Efficient workflow

Im am looking for an effiient workflow. Everything is up and running but it is soooo slow in reality. I'm shooting with an Xacti HD2000. So far I have been shooting at "full-SHQ" 1920x1080 60fps HR. My problem is slow performance in premiere elements running on my MAC. I have got the suggestion to use MPEG Streamclip to convert to a more efficient format and with "intermediate codec" but I don't know how! In the end, I wish to publish to HD TV, mediacenter etc. As it is underwater videos and I am just a beginner my quality demands are not extreem. So my questions, What is the best workflow for me? If I should use MPEG Streamclip, what are the right settings in my case? How should I use Organizer? Should I reduce the resolution already in the camera? I have tried to get answers in many different forums but without any luck so far! PS I am using Premiere elements9 DS Br Bo

I would have though that a USB external drive would be much slower than an internal drive? Have you compared the specs?
A USB external IS much slower than an internal. Even if the contained HDD in the external housing is 7200 RPM, the connection is much slower. Against a SATA II internal, it will be at best about 4x slower, and is more likely to be more like 10x slower. This is one reason that USB externals can be plagued with read/write errors - the OS and the program (PrE in this case), are shoving a lot of data, and demanding a lot of data, and the OS is expecting things to go smoothly and quickly. It has a certain amount of Buffers, but these can be used up quickly, and when that happens, one gets a read/write failure, or error. The dreaded Delayed Write Failure can even corrupt the entire external, as necessary structures file/folder do not get written at all. So, besides having to wait for data transfer, the very data are subject to being lost forever. Even a pretty slow computer will outstrip the ability of the USB external to keep up the pace. FW-400 (IEEE-1394a) is faster, less prone to read/write errors, but is still very slow, compared to an internal SATA II. FW-800 (IEEE-1394b) gets closer, and eSATA is virtually as fast as that SATA II internal. In real-world terms, one will not be able to see/experience a difference. There will be a slight difference, but it would be measured in times that a user could not detect.
USB externals are great, when just archiving material. There, one only has either the read, or the write, and also the program is not also reading and writing at the same time.
I do not have any experience with USB 3.0's, but the tests that I have seen indicate that they are still much slower in real-world terms, than an internal SATA II, regardless of what the published specs. are. I would stick to SATA II internals, or eSATA externals, with FW-800 externals coming in third.
Hunt

Similar Messages

Efficient workflow for annual report

I've been busy last days to make an annual report. The source file was a 100+ page Word document with lot's of tables with different content and sizes, and legal texts with multi level list styles.
I think I got most out the importing of the Word file and converting all Word styling to the right Indesign styles, but the tables seem to be very time consuming still, as some are just text listings and others contain many numbers in various structures, sub headings and specifically highlighted cells.
I bet there's a much more efficient workflow for this and I try to find out about it. I'm afraid I couldn't ask the financial people to start working in a XML workflow, Incopy or anything much different from the Word+Excel software they are used to. However I reckon there's a better way they could deliver the content to me, maybe by giving separate excel sheets instead of embedded tables in Word or by using stricter formatting rules?
Ideally the workflow should also support the flexibility of linked Word/Excel files, so revised input would painlessly be updated into the formatted Indesign document.
Does anybody has any advice, tips/tricks to make a smarter workflow for such a project?

FWIW I create a new, separate library for each book. I assemble the photos to be used in to an album in the main library and then copy it to the book library with the paid version of iPhoto Library Manager.
When I'm done with the book and it's ordered I cull out the photos I didn't use in the book and then archive the book library to another HD, a CD or DVD disk (if small enough to fit). This way the book is isolated from the day to day use of my main library and any accidental deletions of photos in the book. If I want to reorder a copy, edited or not, I know the book is intact.

Efficient workflow for large iPhoto books

I have searched extensively but if this is covered somewhere else please forgive me and redirect, thanks.
===
When making an iPhoto book (love 'em!) I usually use smart albums to make a shortlist of pics to be included - but it isn't usually a short shortlist...(my current book's shortlist is 500+ and I would imagine my books usually end up with somewhere between 300 - 400 pics
So the maximum 100 pages is usually filled with quite a lot of unplaced pics left. I then whittle down the placed pics to make room for the best of the unplaced... it's a long way from efficient
It would help if there was a way, once having edited out a few placed photos, if the same number of unplaced photos then auto filled in the empty spaces.. I haven't found a way to do that.
If anybody knows a way for me to proceed OTHER THAN the alternative which I do know which is to be more selective in the first place so I start each book with a lower number - if thats what I have to do, so be it but if there was another way.....

