. A universal format would be cool, but we'll see. Editors like Pixelmator are different tools than DAMs like Aperture, even though they both can say crop or change contrast. You'll find tons of photographers who never use PS, and tons of graphic artists who never use Aperture. Depends on the focus of your work. Even the system wide versioning Apple introduced for stuff like Pages or Text Edit hasn't been universally loved. And BTW, not sure Pixelmator doesn't view Apple as a competitor. Sure, Apple may provide them with some cool tools to sell more Pixelmators...or may develop an application that'll make Pixelmator disappear. And Filemaker is an interesting example: Apple formed Claris, which bought whatever FM was at that point (from MS?). Eventually Apple brought stuff from Claris back in (AW?), and left FM with Claris, which changed its name. Maybe they should Aperture OUT to Pixelmator I'd LOVE that. Shoot, given Apple's assets they could send it to 'em free.
And sorry Frank, I shoulda been more specific. I meant "in Aperture" as in the program itself, not a media browser like what you show (and basically iMedia Browser is the same thing, but with LR catalogs in addition to Aperture or iPhoto or file folders).

Samsung nx200 raw support

I can't get Lightroom3.4.1 to read samsung's raw files. in sRGB or adobeRGB. This is the new NX 200. But since it is supposed to support NX100, one would think NX 200 should be the same format. Any suggestions on how what to do. The samsung converter makes for a clumsy workflow. thx.

I do in RAW, than import SRW to Samsung Raw Converter. I set the correct white balance, sharpen. and exports to TIFF.
After a suitable set of parameters is somewhat smaller TIF - so it will retain all of them do DNG.
It seems to me that the TIF has better quality than JPG.
Anyway I look forward to the support for SRW from NX200

Cinema 4d integration

Ive been reading about the next version and cinema 4d integration but I cant figure out if cinema 4d come with AE or do you have to purchase separately. Is it just a plug in for importing? Can you still use AE without it? I red that its the lite version and I cant see anywhere where to purchase it.

Personally I'm not impressed with Cineware and therefore yes, it could be considered "lame". The demos look underwhelming and poorly planned and as I wrote in my article give the exact opposite impression - it's one hell of a clumsy workflow. AE itself not having received any enhancements to its own 3D space and Cinema4D being devoid of an interactive "preview" renderer like in modo or Lightwave's VPR renderer is apparently not a good combination in the first place. I also don't get why they haven't at least implemented some typical VFX workflows natively like projection mapping with AE's cams and Projection Man. It just doesn't feel right and there's so many loose ends... There's a lot of work to be done to make this better and by that I don't mean to just give people C4D Studio to stuff their mouth. Adobe and Maxon have to be careful and make smart decisions about future versions of this or they'll be forever locked into this. The rest is neither here nor there - being poor doesn't necessarily make you a better artist and Blender, while having a completely different UI paradigm than most other 3D programs and a different workflow order, is perfectly workable. Pardon me for saying this, but you're complaining about a luxury problem. You should have seen 3D Studio (for DOS) 20 years ago or some other 3D program back then and trying to figure out complicated things without resorting to video tutorials or chat help from friends. Compared to that it's damned easy to get into 3D - not that I necessarily agree so many people should, but that's another topic...
Mylenium

Fujifilm x pro 1 raw conversion

Dear Apple Aperture,
In the Fujifilm X Pro 1, you have one of the most exciting and in-demand cameras of 2012, and in my view, since the Nikon D90. But still we have no plugin for working with it's disruptive raw format within Aperture 3.x. While this capablity delays, I am forced to edit raws outside of Aperture making for a clumsy workflow, as I first have to edit and convert images in Silkypix. I know you are busy, but is this because of Fuji, or are iPxxx's the only important products these days...
I love you Apple, but please get us x pro 1 raw conversion soon!
g2

Apple is officially not here. We are a user-to-user forum, hosted on Apple's servers.
The Apple-approved method for making suggestions and feature requests for Aperture is via the feedback form: "Aperture→Provide Aperture Feedback".

Faces, Location and Edit Photos all at once?

