DNG 6.7 & LR3.6 Workflow Question

Hi,
I use Lightroom 3.6 and Photoshop CS-5. I like the workflow the way it is right now, and I do not want to upgrade to Lightroom 4 because of the overwhelming number of complaints about performance. I have a four-year-old dual core processor with 8 GB of RAM and Windows 7 64-bit. Both LR 3.6 and CS-5 work very well on this computer and I do not have any desire to upgrade the computer at this time.
The problem is that I am going to purchase a new camera (Olympus OM-D E-M5) and the RAW format will not be supported in Lightroom 3.6 (shame on Adobe for not providing Lightroom 3 updates a little longer... the software isn't that old). It is supported by DNG Converter 6.7, and I assume the latest ACR update for Photoshop CS-5.
So if I stay with Lightroom 3.6, which I will do until I hear that Adobe has fixed the performance issues in LR 4 sufficient enough to run on my existing hardware, what workflow makes the most sense?
I know Lightroom can convert to DNG during import, but will it utilize the latest DNG converter if I download and install it? Or will I have to copy the new RAW files to the computer, run the DNG 6.7 converter separately, and then import the new DNG files into Lightroom?
I suppose I could always use Photoshop's ACR to work directly with the new RAW files, but I don't use Photoshop very often. I prefer to do most of my work in Lightroom, and save Photoshop for a small percentage of images I want to do more with.
Sean

If you decide to stick with your present software configuration then it will be necessary for you to convert your raw images using the latest DNG converter. Conversion to DNG is built into Lightroom, and it doesn't use the standalone DNG converter.
I might suggest that you download the Lightroom 4.1 RC2 from the Adobe Labs web site and give it a try. It will create a copy of your Lightroom 3 catalog, but it will not interfere with your use of the previous version. I am running it, and don't find that I have the problems that some are. You can use it for free until it expires. That should give you enough time to evaluate whether or not you want to switch. I have purchased Lightroom 4 but have not installed it yet. I'm going to wait until 4.1 is officially released.

Similar Messages

RED Workflow questions with Mac Pro (including third party plugins)

Hello all,
I’ve been searching many forums for the better part of a day trying to get some workflow questions sorted. I’m experiencing (very) slow export times, and mediocre playback for a machine that should be screaming fast.
Here is what I’m working with:
2014 Mac Pro
-2.7 GHz 12-core intel xeon E5
-64GB Ram
-Dual AMD FirePro D700 6GB
-1TB Flash Storage
Editing all footage off 96TB Raid 6 mini-sas server (getting about 1100mbs read/write rate according to AJA system test) which is faster than any Thunderbolt/TB2 drive array I have.
Media I work with is footage from the RED Epic (normally 5K) as well as DSLR footage from the 5d.
Software:
-PrPro CC 2014 (8.1)
-Magic Bullet Looks 2.5.2
My question(s) pertains to RED post-pro workflow in combination with third party plug-ins and the different approaches to make it more efficient.
Right now, majority of the clients need a 1080p HD master, and they are generally anywhere from 2-8 minutes (usually). So my sequence settings are as follows:
Video:
Editing Mode: RED Cinema
Size: 1920 x 1080
Audio: 48Hz
Video Previews
Preview File Format: I-Frame Only MPEG
Codec: MPEG I-Frame
1920x1080
Maximum Bit Depth unchecked
Maximum Render Quality unchecked
Composite in Linear Color checked
Export Settings
H.264
1920x1080
VBR 1 pass
Target Bitrate 12mbs
Max bitrate 12mbs
Maximum render quality/depth/previews unchecked
Issues I have:
-Playback is fine at 1/2 or even full, but once effects (especially magic bullet looks) start to go on the clips, it’s very choppy and has difficult playback at 1/4
-Export times (especially with magic bullet looks) will take the better part of 1-4 hours for a video that is 3-6 minutes long. This doesn’t seem like it should be the case for a maxed out MacPro
So my questions are:
Do these seem like the right sequence/export settings for mastering at 1080p? If not, what would you suggest?
Would using offline editing help at all?
Do you place your effects on adjustment layers?
Is there anyway to improve export settings when using an array of filters?
Have you stopped using third party plugins for their inefficiency in unreliability and switched to more integrated applications like SpeedGrade?
Is there any other tweaks that you would suggest for RED workflow with PrPro?
Should I consider switching to FCPX or (besides the iMovie-likeness) does it carry problems of its own?