FWIW I create a new, separate library for each book. I assemble the photos to be used in to an album in the main library and then copy it to the book library with the paid version of iPhoto Library Manager.
When I'm done with the book and it's ordered I cull out the photos I didn't use in the book and then archive the book library to another HD, a CD or DVD disk (if small enough to fit). This way the book is isolated from the day to day use of my main library and any accidental deletions of photos in the book. If I want to reorder a copy, edited or not, I know the book is intact.

Can someone recommend an efficient workflow for creating and maintaining web ads in multiple sizes?

I work for an online news site that runs ads from multiple clients. These ads (animated gifs) are sometimes run across multiple sizes (728x90, 510x60, 300x250, etc), and are often changed week to week.
Currently, I have a separate photoshop file for each ad & when a client requests a change, I have no choice but to go through and edit each individual ad size, then re-export themas animated gifs. Some clients require 4-5 different ad sizes, per ad, and if they change their mind on something, I have to go back and edit 4-5 ads. Each set of ads is saved in a dated folder that rests within the client's folder. We are extremely busy at work & the ads are piling up. Just wondering if someone had a good suggestion for an easier way to create & maintain these ads. I haven't used the asset generator...I'm wondering if that is a solution?
Also...bonus question ...with auto-select checked, is there a way to select items that are in a grouped folder without selecting the entire group? I currently have to uncheck "auto-select", select the layer in the layers panel and then am able to move the object.
Thanks in advance!

With the auto select, there is either a check box or a drop down selection to have it select layer or group.
Smart objects don't work for creating different size gifs?

For the love of Jeebus, please tell me I am missing something with PP's janky audio workflow

OK, I've read the help docs, gone through the tutorials, watched the videos. Still I am not finding an efficient workflow for dealing with audio in PP. Let's face it, audio in 5.5 was completely baffling to us newbies jumping ship from FCP 7, and I thought the CS 6 update was going to simplify things. No dice. As I am a somewhat recent transplant, I am willing to admit that…. wait, nay, I'm HOPING that I am probably missing something here and that it's just stupid operator error. Fingers crossed.
Here's my situation. I am editing a documentary that has hundreds of hours of footage and thousands upon thousands of clips. We are working with three different kinds of audio: stereo, mono 1 & 2 (interviews with a lav mic on channel 1 and boom on channel 2) and mono (interview on channel 1 with lav microphone only). Here's my problems:
If I set the audio so that they're all stereo clips
Then I'm running into problems with the mono 1 & 2 tracks. Say the boom audio is better on the right channel, and I want to silence the left. I turn the left channel off. Then I want the boom audio to be on both channel's equally… well, I can't figure out a way to do that. In FCP, I would just put the pan to center, and the audio would play the right channel's audio on both channels equally. With PP, panning does nothing but adjust how much of the boom is heard, as opposed to how much the lav (now silent) is heard. I can't find a way to pan the boom to the center, so that it is heard equally on both channels.
If I set the audio so that they're all mono 1 & 2 clips
Doing this solves the boom/lav problem as listed above, as the mono tracks seem to center pan and play on both channels equally, so simply deleting the lav works well. However, now if I have a stereo song that I want to keyframe some fades in (say a music bed playing in the background that I want to fade lower when a person starts talking)… now I have to pen tool in keyframes for the left track AND the right track separately, try to get the fades to match on each track, then separately fade the audio back in for each track. So essentially I've DOUBLED my work for each of the tracks I've marked this way.
As a note, I love having found this out the hard way, after editing a 20 minutes interview into bits and pieces scattered across my timeline, and then finding out I should have set the audio to Mono 1 & 2. Easy enough, I thought, as I went back to the Project window, found the original clip, then went to modify the audio so it would work in my project. I got the extremely helpful message that "Any changes you have made to the number of clips or the type of those clips will not be reflected in the existing timelines. Do you want to continue?" YEAH! That's super. You might as well have put "Making this change now will do nothing to help you. You'll have to go back and edit everything again. Do you want to continue?" Great, Adobe, thanks. Bang up job there.
I was really happy about not having to transcode in PP like I used to have to do in FCP 7. That was until I realized how the audio worked, and for the latest scene of this documentary had to go through every clip/camera download to figure out how the audio had to be set-up before I could start editing. Transcoding a big job used to take me a day. Configuring the audio in PP for this one scene took two.
I would be the happiest person on the planet to find out that I've been wasting my time and that there is a simple solution for all of this. Hope someone can point me in the right direction and thanks for any help!