Is there anyway to label Faces, assign the location to a photo and use the photo editing features all at once?
When I import new photos, I want to sort through, edit and organize them once. But there doesn't seem to be a way to do this. Any tips for ways to speed this clumsy workflow up?

No
LN

Watermarked photo workflow?

i have a bit of a goofy workflow that i am trying to improve on. advance apologies as i have not done any editing whatsoever in aperture as i am only currently using it to organize a database of images.
anyway, i /currently/ select a number of images that i want to watermark, create an album for these images, then i export the images to a folder on my desktop. then i size these to some convenient we format in Preview (usually 10" wide or 10" tall at 72 DPI). then i /delete/ the original images in this "project X watermark" album and i IMPORT these sized images into a new PROJECT. at this point the images are sized correct and i go ahead and EXPORT the project images to the desktop folder (after having deleted the original sized images in the folder on the desktop) and i select the color and location of the watermark.i bulk select the photos that i want watermarked in the various locations so i only do three of four exports at this point.
at this point i go ahead and i delete the imported sized images from this album and i IMPORT again the images from the desktop folder with the watermark.
then i go through the images on the desktop in Quick Look and if there are any out of place watermarks i redo the individual images in the manner described above.
so at this point i have images in a folder on my desktop with a watermark and i have them in a new PROJECT in aperture.
i assume this is going to be seen as insane but is there a better way to accomplish this without so many steps?
THANKS

Aperture is an Image organizer that stores raw material (digicam files of recorded light) and information (instructions on how to alter the recorded light files — including {mentioned for its importance to you} adding a watermark). Aperture should be thought of as an aggressively efficient way to _make_ share-able image-format files from the data you store in it. It does not — when properly used — store the share-able image-format files you make.
That is, to me, the important conceptual distinction that, having missed, is sending you on circuitous routes of file-making and storing. Aperture is like a factory that produces items from molds. Keep the factory smoothly-running, and customize the molds to your needs, but don't clutter up the place with the items you make. Remember that you can always — at very close to zero cost — make another — or another hundred thousand — items.
I found Aperture easier to understand and use once I insisted on specifying exactly what I meant by "image", "photo", and "file".
Aperture is a database of Images. Those images are made — on the fly — by combining two files: the Original, and the text files of development instructions. "Photo" should not (in spite of its use by the designers of Aperture) ever be used: its definition is so indefinite its use leads to confusion and wasted time.
_If_ your overall work requires you to keep many share-able image-format files at hand, by all means do so. But use a file-management program to store them. Aperture is not a file-manager. Finder is. (I use Path Finder, which is more full-featured, but comes with some clumsiness.)
I recommend inShort for studying and refining process flow. Refining process flow is not simple. The issue you've posted about, nevertheless, is one of process flow. (A word about inShort: brilliant, but almost completely opaque at first glance; persevere — it's intransigence is wise.)
HTH.
—Kirby.