Hi This Is Ironclad,
thisisironclad wrote:
Hello all,
I’ve been searching many forums for the better part of a day trying to get some workflow questions sorted. I’m experiencing (very) slow export times, and mediocre playback for a machine that should be screaming fast.
The biggest issue is that most people have is that updating OS X causes certain folders to be set to Read Only. See this blog post: Premiere Pro CC, CC 2014, or 2014.1 freezing on startup or crashing while working (Mac OS X 10.9, and later).
thisisironclad wrote:
Hello all,
I’ve been searching many forums for the better part of a day trying to get some workflow questions sorted. I’m experiencing (very) slow export times, and mediocre playback for a machine that should be screaming fast.
Here is what I’m working with:
2014 Mac Pro
-2.7 GHz 12-core intel xeon E5
-64GB Ram
-Dual AMD FirePro D700 6GB
-1TB Flash Storage
It's a nice base system. How about an additional speedy disk for media cache files. You also did not mention which version of OS X you are running.
thisisironclad wrote:
Software:
-Magic Bullet Looks 2.5.2
The Red Giant website does not indicate that this software is yet updated to work with Premiere Pro CC 2014.1 (8.1). Proceed with caution here.
thisisironclad wrote:
Issues I have:
-Playback is fine at 1/2 or even full, but once effects (especially magic bullet looks) start to go on the clips, it’s very choppy and has difficult playback at 1/4
I would not use this plug-in until you get the OK from the manufacturer.
thisisironclad wrote:
-Export times (especially with magic bullet looks) will take the better part of 1-4 hours for a video that is 3-6 minutes long. This doesn’t seem like it should be the case for a maxed out MacPro
Again, I suspect your plug-in.
Keep in mind that exports are largely CPU based but you can make sure that GPU acceleration is enabled for AME at the bottom of the Queue panel.
thisisironclad wrote:
So my questions are:
Do these seem like the right sequence/export settings for mastering at 1080p? If not, what would you suggest?
It's OK.
thisisironclad wrote:
Would using offline editing help at all?
No need when you should be able to edit natively. Relinking might also be an issue.
thisisironclad wrote:
Do you place your effects on adjustment layers?
That's one way you can do it with the benefit of being more organized.
thisisironclad wrote:
Have you stopped using third party plugins for their inefficiency in unreliability and switched to more integrated applications like SpeedGrade?
I do. Of course, that's a preference.
thisisironclad wrote:
Is there any other tweaks that you would suggest for RED workflow with PrPro?
Try the following:
Sign out from Creative Cloud, restart Premiere Pro, then sign in
Update any GPU drivers
Trash preferences
Ensure Adobe preference files are set to read/write(Hopefully you checked this out already)
Delete media cache
Remove plug-ins
If you have AMD GPUs, make sure CUDA is not installed
Repair permissions
Disconnect any third party hardware
If you have a CUDA GPU, ensure that the Mercury Playback Engine is set to CUDA, not OpenCLYou have AMD GPUs.
Disable App Nap
Reboot
thisisironclad wrote:
Should I consider switching to FCPX or (besides the iMovie-likeness) does it carry problems of its own?
I really shouldn't answer that question.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
Kevin

Yet Another Workflow Question

Ok I too, like many others here, am new to the Mac (thanks to Apple's I'm a Mac, I'm a PC ads that my wife couldn't get enough of). I have done some searching around and I see that there are quite a few iMovie workflow questions out there. I have not quite found what I am looking for however, so I thought I would make my first post tonight. So here it goes...
I have 3 different ways I capture video:
1. Canon Vixia HF10 (HD)
2. Canon Powershot (SD)
3. Blackberry Storm (SD...I know it isn't a good phone)
I record everything to SD cards. I am wanting to know the best way to store my raw video for editing at any time. Do I copy the AVCHD file structure (for the Vixia) and .avi files (for the other non HD) to my hdd, or do I just import into iMovie '09 and let it reside there, or both? I noticed that iMovie had an archival option (which appears to just copy the AVCHD structure to my hdd), which is why I ask. I want to always keep my raw video in case I decide to go back later and create a new video.
After I have the raw video archived, I would like to know the best way to use iMovie. Depending on where I end up storing the raw video, should I keep the imported video in iMovie once I am finished with a project, and then reimport it at a later date if need be? Or, do I leave it in iMovie as events? I guess this all rely depends on the first question...where do I store the raw video for archival purposes...
Finally, when exporting my iMovie project, should I store that in more of a, pardon the Windows reference, "My Videos" folder with a original size, web optimized size, and ipod optimized size? Thus, keeping the actual exported version of the project separate from the raw video?
I hope I have asked the right questions here. I appreciate any and all help I can get!
Ron

