Adobe Photoshop and CS

[DueyDooDah]

It sounds like you have a system that should work. I have not tried to use DVDs and incorporate them into the Organizer, so I can't be of much help here.

My external drive (the NAS) is always connected via a network connection. It works similar to an external hard drive except it is not connected directly to my PC. This is a huge difference to what you are doing. The biggest problem in what you are doing, that I see, is that if you have two DVDs that contain two different pictures with the same name, you could end up with entry in your Organizer replacing another. This will happen if you do not have any way to distinguish the two. If you keep them in a folder on the DVD, and all folders on all DVDs have a different name, then no problem. If you have two folders with the same name and an image in one folder has the same name as an image in a similarly named folder, you have a problem. If you do not use folder names on the DVD, you run an even greater risk of having a problem.

Here's an example. You have two DVDs, one names DVD1 and the other named DVD2.

DVD1 contains the following:
IMG0001.jpg
IMG0002.jpg
Folder named My Pics with the following in the folder
IMG0001.jpg
IMG0002.JPG

DVD2 contains the following:
IMG0002.jpg
IMG0004.jpg
Folder named My Pics with the following in the folder
IMG0001.jpg
IMG0003.jpg

When PSE imports the image information, everything will be just fine, except the file IMG0001.jpg in the folder. This can cause a problem with PSE. I do not know what will happen, but you will not likely care for the results.

Another problem arises if you have more than one DVD drive. Let's say you have two DVD drives. If your first DVD drive is E: then the second will likely be F:. If DVD1 is on drive E: at the time you import, that's where PSE will expect to find it from now on. If you place it in drive F: when you are trying to re-establish a link using PSE, PSE will not find it.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[jann1033]

It sounds like you have a system that should work. I have not tried to use DVDs and incorporate them into the Organizer, so I can't be of much help here.

My external drive (the NAS) is always connected via a network connection. It works similar to an external hard drive except it is not connected directly to my PC. This is a huge difference to what you are doing. The biggest problem in what you are doing, that I see, is that if you have two DVDs that contain two different pictures with the same name, you could end up with entry in your Organizer replacing another. This will happen if you do not have any way to distinguish the two. If you keep them in a folder on the DVD, and all folders on all DVDs have a different name, then no problem. If you have two folders with the same name and an image in one folder has the same name as an image in a similarly named folder, you have a problem. If you do not use folder names on the DVD, you run an even greater risk of having a problem.

Here's an example. You have two DVDs, one names DVD1 and the other named DVD2.

DVD1 contains the following:
IMG0001.jpg
IMG0002.jpg
Folder named My Pics with the following in the folder
IMG0001.jpg
IMG0002.JPG

DVD2 contains the following:
IMG0002.jpg
IMG0004.jpg
Folder named My Pics with the following in the folder
IMG0001.jpg
IMG0003.jpg

When PSE imports the image information, everything will be just fine, except the file IMG0001.jpg in the folder. This can cause a problem with PSE. I do not know what will happen, but you will not likely care for the results.

Another problem arises if you have more than one DVD drive. Let's say you have two DVD drives. If your first DVD drive is E: then the second will likely be F:. If DVD1 is on drive E: at the time you import, that's where PSE will expect to find it from now on. If you place it in drive F: when you are trying to re-establish a link using PSE, PSE will not find it.

I hope this makes sense.

so far unless i renamed them the numbering has been consecutive so i don't think except for some that are copies( which i added "copy" to the name and kept everything else) anything else would have the same name or number but i will look out for that.

part deux; so it would be better to have them on the actual hard drive and not the disk when i import them..

 

[DueyDooDah]

part deux; so it would be better to have them on the actual hard drive and not the disk when i import them..

In theory, yes. But, in practicality, not in the situation you are in. If you need more space and don't have it, then what you are doing should work just fine. But, you have to follow more rules than you would if you had a hard drive with as much space as you need.

In my case, I have a 250GB NAS, which gives me alot of room, enough for all my photos (it's the music files that are killing me, but that's another story). But, sooner or later, this may run out. What will I do? Most likely, being the die-hard techno-geek that I am, I'll buy another, bigger, faster, better NAS and start filing that one up. I will not get rid of the old one, just add a new one. My files will always be in the same place as far as PSE is concerned.

The DVD route gives you unlimited space, but with the caveat that you mast manage the disks. Not only do you need to have the correct DVD in the drive, but every few years you need to create a new copy of them. DVDs deteriorate after time (the theory is about 5 years for DVDs you create on you PC, about 50 years for those created by a commercial enterprise because of different tecnologies) So, I won't say either is really better, it's that I prefer using hard drives instead of DVDs. Although, I do make backups of my images onto DVD for archiving purposes, just in case my NAS dies.

 

[Terk-1]

Thank you for your recommendations.

 

[Terk-1]

I've been using the quick fix function and I sound like Emeril every time. Side by side photos, click quick fix and BAM!!!

Got the Barbara book on BN.com (saved 20% online, plus the 10% member discount) in the mail yesterday and found out that the Scott book is on sale for 20% off this week, plus my 10% member discount, PLUS I just got a a coupon for an additional 15% off!!! Am heading to my local B&N after work.

 

[andromedaslove]

For those of you who like to play with Photoshop, I found this neat little tutorial along with pictures. Thought you might wanna check it out.

Dana

Cars!

 

[barrie]

Oh - that's fun. Can't wait to see what folks on this board come up with!

 

[DueyDooDah]

Nice write up and the photo is hill-air-EOS (Canon owner ).