10.1.2. to 10.1.3 Human workflow task migration issue

Hi all,
I am currently looking at the possibility to migrate our 10.1.2 bpel processes, containing human workflow task, to 10.1.3.1.0 Everything seems to migrate smoothly except the human workflow functionality.
The initateTask invoke action returns the following error in the 10.1.3.1 console when I ran an 10.1.2. bpel process containing a human workflow task:
[2006/12/04 03:01:00]
"{http://schemas.oracle.com/bpel/extension}remoteFault" has been thrown.
- <remoteFault xmlns="http://schemas.oracle.com/bpel/extension">
- <part name="code">
<code>
WSDLReadingError
</code>
</part>
- <part name="summary">
<summary>
Failed to read wsdl.
Failed to read wsdl at "http://xesoa1.iteye.local:8894/orabpel/default/TaskActionHandler/TaskManagerService.wsdl", because "Failed to read WSDL from http://xesoa1.iteye.local:8894/orabpel/default/TaskActionHandler/TaskManagerService.wsdl:WSDL not found".
Make sure wsdl is valid. You may need to start the OraBPEL server, or make sure the related bpel process is deployed correctly.
</summary>
</part>
</remoteFault>
I know that in 10.1.3 the human workflow mechanism is heavily changed and now is invoked by using other services (TaskService) than the services used (TaskActionHandler process)in 10.1.2. In 10.1.2 the TaskActionHandler was a separate build-in bpel process used for interaction between a bpel process and the human workflow. This process is not present in the 10.1.3.1 installation, so that is causing my error. Moreover, in 10.1.3 the interaction between a bpel process is and the human workflow is not done by invoking a separate bpel process (TaskActionHandler) but by invoking a java wsif service TaskService..(Correct me when I'm wrong or not complete)
My question now is how can I migrate my 10.1.2 human workflow task to 10.1.3.1 without manually rewrite the task scopes to 10.1.3...According to the fragment below copied from the JDeveloper 10.1.3.1 help files it should be possible. Maybe, there's is a way to deploy the needed processes manually?
Oracle BPEL Process Manager Workflow Services 10.1.2 and 10.1.3.1.0 Compatibility
For release 10.1.3.1.0, the workflow wizard has been replaced by a Human Task editor. This editor enables you to specify task settings such as task outcome, payload structure, task participants, assignment and routing policy, expiration and escalation policy, notification settings, and so on. You cannot use the Human Task editor to edit 10.1.2-based workflows. To use any new 10.1.3.1.0 functionality, the task scope of the workflow must be manually migrated to use the new workflow metadata. Note also that this is the last release in which you can deploy workflows designed with 10.1.2.
Kind regards,
Tom Hofte

Hi Clemens,
Thanks for your quick response. The Taskmanager and the Taskactionhandler are indeed not deployed so I will do that automatically.
Still one question/remark left:
You noticed that you still have to complete the tasks using the old worklist app. . So if i'm correct, you have to use the deprecated 10.1.2 worklist api or build-in worklist app. The 10.1.2 worklist app is not deployed in my 10.1.3 installation. However, 10.1.3 only contains the new worklist app. Is there also a way to deploy it manually?
Writing this down it al looks a bit clumsy to me. Is it not a better option to invest some time in migrating all tasks scopes manually to 10.1.3, because as far as I can see the human tasks are causing the main issues concerning migration? After this you have a 10.1.3 compliant system. I wonder what your opinion is on this issue.
Kind regards,
Tom

Workflow with HD

I am trying to streamline my workflow for HD and was hoping someone could help.
With DV I was using Scenalyzer to catalog and create In and Out points. This software would create a reduced size and quality version of the video and allow me to easily create In and Out points along with a batch file I would use in Premier 2.0 to capture the pieces of video I wanted. Scenalyzer has not and may not upgrade to HD and trying to use Premier for this task is clumsy at best (unless I dont know of a solution).
Can people let me know what they use to quickly scan a tape, Create a manageable catalog (reduced quality version) and select in and out point for selected scenes that I could capture in Premier.
Thanks for any help!
Steve

Harm:
Not too Weird, at lest for me:
1) Shoot Video
2) Run Scenalyzer to create and Index (index/catalog is a reduce size capture of the tape). Turns out to be about a 100meg file for a 60min tape.
3) Through Scenalyzer select the scenes that I want and create a batch file for Premier. With my video work, usually only 20% of the tape ever makes it into editing.
4) Feed the batch file into Premier and do the full capture for the scenes I want.
5) Start editing.
This process has:
Reduced disk space requirements for me and gives me an index/catalog file I can always go back to if I need other scenes from the tape.

Workflow Attribute Namespace?

How would I compare a waveset attribute with the attribute being modified from the Tabbed User Form?
ex)
<Transition to="Rename Activity">
<cond>
<neq>
<ref>waveset.EXT_ATTRIBUTE</ref>
<ref> EXT_ATTRIBUTE being updated in UpdateUser WORKFLOW</ref>
</neq>
</cond>
</Transition>
<Transition to="DoNotUnlock"/>
Thanks