Welcome Ron to the  iMovie boards..
very interesting : 'switchers' care sooo much for 'storage strategies' ..
the by Apple intended workflow/concept for iApps is:
any 'photocam' related material (still or movin') comes-in via iPhoto, and is stored in an iP Library (=you can tell iP to create 2/many Libs, if you prefer to organize manually....)
any 'camcorder' related material HAS to be imported by iM - why? because, iM has some internal routines to make such material editable (codecs, thumnails, stuff....). the same material as 'file by Finder' does not import.. in most cases!
storage..
iP stores in its Library (local/internal HDD and/or ext. HDD)
iM stores in Events (local/internal HDD and/or ext. HDD)
to make Projects/Albums accessible to any iApp, you should keep your fingers off that structure.
Erasing Events 'kills' projects.
allthough, once 'shared to media browser' there's a 'copy' of your project WITHIN the project file. (= the socalled Media Browser is no single Folder somewhere hidden in the system)
there's this Spacesaver feature to erase any Event content which is not in use in any project to keep Events lean.
use the Archive feature from within iM to keep things easy and convenient.. if you miss a single file of the SDcard file-structure, the whole card's content is kaputt ..
summary:
• use iApps as intended.
• use iP for cameras, it stores 'raws' (the avi too)
• use iM for camcorders, use Archive to store raws..
• purchase a dozend of HDDs to store your material..

Sharpening export workflow question

I have a sharpening workflow question. Say I have pictures from a portrait session I just finished. I have to send 10 pictures the client ordered to a print lab and I also will make some small facebook sized pictures and upload them to my business facebook page. The level of sharpening needed for large prints (I upload to print lab as RGB JPEGS) and sharpening needed for the very small sRGB facebook-sized pictures is different. In Lightroom I have the option to set the sharpening on export and have a bunch of presets that alter the export size, color space, sharpening, etc(WHCC print lab, facebook, Client CD, etc). I don't see how to do that in Aperture. I see they have the option if you have a printer, but not on normal export.
For those of you that have to export batches of pictures in multiple different sizes (with different levels of sharpening), what is your workflow? I could use some photoshop droplets/actions after Aperture export but I was hoping there was a way to avoid the extra step. Am I overlooking an export feature? The BorderFX plug-in looks like the only other option.
Thank you in advance for time and help!
Scott

Frank Scallo Jr wrote:
The thing is guys - Once a file is sized down it WILL lose sharpening - what we are doing is sharpening the full size RAW file or rather what the full size output would be like. Once we export a version sized down it will lose some of the 'bite'. LR has sharpening options on 'output' which is not only smart but a necessity. Adobe realizes that output for screen needs another sharpen. Apple either doesn't know or didn't bother. It makes ANY output for screen less than best.
Bear in mind that there seem to be two separate issues going on here - sharpening adjustments not being applied on export, and resizing.
As far as resizing is concerned, Aperture appears to use something roughly equivalent to Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper setting. Because of this I've never had much problem with Aperture's exports when used for the web, but obviously everyone's taste for sharpening differs which is why an option for output sharpening would be good.
Sharpening adjustments not being applied on export is a separate issue and should be reported via the feedback form ASAP by everyone who is experiencing the bug.
Now printing is another animal - I wouldn't print directly from RAW in aperture either if I'm printing small. Again, LR beats Aperture here as well since they include output sharpening for print.
Aperture has had output sharpening for printing since 2.0 came out (unless it in was 1.5). In A3 you need to turn on 'More Options' and scroll down, I can't remember where it is in A2. I don't know how effective it is as I print via a lab, but it's there and it's been there for a long time...
Ian

Adobe dng and Photoshop Elements Workflow Question

My camera isn't supported by the Camera Raw for the PSE version that I have so I must convert the original raws into dngs using the DNG Converter.
Since the converterr doesn't operate on a file but only on a folder basis, I find that a workflow involves converting all the raws in a folder first and that nearly doubles the storage required. But in any one folder I might have only a few raws that I am actually interested in. But I don't see that there is any way to be working in PSE come across a file (using the jpeg image) that I want to work with and then convert just that image. This would be a better workflow and save a lot of space.
The alternative seems to involve running though all the folders, noting the image numbers and then moving all those raws to a new folder and convert it before I can sit down to serious work.
Any suggestions on how to have a smoother process?
Thanks.

You're making it much more complicated than it has to be. If you make a shortcut for the DNG converter on your windows desktop or for a mac, a desktop alias or put the converter in the Dock, you can just drop a single file on it. The converter will open and you can ignore the stuff in the window except for the destination for the converted file, and click Convert.