I'm not suggesting any of this as a model, and your needs are different than mine.
1) Go to Preferences -> Audio. Under "Default Audio Tracks", Set "Mono Media: Mono". Set "Stereo Media: Mono" (Choices from the pull-down for both are Use File, Mono, Stereo, 5.1, Adaptive)
You can change these, but I don't. I am using both mono and stereo tracks. I set up a custom sequence with the particular combination of stereo and mono tracks I want.
2) Set audio for clips by selecting all clips and going to Modify Clip -> Audio Channels Tab. Under "Number of Audio Tracks" there should be a "1". Under Channel Format it should read "Stereo".
I am not sending the audio to anyone else to edit further. I am doing a final stereo mix. If camera one is set up to record 2 mikes as a stereo track, then I leave that unchanged and put it onto a stereo track. If camera two is set up to record one mike onto channel 1 as ambient sound and channel 2 is a mono feed from a sound board, then I modify those clips as Preset Mono, 2 audio tracks, Channel format Mono, and that puts the left source channel (or whichever I choose) onto Audio track 1, channel 1 (of one), and right source channel onto audio track 2, channel 1.
4) Delete all the existing audio tracks in the sequence and replace them all with mono tracks, so all tracks in the sequence are mono.
I modify the tracks while creating the sequence, and ultimately use a custom sequence.
Under my Effects Controls panel there is only Channel Volume, and nowhere to adjust the pan.
I'm using the mixer, not the effects control panel.

Optimal workflow for batch processing LR files with Nik plug ins

I have a series of 40 or so landscape images that I would like to efficiently apply a couple of Nik filters to using Color Efex. I'd appreciate any suggestions re: the most efficient workflow to accomplish this task in a batch processing approach, as my current approach of taking each image into Photoshop, while preserving Smart Filter benefits, is terribly inefficient. Thanks in advance.

Hi,
Sorry but File->Process Multiple Files is the only way and functionalities with which you can batch process your images in PSE. However you can add action in Window->Action Player and apply to your images opened in workspace -
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-photoshop-elements-11/adding-actions/
http://forums.adobe.com/message/4736578
The functionality is available in full functionality product Photoshop via File->Automate->Batch where you can load actions in action panel and they would appear in this dialog box but this is not available in Elements.
The best way to do here is to load actions in Window->Action Player and open all your images and click on play button one by one and then use Process Multiple Files to save all these in one go as per your preferences of file type, size, name etc.
Thanks,
Garry

Best practice for efficiency

I shoot video on my camcorder and DSLR in 1920x1080 to have the best data possible for future use ... though all of my current work is posted to Vimeo Pro at 720p for web viewing.
So far, I have set my FCP X projects to be 1080p ... would it be more efficient to set my projects to 720p? Would doing so be a more efficient workflow and save on resources during the process of editing and exporting?
Any insight would be appreciated.

Actually, your question was clear. Maybe my answwer wasn't, however.
My view of efficiency is how it affects my workflow – not whether it stresses my system. (Although sometimes they go hand-in-hand.) I was taught to edit what I shoot whenever possible. Therefore, if I shoot 1080, I edit 1080.
After the project is complete, then different delivery versions are created. Often there are many versions, which I generally create in Compressor (one source file comprising say, a half dozen different targets).
If sounds like you only have a single "target" and that is scaling down from 1080 to 720. FCPX doesn't need Compressor to do this relatively straightforward reformatting. So I thoink it is very efficient to edit 1080 and export 720.
Were you to edit 720 with 1080 material, you would have to create a custom project and then you can expect to render everything. No big deal, but a minor annoyance. I don't see the upside.
HTH
Russ