You can check for renames by comparing like this:
<neq>
    <ref>user.accounts[Lighthouse].netlinkID</ref>
    <ref>user.waveset.attributes.netlinkID</ref>
</neq>    A problem is that if the rename of a resource account fails for some reason, the workflow won't try it again the next time.
A more effective approach that I use to check for renames with LDAP and AD is this:
<and>
    <ref>user.accountInfo.accounts[LDAP].created</ref>
    <not>
        <invoke name='endsWith'>
            <new class='javax.naming.ldap.LdapName'>
                <ref>user.accountInfo.accounts[LDAP].accountId</ref>
            </new>
            <list>
                <new class='javax.naming.ldap.Rdn'>
                    <s>uid</s>
                    <ref>user.global.netlinkID</ref>
                </new>
            </list>
        </invoke>
    </not>
</and>It is clumsy in that I have to construct the RDN and compare it to the resource account. I have to do this for both LDAP and AD.
It does work reliably, though.

RAW+JPEG Workflow issues

When shooting RAW+JPEG Im having trouble finding a good workflow (Canon 5D Mark II, LR 2.2, Windows), whether or not I import with LR treating the RAW and JPEG files as separate photos. (Im drawn to shooting RAW+JPEG as the Mark IIs JPEGs are often very good.)
One major problem with importing RAW and associated JPEG as one unit (i.e., not as separate photos) is what I consider to be a bug: when I export metadata and ratings, they are applied only to the RAW file and not to the JPEG. Is there a setting I havent noticed or an easy workaround?
Also, after importing as one unit, it would be very convenient to be able to separate the RAW+JPEG into separate photos (e.g., for editing and export). Why does the combined vs. separate approach have to be decided on at import time without being able to change it later?
In trying to work around the above problems, I import as separate photos and try to treat each RAW+JPEG pair as a unit. As some have suggested, perhaps the best approach is to create a stack for each RAW+JPEG pair (easy with auto-stack). But this approach is very limited because you cant really treat a stack as a unit, i.e.:
- quickly apply metadata and ratings to a stack
- delete all photos in a stack
- move a stack for sorting and into collections
You can work around these limitations by unstacking each pair and selecting both, but thats a bit clumsy.
Any advice or info would be appreciated.
js

I think I already commented on that in an earlier post.
ACR until quite recently had a very bad habit of bad colors by default... why would I want to create a .jpg from that ugly RAW using LR when they whole purpose of having the .jpg was to have some reference of 'reasonably close to what I'm after.' Or perhaps you needed some quick prints, and don't feel like messing with tweaking colors in RAW at the moment... and camera generated .jpg is 'good enough' with just some simple minor adjustments.
The new profiles are a huge improvement, but at times I still shoot both... just to check up that its still doing what I expect of it. And most of all, I want to use LR to manage ALL my images. Stacks are a handy way to hide the clutter if that's what you want to call it... their functionality just isn't what you'd expect to be there.
Others may have their own reason for wanting to use both. But again... I'm not arrogant enough to presume that everyone should be doing things just as I do, that's the beauty of options - it makes the program more powerful for a wider userbase. If options like this are more difficult to implement than the GND or adjustment brushes... then perhaps some poor initial decisions were made in how they based LR in the first place.
Besides... it wouldn't be as much of a 'hassle' if the proper tools were in LR in the first place. ;)
Plus, aren't there ways to filter so you only see RAW if that's what you are after? I honestly don't know, because I personally don't see the 'duplicate' files as a hassle - though their management could be eased... which I think was the intent of all the suggestions.

Equivalent in 10.1.3 Parallel workflow with final Reviewer

Hi,
I am looking how to implement the equivalent of Parallel workflow with final Reviewer (used in 10.1.2) in our 10.1.3 BPEL version. it 's very urgent plz.
when i user Group Vote, it does not give me what i want .............
thanks
BG.