LR2:DNG - PSCS3:'Smart Object' workflow question

Hello, I've just started working with DNG files exported as Smart Object from LR2 to PSCS3 and I would appreciate some feedback on my experiences thus far.
Let us assume that I've made basic corrections to _DSC1190.dng within LR2. I then want to apply a filter to a particular region of the DNG file with all of my LR2 adjustments applied.
1. Here are the steps I currently follow:
1.1. Right-click on the DNG file and select 'Edit In'->'Open as Smart Object in Photoshop...'. This results (I believe) in the DNG file with all of my LR2 changes being embedded within a smart object and the resulting temporary file being opened within PSCS3.
1.2. I perform my edits in PSCS3 and save the file as a PSD (i.e. _DSC1190.psd). As long as I was smart about things, I can now go back at any time and alter any of the changes I made in PSCS3, as well as access the DNG file within the smart object to make and ACR changes I desire.
1.3. If I want the new PSD file to be added to my LR2 catalog, I then need to navigate to where it was saved and manually add it.
1.4. If I want to make any exposure adjustments, or really, any adjustments that I'd normally make within LR2 or ACR to _DSC1190.psd, I need to open the file within PSCS3, double click on the smart object to get the ACR dialog, make my changes, and voila!, the PSD composite now reflects those changes.
1.5. If I make any changes within LR2 to the original DNG file (i.e. _DSC1190.dng), those changes are *not* reflected within the PSD file.
1.6. Questions
1.6.1. Is what I've described the expected behavior?
1.6.2. Although it might seem silly to some, and may present a technical challenge not worth the trouble, it seems it would be beneficial to have the smart object exported from within LR2 to PSCS3, contain a link to the original DNG file, and not now have two separate DNG files, one visible to the file system, and the other embedded within the smart object saved as presumably a PSD. I'm sure there are a lot of corner cases to consider, but it just seems very strange to now have two files wherein if you want to change something you would normally do through LR2 or ACR, you now have to do it in two different programs to two different files. Is this a problem Adobe has considered, i.e. any discussion about supporting this perhaps in an update to LR2 along with PSCS3/4?
Thanks much for any help/insight,
Matt

I haven't tried doing what you are in CS but do you have the embed xmp into file enabled or are you updating the xmp by saving it out of LR CTRL-s? Do you have ACR set to read the xmp data? I don't have access to LR at the moment but will have a play l8r and get back to you if no one else does.

Two workflow questions, (1) importing and (2) saving/exporting

Apologies if the below questions are too elementary. I've just started using Lightroom. I've been trying out various editing/organizing programs and I haven't yet found the perfect one. Can someone tell me if Lightroom is capable of the following:
1. I shoot in Raw+Jpeg format. When I copy images from my camera to my computer, I always create a new folder that represents my event and put the jpegs in \Pictures\[Event]\ and the raw images in \Pictures\[Event]\Raw\. Is there a way to instruct Lightroom to perform this function through the import module, i.e. have a single import event that copies jpegs in an \...\[Event]\ folder while copying dng to \...\[Event]\Raw\ and importing only the dng files into my Lightroom catalog. Is this possible?
2. Also, can someone explain how Lightroom handles edits? Say I've edited a dng in my library. Is the dng file changed on my computer itself? How about the jpeg (remember, I copy jpeg+dng to my computer)? Is there a way to instruct Lightroom to automatically (i.e. default behavior) overwrite the jpg file when any changes are made to the dng file, but prevent the dng file from being overwritten? What about instances where I also want to overwrite the dng - how do I accomplish this?
Thanks.
=|