Workflow that maintains clip handles going from FCP to Motion & back

I have a 25 minute Final Cut Pro sequence that consists of about 200 clips each about 7 seconds long. Each clip has a different linear speed change applied to it. I've already run the project through Media Manager, adding 5 second handles to each clip. I've been told by my color corrector that before sending the project to him I should send all the clips to Motion and apply optical flow for the speed changes there. The short version of my question is: Can I trouble anyone to suggest an efficient workflow in which I can send the entire sequence to Motion and have it make the round trip back to FCP as a sequence in which the motion files have been swapped in for the original clips and the handles of the original clips have been maintained on those Motion files?
What I've been doing is selecting the sequence in FCP and sending it to Motion. Once the sequence is in Motion I seem to have to apply optical flow to each of the 200 clips individually rather than to the group a whole, because with multiple clips selected Motion seems to want to apply the same averaged-out time remap to all of them. So I apply optical flow to the 200 clips one-by-one and Motion inevitably crashes several times during that process. After I've finally set all the clips individually to optical flow I then select the clips and choose export selection. I then have to wait by my computer for several hours while Motion asks me over and over again "Some optical flow files are outdated. What do you want to do?" I assume these prompts are the result of the Motion having crashed while the clip was still being analyzed for optical flow. Finally when this process is done, I have a series of clips without handles that I have to tediously re-import back into the original FCP sequence.
I'm using FCP 7.03 and Motion 4.0.3.
Any thoughts anyone might have would be HUGELY appreciated!!! Thanks in advance for the help!
Best,
Neil

Hi Neil,
About the handles: What do you need them for?
If the edit is not too complicated and almost all on V1, you can think of a workaround which is very tedious, and I doubt whether it will make you happy.
On V1 the original cuts. So you will always be able to find them back.
Then Copy everything to V2. And from there put every other clip on V3. (So clip A on V2, clip B on V3 , clip C on V2, etc. And now by selecting the cuts and type +500 or -500, you can extend the clips.
Like in the picture below.
Again V1 is the original edit and is there to repair the cuts on V2 and V3 later on.
(I used slug and Generators for this exemple. Off course they all stand for normal clips.)
After that you do your Motion Magic, like Patrick explained.
And back in FCP cut V2 and V3 back like V1 is.
Delete V1, and done.
Well, that's the theorethical part. I hope it somehow can help you in practice, because I assume your edit will be more complicated then the example...
I once did this trick with
Also: When you send your normal clip to Motion (So from track V1, then in Motion you can increase the value in the duration Tab (Timeline, top right, then extend the clip and then save. You know can use the handle in FCP. Not sure how to achieve that for the beginning of the clip. You should try that yourself....
Rienk

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.

Best workflow for Canon 7D (progressive) and Canon HX-A1s (interlaced)

I have been doing 2 shot interviews using the Canon 7D and Canon HX-A1s. What is the highest quality and most efficient workflow in 29.27 fps with the 7D being progressive and the XH-A1s is interlaced? I have been converting the 7D footage to ProRes 422 (HQ).
What Capture Preset is best for HX-A1s and Sequence Preset for radiating?
Your help would be most appreciated.

If you have the space, capture as ProRes....you can do that via firewire. If you are short, then capture as HDV and just work with it with a green render bar over the footage, and render later. Mixing formats is pretty easy as long as your sequence settings are ProRes.
And your interlaced camera will take on a progressive look. If you are OK with that.
Shane

Efficient compression of iPhone 6 videos

Photos for Mac + iCloud Photos has significantly improved my photography workflow: It is now much easier to keep all of my family photos and videos organized (side bar: favorite smart album is album = none). With 140GB in my photo library already though (on the 200GB plan), I try to save space where I can. Compressing my iPhone 6+ videos is one area that I hope to improve upon. I usually record in 30fps on the phone and use Compressor's Apple Device (Best Quality) export/transcode option to convert the videos. The process is slightly combersome though: (1) export the video from Photos for Mac; (2) compress the video with Compressor; (3) add it back to Photos for Mac; and (4) finally correct the EXIF date/time manually. Does anyone have a more efficient workflow to accomplish this objective (possibly using Automator)? Any help would be most appreciated. Thanks, ~Jim.