Hi Clemens,
Thanks for your quick response. The Taskmanager and the Taskactionhandler are indeed not deployed so I will do that automatically.
Still one question/remark left:
You noticed that you still have to complete the tasks using the old worklist app. . So if i'm correct, you have to use the deprecated 10.1.2 worklist api or build-in worklist app. The 10.1.2 worklist app is not deployed in my 10.1.3 installation. However, 10.1.3 only contains the new worklist app. Is there also a way to deploy it manually?
Writing this down it al looks a bit clumsy to me. Is it not a better option to invest some time in migrating all tasks scopes manually to 10.1.3, because as far as I can see the human tasks are causing the main issues concerning migration? After this you have a 10.1.3 compliant system. I wonder what your opinion is on this issue.
Kind regards,
Tom

Workflow question: removing images from project

How can I tell Aperture to remove a file from its database without removing it from the hard drive? My workflow is:
1. Import images to a Transfer folder
2. Edit images
3. Move remaining images to a folder with the shoot name, under a Photos folder
In Aperture, I've got a Photos project, with Albums for each shoot name folder and I've got a Transfer project that the unediting shoot is in. After I edited my first shoot in 1.5, I used the Relocate Master command to move the files of the shoot to the new folder in the Finder. I then made a new Album under the Photos project and copied the photos from Transfer to the new Album. That all worked great. As a last step, I wanted to remove the photos from the Transfer project. However, I can't: I can only delete the original file, which will delete it from the hard drive. I can't figure out how to tell Aperture to simply stop managing a file. It's really basic issue but it's stopping me from using Aperture to manage my library (or at least do it efficiently).

Wow, I was really tired when I posted that. No, you were correct the first time: I was looking to delete images and for that your suggestion worked perfectly.
What I was doing when I asked the second question was re-arranging my library in Aperture. I decided to remove everything and to use a structure that has a Folder labelled "Photos" at the top level, then multiple Projects below that, each named with a year. In each Project, there are albums for that year's shoots.
Before I removed the old structure, I exported out as a Project the last shoot I edited. Pre-1.5, I never bothered keeping editing images in Aperture - I just used it as a tool for editing the shoot. However, now that Aperture can reference external files (i.e., I'm not worried about its database), I can keep the editing images and their modifications in Aperture (modifications like keywords and image adjustments). So, after creating my new structure, I wanted to import all the editing images of my last shoot; sort of kicking off my greater use of Aperture. However, after importing the Project, I couldn't figure out how to move the images into the new shoot Album, in my "2006" Project. Hence my "can't move images"-post to you.
Your tip about dragging into the Project, not the Album, worked great, moving the images into their new place. Last night (morning, actually), my clumsy workaround was to drag the edited images into the new shoot album, then import the originals again, then use the stamp tool to copy the changes from the exisiting images to the new ones. I then deleted the images I'd imported via the existing Project. Much more of a pain than knowning what you told me!
Thanks again.
fh

Error while deploying a workflow in OWB

Hi,
I am getting the below error while deploying a workflow in Control Center.
ORA-29532: Java call terminated by uncaught Java exception: java.sql.SQLException: The file /u01/app/oracle/product/11.2.0.2/dbhome_1/owb/bin/admin/rtrepos.properties cannot be accessed or has not been properly created on the server XXXXXX. If the file does not exist or if the database owner (normally user 'oracle') does not have the required file permissions or if the file has not been properly created then the file can be recreated by running the SQL*Plus script /u01/app/oracle/product/11.2.0.2/dbhome_1/owb/rtp/sql/reset_repository.sql (in a RAC environment the file must be manually copied to each server which is used for OWB). Otherwise if using a 10.2 database instance, then please run the SQL*Plus script /u01/app/oracle/product/11.2.0.2/dbhome_1/owb/UnifiedRepos/reset_owbcc_home.sql.
Did any one faced this issue before?
Kindly let me know the steps to resolve the issue.
Thanks.

Hi Vidyanand,
Did you create the runtime access user using the runtime assistant? Did you select the correct runtime repository (if you have more) to associate your runtime access user with?
Note that there are 4 database roles being created when you create a runtime repository owner:
- OWB_A_<runtime repository owner>
- OWB_D_<runtime repository owner>
- OWB_R_<runtime repository owner>
- OWB_U_<runtime repository owner>
If you would grant those roles to a user, then that user becomes an access user for the user with username <runtime repository owner>.
Note that you can also use the runtime repository credentials to connect to the runtime repository for deployment purposes, but you may not want that because of security concerns.
Thanks,
Mark.

Clumsy workflow ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for