theNE0one wrote:
I completely understand and appreciate how Lightroom treats raw images. However, if I shoot Raw+jpg, what difference does it make whether or not the jpg file changes? If my raw file is untouched, I don't also need to make sure that the jpg remains in its virgin state...even if the majority of users prefer to keep both untouched, at least allow the option for people that want a different method of handling their files!
Lightroom has no feature to overwrite your JPGs automatically.
Might I suggest a workflow change ... shoot raw only, when you need a .jpg, have Lightroom export one for you.
If Lightroom handled Face/Places/Sharing well, I wouldn't need to mess with a second program (i.e. Picasa), but right now it doesn't look like it can handle what I want. I understand that I can use Metadata/Keyword tags to identify People and Places, and that there are plug-ins to upload to Picasa web albums, but these options aren't executed well enough in LR3 for me to give up Picasa. The plug-in doesn't work nearly as cleanly as the native Google program, and "Faces" is a chore in Lightroom. Picasa can automatically detect faces and makes tagging/organizing/working with images much easier. While I'm on the topic, can anyone explain why such a useful feature (that's available on free and basic image software) is not included in Lightroom? Is there any possibility that it'll be included in the final version of LR3? What about the upcoming Aperture 3? Is it that "Faces" is perceived as a basic consumer feature that isn't used in higher-end software? Will this always be excluded from this "class" of software?
Using LR3 Beta to decide whether the software works the way you want isn't a good idea. I'm guessing, but I don't know for sure, that the uploading to Picasa will work a lot better in the finished product. Hard for me to imagine a program being easier to tag/organize than Lightroom, and while I don't use Picasa, I can't see how it could be easier in tagging and organizing. It is my opinion (and you might think differently) that using two different organizing software programs on your photos is more trouble than it is worth, especially since you have to constantly "synchronize" the two different organizers.
No one here works for Adobe, and even if there was someone here from Adobe, they can't tell you what will be in future releases. We can only guess, and we don't know.
Finally, can you explain xmp? I've done some keyword tagging on my images within Lightroom. If I were to later use another program, would the keywords be picked up? From your explanation it sounds like there are two aspects to a file, the image section and the xmp section. Is the xmp section the part that includes information about the photo? I.e. settings, metadata, etc.??
Keywords that Lightroom writes to xmp should be readable by almost every other photographic application. But please be aware that Lightroom, by default, does not write keywords to the photo files. You have to specifically tell Lightroom to do so, by either turning on an option, or by using Ctrl-S on selected photos. Xmp includes all the metadata, which includes captions, keywords, Lightroom edits, and basically any information supplied by the user rather than by the camera.

LR3 Getting Started questions

I've been using Aperture since v2 and am looking to move to LR 3, but have some functionality questions before purchasing LR.
Right off, this isn't meant as Aperture can, LR can't post. It's meant as, LR has features that I like and am considering switching to it over Aperture as a result, but the following are 'must-have' and I just want to know from a technical standpoint if I can accomplish the same (similar) workflow in LR3.
1. Keywords: Can I assign keywords via the keyboard?
Aperture
Keyword set: Me, You, someone else
Opt-1 will assign 'Me' to selected image(s), Opt-2 will assign 'You' to selected image(s).
Keyword set: Cat, Dog, Rabbit
Opt-1 will now assign 'Cat' to an image, Opt-2 will assign 'Dog' to an image.
Can the same concept be done in LR? If so, a link to a tutorial would be appreciated.
2. Smart Albums (Collections in LR)
Aperture
I have a Project with 100 images, in that project I have 30 images in an Album1, 50 images in Album2. Using Smart Album, I can create a rule that shows me only the 20 images that aren't in any Albums (ie. Album1 or Album2)
Can the same concept be done in LR? If so, a link to a tutorial would be appreciated.
3. Refenced vs Managed
I have a Reference library in A3. Files reside on external HDD (~100 GB), library (previews, keywords, etc...) resides on internal HDD (~20 GB)
Reason, I only have a 120 GB internal HDD. Managed wouldn't fit on my internal HDD.
I've added three images to a test LR, 2 MB each, and the resulting LR Catalog folder in the Finder is ~3MB. Is the normal overhead in LR, ~50%. If so, that won't work for me. Are there pre-sets to reduce file info in LR? Meaning, low-res previews, etc...
4. Drag-Drop from Finder
Is there a way to drag-drop images from the Finder to an existing Catalog?

1. Keywords: Can I assign keywords via the keyboard?
Same as Aperture.
Alt/Opt+n to assign keyword-n (where n is a number from 1 to 9);
Alt/Opt+0 (zero) to cycle through Keyword Sets.
2. Smart Albums (Collections in LR)
Create a Smart Collection with the following rule: Collection doesn't contain "Album1" AND Collection doesn't contain "Album2".
3. Refenced vs Managed
Lightroom doesn't have "managed", only "referenced".
The catalog size grows mostly because of the preview cache, which is always located next to catalog (unless you use some hacks). In Catalog Prefs, you have options for preview quality (low, med, high), size (1024, 1440, 1680, 2048 on the long side) as well as the max. time before discarding 1:1 previews.
Those 3MB is you catalog + preview cache, and probably some initial overhead for an empty catalog (an empty database cannot be as small as 0KB).
As a general rule of thumb, I think 1MB per image for the preview cache is a good guess. So, for a 50k catalog you need 50GB for preview cache. The catalog itself must be below 1GB for this number of images.
4. Drag-Drop from Finder
At least on Windows, it works quite well. You drop the files and Lightroom pops up the Import dialog with only those files that you've dropped being selected for import, even if the folder in Finder/Explorer has more files.