Russ,
I store all of my videos in iCloud and then sync across my various Apple devices. If / when I edit a specific event (e.g. multiple video segments of my son's birthday party), I use either iMovie on an iOS device or iMovie on my desktop (haven't purchased FCP yet). Once the movie is published and stored in iCloud, I go back and delete the various video segments that were used to create the final movie. Does that make sense?
In a nutshell, everything is stored in iCloud and synced across my iOS devices and Photos for Mac. I'm sure, eventually I'll run out of online space and be forced to store various videos offline (I'll likely continue using Photos for Mac and simply keep the videos as reference files outside the library)...the goal is to manage the size of the videos efficiently in order to keep all of my photos and videos in iCloud for as long as possible. I manage the size of the videos my using Apple's Compressor. I just wish there was a nose streamlined method of exporting the video from Photos to Mac to Compressor and then back again.

Is keeping Bridge current necessary while using the Lightroom-CS6 Workflow

Hi Folks,
I totally get and daily use the LR4 to CS6 workflow, although I'd consider myself not much more than a beginner with PS. My question is - is there a need when adding photos to the LR database, to at the same time (or at some point), make sure that all the files are going to an accessible (can follow the path/find the photo) in BR? Or can I just forget about Br and just keep using a very understandible and efficient workflow? Further, if there is a reason to keep BR current, can it be automated to populate appropriate files so that if I add photos to LR, they will easily be found in BR, without me having to do any additional moving/importing of files to BR? Also, if I need to have BR current, how would I use it in a workflow that mainly incorporates LR and PS6? Lastly, if there is a way of getting photos to go to BR from LR(or accessed/seen by BR is probably more appropriate), if I have done the ratings and keywords in LR, will these be transferrable to BR somehow- again, preferrably using some type of action/automation in the background? Thanks very much in advance for your comments.

When you have Lr and Photoshop you don't need Bridge at all for your workflow.
When you work with Lr 4.3 and CS6 a Raw image that you intend to edit in CS6 will open as Raw in CS6 (bypassing Bridge) - but when you save a PSD (or TIFF) will be created.
And when you just <save> - versus <save as> - your image will automatically show up in Lr. Bridge doesn't even open during that "roundtrip" from Lr to CS and back to Lr.
As twenty-one has already said: Bridge is a file-browser type of program. That means it "sees" whatever is on the hard drive, no matter by which progam it has been put there.
Lr is not a file-browser based program. It "sees" images only when they have been imported in Lr. If they have not been importent they don't exist for Lr - even if they are on the hard drive.
So Bridge can be used as an auxiliary program to check out which images are actually on the hard drive. And that can be very useful - particularly when you are still learning to work with Lr.
Another advantage is that Bridge supports more file formats than Lr. Lr works only with Raw images, JPGs, TIFFs, PSDs. For instance, Lr doesn't work with PDFs and doesn't display them, whereas Bridge does.
Writing metadata to file (or synonym: write changes to xmp) in order that Bridge will display the Lr edits is quite straightforward in Lr. There is no need to "associate them with the appropriate raw file". Lr does that for you.
You can set Lr to <Automatically write changes to XMP>, or do it manually for a single or multiple images by pressing Ctr. / Cmd. + letter S on the keyboard. That's all.
Stars and keywords will be included in the metadata, and also titles, captions and all EXIF data. For color labels to transfer correctly between Lr and Bridge you need to describe the labels in exactly the same way (including hyphens, undersscores, etc) in both programs.
But there are features in Lr that are not saved to xmp, not saved to file. These are: that an image belongs to a collection, virtual copies, stacking.
They are not saved to xmp because Bridge doesn't have these features, and so could not display them even if they were saved.

Recommended workflow-way to manage exports for stock sites

Dear All,
Is there an efficient workflow - way that someone came up with, that could recomend to manage exports for stock site photography easily?
The main problem, is that if you upload 10 images for instance, to 3 different sites you most propably will face different accepted images and different rejected from each site.
Then you have to modify adjustments to reupload the rejected images for a second try, or even a third one.
And this is the exact point where the problem occures.
There must be an efficient way to have in different folders (or smart albums or whatever) the same images with different status (rejected or accepted for instance, or red or green or whatever) and at the same time those images with differenet settings (those you had to make in order to get images accepted) keep also in mind that the images may also have different keywords aswell (in case an image gets rejected due to keywording).
Its important to mention that in the end, the folders must match the real status of the images at the stocksite submitted, regarding state (accepted or not) and of course settings.(its important in the end to know that in site ''A'' you have exactly those images and in site ''B'' the others, and so on.)
Its more than sure that those 3 different folders (or smart albums or whatever) will eventually have the same images, but most of them will have different status, settings and keywords.
The only way i found to manage it, is by creating export folders using virtual copies at the publish services section of LR. Note that for publish services i used my hard drive.
But the drawbacks of this way are:
1. You double - triple (depending the stock site number) files (at least they are virtual ones)
2. When an image is rejected from a stock site and you mark the coresponding image as ''marked for republish'' even thow in lr it is clear which files were rejected and should be edited and republished, in the export folder you cant track them, you must export to a new folder evry time creating double - triple jpg files. I think it would be better if LR could sync automaticaly the folder showing somehow images marked for repubplish.
Sorry for long post, but how could it be smaller????
Thanks in advanced.
Vasilis