OWB workflow question

I'm an OWB-newbie (using PARIS) and have a question about OWB workflows.
I want to create several mapping workflows.
All the mapping workflows should send a mail with the outcome of the workflows (success, error, warning) to an administrator.
I don't want to always code the same mail activity with the same parameter values.
So my idea is to write one subprocess which handles the mail-routine with some input parameters (calling workflow-name, process state (success, warning, error)).
In the subprocess I want to test the input parameter "process-state". If the value is 0 (success) then a mail with the workflow name as subject should be generated incuding an static text e.g. "mapping successful". If the value is 1 then "mapping warning" and so on.
What OWB activity has to be choosen for testing the input parameter "process-state" like an if-then-else construct or a case-construct?
How can the value of the input parameter "workflow-name" be included in the mail-body?
Regards
Martin

To my experience, using the OWF for these things is not very practical. I would suggest that you would make your own PL/SQL procedude that does this, and then call that procedure from within the actual mapping (post-mapping), using the values you have there.
This might not be what you want, however. I simply find the email capabilities of OWF too limited for actual work.

Workflow Questions - How to execute the steps in a workflow automatically?

I am using MDM 5.5 SP6.
My Question is how to execute the steps in the workflow automatically. That means NO user interaction.
I have a simple workflow, Start- Process -- Syndicate - Stop.
When a new record added /updated/inserted this workflow will start automatically. The workflow inbox, the workflow status is u2018Receivedu2019 Step is u2018Processu2019. Now I have to right click on the record then u2018Next Stepu2019 then click on u2018Syndicateu2019 then workflow completes automatically.
How to execute the Syndication step automatically?. I donu2019t want to have any user interaction to syndicate these records.
Is this possible?
The reason for this is I want to do some field validation and based on the field validation some assignments then then I want to syndicate these records without user interaction..

Hi,
If you want to do some validations and then based on result assignments on some of the fields before syndicating, then you have to use workflow. Only syndication server will not fulfill this requirement.
you may try by making validation's automatic property as "Error". This way it will not allow to add any record not fulfilling validation. You can also try using calculated fields instead of assignment.
I am not sure if you can make your workflow fully automatic, because atleast one process step is must for any workflow, and process step means user action.
Regards,
Shiv

Workflow Question - Recently moved from PC to Mac

So, let me say that I'm a die hard Windows user -- in fact, in my "day job" I own a software development company and we're a "Microsoft shop". But, my side business is Photography and I'm making the switch to the Mac & Aperture. So, what I'm hoping to get from this post is a "yes, you can do that" or a "no, you can't do that" with Aperture. I'm happy to figure out how -- I just need someone to tell me if it's possible.
Here's my current workflow (coming from the PC - which required several applications to accomplish these steps):
1) Import images and rename "IMG_1234.CR2" to "1234.CR2" -- essentially dropping the "IMG_" from the name. Is this possible w/ Aperture?
2) Do all of the processing on the images (No questions here yet -- got that pretty well figured out in Aperture).
3) Create a black & white version of each image. Currently doing this by making a duplicate version in Aperture. But, I would like it to be named "1234-BW.CR2" rather than just have "version 2" tacked on the end. Is this possible in Aperture?
4) "Develop" the pics into jpg's. Again, the final image names should be "1234.jpg" and "1234-BW.jpg" respectively. Again, the question has to do with renaming the original & duplicate version of the image.
5) Choose all of the color versions of the photos and then selectively pick some of the b/w versions and export them to a "Web" size along w/ Thumbnail versions that will be posted on my web site. (Again, this should be easy if I can name things like I want them to be named in question 3 & 4.)
So, right now I'm the biggest thing that I'm having a problem with in naming the images -- how flexible is Aperture with this? I've tried to customize the naming but can't see to figure out how to simply remove the "IMG_" when importing and then how to tack on "-BW" when creating a duplicate version.
So far I really like Aperture -- it will ultimately save me from having to use 5 different applications on the PC and thus greatly improve the efficiency of my workflow. There are some things I've noticed that would be nice -- for example, on the PC I used a program called Bibble Pro to "develop" my Canon RAW files. Bibble is a little smoother (read faster) when making some adjustments. For example, when I'm in full screen mode and adjust the exposure, contrast or sharpening Aperture is not as smooth and "real-time" as Bibble. (And, the Mac I have is the top of the line iMac made today w/ 2GB of RAM. So, I would assume that processor speed is not an issue.)
Anyway, if you have any insight into this post please let me know. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide... If you want to see my web site to understand what I'm doing the URL is http://www.level3photography.com/proofs.aspx
Thanks again!
TK Herman
[email protected]
iMac Mac OS X (10.4.8)

...the Mac I have is the
top of the line iMac made today w/ 2GB of RAM. So, I
would assume that processor speed is not an issue...
Many folks from other disciplines think that applications should, well, just run on any computer. Not so with graphics apps. Photoshop, for instance, slows if not provided a second physical hard drive for scratch disk; Aperture craves GPU hardware; both gobble RAM; etc. Existing PSCS2 Photoshop performance improves up to 8 GB RAM, and we have not yet empirically determined the max amount of RAM Aperture will benefit from but it certainly is more than 2 GB.
iMacs are consumer machines, not pro graphics boxes, even though many folks successfully use them as such. And, "top of the line iMac made today" would include not the 7300 GT graphics but the 7600 GT graphics card and 3 GB of RAM rather than 2 GB.
All that said, your iMac should run Aperture well if you keep the box well maintained. Just don't be surprised if you do see some hardware imposed limitations.
-Allen Wicks

Lightroom to Photoshop CC noise/sharpening workflow question

Most of my images I process 100% in Lightroom. HOWEVER, I do at times need to send and image from Lightroom over to Photoshop CC to finish. Then when finished in CC the image goes back to Lightroom 5 as a TIFF. My question is should I apply sharpening and noise reduction in LR5 prior to sending the image to CC? Or should I apply sharpening and noise reduction after the end of the round trip to CC and back when the image arrives back in LR5 as a TIFF. And yes I have tried a number of different ways. I have tried sending the same image from LR5 with sharpening and NR applied as I would if I were finished. I have sent the same image over to CC with just the default sharpen and noise settings AND I have zeroed out the settings. I sent all images to CC as 16bit TIFF. I tried those various ways and have gotten mixed results. So I was looking for someone with expertise as to what the best procedure is to take when using this workflow.

Getting mixed results is normal as it depends on the initial image and what happens in PS. If you’re changing the overall toning or local contrast in PS then the noise will be different and probably needs more tweaking afterwards.
I would generally go part way toward my final Detail settings in LR, then do what I have to do in PS, then do more in either PS or LR as appropriate.
What I usually do in PS is use Smart Sharpen after I’ve resized down to whatever my final size is—usually my screen size for desktop wallpaper, because I like how PS SS works, an in that case I’ve probably done all my Detail work in LR and only do the resize and SS in PS.

A Print workflow question

I outsource my printing using the "Print to File" option in the Print Module. My workflow is straight forward: Import, Image Editing (using the Develop Module) and Printing (Print to File). I sharpen my images during the Image Editing phase using the Develop sharpening tool. I use a calibrated Monitor to makes sure that I am seeing a representative image on my screen. In the Print Module (under Print Job) I can select an option “Print Sharpening” (low, standard and high).
Question: Does does the “Print Sharpening” negate my sharpening settings in the Develop Module? If not, what is the difference between the two sharpening tools?

Panagon-1 wrote:
Question: Does does the “Print Sharpening” negate my sharpening settings in the Develop Module? If not, what is the difference between the two sharpening tools?
Print Sharpening (often also called output sharpening) work in combination with the capture sharpening you set in the Develop module. This constitutes 2/3 of the sharpening workflow concept by Bruce Fraser see: Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow
The aim of the capture sharpening in the Develop module is to regain the loss of apparent sharpness cause by the optical system and the sensor. The goal is to have the image "look good" at 1:1. If properly accomplished, the Print Sharpening combines with the capture sharpening to sharpen for the final output–which really can't be judged visually...
So, make it look good in Develop then add the Print Sharpening on top.

IPhoto 6 workflow questions -- iPhoto & Elements

All -- just installed iLife 6, but have not used it yet. The combination of iWeb & .mac looks very promising for finally being able to easily share my photos with my family/friends. But I am still not clear on the best file workflow to be able to take advantage of all the iPhoto/iWeb/,mac functionality, and also the editing power of Adobe Elements (the editing software I am using). If you all could help me with this I would be so grateful.
I shoot JPEG.
I move a photo from iPhoto to Element to edit it.
If my goal is to move it back to iPhoto to share, how should I resize it? How should I optimize it for the best quality while viewing on a monitor, but with enough quality that if folks want to make a print, they can?
What format should I save it back to iPhoto in? JPEG? Or can iPhoto handle TIF or PSD and is that recommended?
What about a master, unedited image. Should I worry about that? And if so, where will that live?
If I plan on printing a photo, should I optimize the file for that purpose and print from Elements instead of bringing the file back into iPhoto?
As you can see from my questions, I am still unclear on the relationship of iPhoto and Elements (or any other editing software). I would be so grateful for any help you can give in this discussion, or other places you can point me to get this information.
Thanks everyone!
Greg