The point of Publish is not that the image disappears afterwards, but that it remains there afterwards, after moving between the categories into which the publish window is divided. IIRC you can collapse the parts you are not interested in... (?) I don't have LR in front of me just now. Pictures then move categories again, the moment you make further changes. It's an ongoing relationship between the Catalog and the publish location, and you use Publish when this is what you want.
It is not very easy AFAICT to terminate this relationship, using the built-in Publish function, without also marking the externally published file for removal. However some 3rd-party LR plugins offering a Publish facility, can do this for you cleanly.
Personally, I have concluded that the standard one-off (but repeatable, via named preset) Export inherently meets my needs better than Publish does, for this very reason - and have therefore ducked fully dealing with this Publish life-cycle issue. So often, a change is made to an image which is not really substantive and does not justify re-publishing.
But I definitely suggest looking into plugins, if you like the idea of Publish but find it restrictive currently, including (in no particular order and not comprehensive)
http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies
http://www.robcole.com/Rob/ProductsAndServices/PublishServiceAssistantLrPlugin/

Sample editor, workflow?

Hi!
Quite often I edit vocal tracks, editing sybilances and breath noises manually.
(A good de-esser can do some of the work, but not all of it.)
This is time consuming. I need an efficient workflow.
OK! I decide to decrease all s´es by 5 db.
And I set "change gain" to -5db.
#1 Open sample editor, select a portion of audio, click ctrl+g, and hit enter.....
Nothing happens? Well yes, in arrange the cursor goes to the beginning of the song.
But with the mouse you can click on "change" and then "process"
Bear in mind, you may have to do this 200 times.....
#2 Open sample editor,select a portion of audio, go to functions> change gain> change.
Voila!
So, the key command option is slower than a mouse based workflow.
I must be overlooking something here, right!
BTW In general I find Logic superfast editing audio..........No Smart Tool, but
the right clicking does it!
JanD

Hi!
Quite often I edit vocal tracks, editing sybilances and breath noises manually.
(A good de-esser can do some of the work, but not all of it.)
This is time consuming. I need an efficient workflow.
OK! I decide to decrease all s´es by 5 db.
And I set "change gain" to -5db.
#1 Open sample editor, select a portion of audio, click ctrl+g, and hit enter.....
Nothing happens? Well yes, in arrange the cursor goes to the beginning of the song.
But with the mouse you can click on "change" and then "process"
Bear in mind, you may have to do this 200 times.....
#2 Open sample editor,select a portion of audio, go to functions> change gain> change.
Voila!
So, the key command option is slower than a mouse based workflow.
I must be overlooking something here, right!
BTW In general I find Logic superfast editing audio..........No Smart Tool, but
the right clicking does it!
JanD

Workflow Suggestions Please - Adjust Colour, White Balance, Levels, Resize

Hi,
I have a number of photographs which I need to present in a consistent fashion - each is slightly different from the next in terms of exposure, levels, white balance etc, but they should all be the same. Because each is different, I can't simply define a preset in each of these and apply across the board: each needs to be consistent....
So Can anyone suggest an efficient workflow to:
- Adjust the colour so that each is consistent across the group?
- Adjust the levels so that each is consistent across the group?
- Straighten, Crop and resize so that each is an identical size?
Any advice much appreciated. I'm working with CS3 on a Mac.
D

Image: Adjustments: Match Color? I have never found this useful but maybe it's what you need. I would use it on a duplicate layer because as far as I know it's not available as an Adjustment Layer.
As far as canvas size, as long as you don't have any background layers, you can make all canvas sizes match and it's non destructive (think of the canvas as a window)
When you do end up scaling the image contents consider using Smart Objects so the sizing is non-destructive.

Efficient workflow

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for