haha, the way I work is, if a program doesn't do what I want the way I want it, then I find a program that does. For many, just iPhoto will fit the bill.
This is what I do. I take a photo shoot. If it is important photos, I upload them to ClubPhoto so others can download and print them. Most often I do not print my 4x6 photos. I wait till there is a special at ClubPhoto for half price prints and order all my yearly prints at that time. I buy one photo album that fits 200 photos and I order 200 photos from my albums online to be printed. Year in photos are now done.
If someone comes over and says, hey, I love that photo, can you print it out for me? then I use my Printers software to print the 4x6 or 8x10.
I used .mac and now iWeb to keep family and friends informed of whats going on in Photos and videos. It's more or less just for fun.
When I said I have an iWeb site, I mean that I have used iWeb, a new application in the iLife suite to publish a web site with photos movie clips and a blog.
You do not have to do any resizing if you are going to use iWeb as the software does it for you behind the lines.
If you are resizing to upload anywhere else or for another purpose, it all depends on what size you need for your purpose. For album sites, 800x600 is a good size.
For emailing a photo, either do it right within iPhoto and you will get a choice on what size you want to send, or export to the desktop, at which time you can input the size you want to export the photo at.
I always keep full resolution photos in my library. If I want a smaller size, I always export the image at a smaller size and keep the full size in the library.

Workflow Question: Audio Documentaries

Hello there,
I am trying to figure out the most efficient workflow for 2 types of audio pieces that will end up in a podcast:
1) The first type is one long interview (an hr) that will be extensively edited (e.g., sentences and words rearranged; "ums" deleted, sentences shortened and tightened ) and inserted into a podcast with some narration and sound fx. I'm unsure if I should be marking (so I know what's where) and editing the interview in the waveform or multitrack. In the waveform, marking is easy; I can break the entire clip up into a series of chunks. But then what? Export them all as individual files? OR Export the entire file with the markers into multitrack? The problem with the first solution is that I then have a tons of files that are out of order. The problem with the latter is that any subsequent edits I make in the waveform puts the clips out of sync in the multitrack. Another option is to edit it all in the multitrack, but it seems that there's less ability to use features like zero-crossing and the markers apply to all tracks not individual ones. Suggestions?
2) The second type of piece is similar to the first, except it involves 10 or more different interviews that are going to be edited into one piece.
Any tips? Suggestions? Advice? Workflow resources?
Any and all input is really appreciated.
Best,
David

Steve's speech editing 101:
Long rambling interviews are a huge problem from this POV - if you did the interview yourself, you generally learn pretty rapidly that actually structuring the interview itself whilst recording it is a pretty good idea! So is the concept of getting the interviewee to include the question in the answer - this generally makes editing a whole lot simpler.
De-umming and -erring in waveform view is fine - you won't need to redo any of this, whatever you do next. So you can do this, and save the resulting file as a first pass (always keep the original though - you never know...). At this point, as you've realised, you have options. The only thing I can sensibly do is tell you what I do when presented with this sort of thing; it makes sense to me, and you may just about retain your sanity. And yes, the whole thing revolves around markers. The first thing you do is to identify individual chunks of interview, and mark each end of them. What you do then is turn these into a marker range, and most importantly give this a name that means something. There's more than one way to go about this - if it's really complicated then give the ranges numbers, and have a separate reference list. If you think you can put adequate information in the marker, then do this - but bear in mind that when it's all scrunched up, these aren't always so easy to read. The basic idea here is that, if you can manage it, these are like paragraphs - a short collection of related sentences, preferably based around one idea only. You don't want to keep them too long though - I tend to break longer collected sections into separate sub-numbered sequences.
The most important thing as far as marking is concerned though is to have a structure for it, especially if you have multiple speakers in different interviews. If you keep to a unified scheme, you should easily be able to identify the speaker and the particular point being made easily. And that means that you should be able to assemble a final piece without going completely mad...
Anyway, what you do then is batch process these marker ranges into separate files, using the marker name for the file name. And now, you can import the whole lot into multitrack view, and start to assemble your interview. At this point it should be fairly straightforward; you can reassemble the clips in any order you want relatively easily, and with a bit of luck, you won't have to do too much editing during assembly - although that option is still open to you.
So to sum it up, the key to this is organisation and structure. At first it won't seem like you're doing any 'editing' at all - except that really you are - you're doing the most important bit. This is a conceptual thing; editing isn't about cutting out the bad bits, it's about assembling the bits you want. And when you think about it like this, hopefully the foregoing will make some sense. Hopefully it will also be obvious that this scheme works for either single person or multiple person interviews.

DNG 6.7 & LR3.6 Workflow Question

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for