 

[manning]

New product any thoughts

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

 

[ukcatfan]

I used the free beta version for a few days. It is pretty nice, but I figured that the official release was going to be too expensive. Now, I do think the official version is too expensive. It is still just a RAW converter. Even with all that it can do, it will never replace your image editor. Just my opinion.

Kevin

 

[jann1033]

i had the free one downloaded as well and opened it once or twice but i like the canon digital photo pro ( or words to that effect ) better. maybe i would have liked it better if i used it more but it seemed kind of disorganized/confusing to my brain

 

[RitchG]

I'll probably buy it; not so much for the RAW management (although the non-destructive stuff is cool) but for the image library features. Right now I use Portfolio, but the next upgrade (which does fix some stupid "features") will cost $$$ where Lightroom is (relatively) $. I have thousands of images spread over hard drives, CDs and DVDs and I need a program that can manage that. After using the beta for a while, it seems like Lightroom can do it. We'll see.
---Ritch

 

[ukcatfan]

I'll probably buy it; not so much for the RAW management (although the non-destructive stuff is cool) but for the image library features. Right now I use Portfolio, but the next upgrade (which does fix some stupid "features") will cost $$$ where Lightroom is (relatively) $. I have thousands of images spread over hard drives, CDs and DVDs and I need a program that can manage that. After using the beta for a while, it seems like Lightroom can do it. We'll see.
---Ritch

Maybe I am missing something here, but I though Portfolio was around $200 for a new copy with upgrades even cheaper. Lightroom is $200 for a limited time and then it goes to $300. Is it possible that the next upgrade you are talking about is going to cost more than a new copy of the current version? That sounds like marketing suicide if you ask me. I personally do not have a collection large enough to worry about needing a program to help. Then again I am an accountant, so maybe I organize a little more than most people to begin with My DW thinks I get to detailed with everything

Kevin

 

[boBQuincy]

I already have Photoshop CS2 and Lightroom doesn't replace that, it works along with it. So Adobe's product strategy is that after buying a $600 package I should buy another $200 one to supplement it?

I will wait until it is all in one package, for now CS2 does everything I need (I think).

 

[RitchG]

Kevin - yeah, sorry, I should be more specific. I needed to use the network version of Portfolio; and so far Lightroom does all that within itself. Also, in playing with a "borrowed" copy of Portfolio, I don't like the way it does RAW (when it does it; support seems to lag alot).

Agree with boBQ, though: I wish Adobe would put Lightroom and Bridge together and sell it with CSx for "free".

Then again, Lightrom doesn't do everything I'd like the way I'd like it (needs better IPTC database manipulation).

Then again, there's IMatch (www.photools.com) which looks cool, too - it's scriptable!

"The best program is the one I just wrote." - mangled quote from Alan Kay (Xerox PARC legend)
Ah, well.
---Ritch

 

[0bli0]

i am a hardcore user of Apple Aperture. but i still have used all four of the Adobe Lightroom betas - on both mac and pc. it is a very similar program to Aperture, which is a completely different program to photoshop. they're designed for managing large volumes of photos (especially in raw format). they allows you to do basic post processing, generally in a batch specific to the images just shot. more importantly, they're great at organising, managing, culling, tagging, versioning, creating layouts, and so forth. they're not designed to replace an image editor. they have significantly decreased my workflow time. i can now print at games/events and managing 30,000 shots per season is extremely easy.

Lightroom just disappoints me compared to Aperture in a few areas so i don't think i'll be buying the commercial product. i'll probaby try the finished product and i understand from some friends they have added a few features that weren't in any of the betas.

one nice thing is they've included some of the things from Lightroom in the new version of Adobe Bridge. Lightroom (and Aperture) are great tools and a fantastic way to enhance your workflow.

 

[extreme8]

As a registered owner of RSP (which was purchased by Adobe and integrated into Lightroom) they're giving me a free copy, which is great because I really like the product.
I found the betas to be slow - to the point of being unusable - but the release version seems better. Of course, that speed improvement could be due to the extra 3GB of ram and the additonal 500GB drive I added just before the install too! (4GB RAM & 1.5 terabytes of storage now)
The tagging an cataloging system is attractive to me as well. It will be nice to know what I have stored on all of those dvds I have laying around the office.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I bought. I'm very happy with it. They fixed the few things that really annoyed me in the beta (performance and shoots). It overlaps with PS, but it's different. For me, it's a database tool (not as good as iMatch, but probably good enough) and a workflow tool. I can do just about all the same workflow steps in Photoshop, but I'm much more efficient with Lightroom.

I think for a PS user, the questions to ask are whether the database stuff is useful to you and will the time saved in your workflow be worth the extra $200. It depends on how much your shoot and how much lightroom speeds your workflow. For me, I figure on saving a good 40-50 hours a year. That's worth the $200 to me.

 

[jann1033]

i usually use canon digital photo pro to convert/edit my raw files but sometimes use pse5 as well for alien skin etc so i think i need a decent amount of ram. adobe says with vista/pse5 you need at least 512 ram, recommended 1 gb..so would the 1 gb be enough with the raw files as well( since i would like both programs open and guessing the raw converter would use close to or more space)? right now i have 512 mb, 120 gb( only 40 open ) and lots of time the disk is full ( error) or it is slowwwww( better now that i am freeing up so disk space but won't win any speed records)

i can get a decent priced 1 gb core 2 duo processor with 320 gb hardrive but since it's a package don't think i could expand the memory right away( it is expandable to 4 gb)

also this is a gateway, i have a dell now...are they comparable ratings wise? the comparable hp and dell are about $400 more without the photo printer or speakers ( neither of which i need but it's the cheapskate principle involved : ) and they have an acer( had an acer scanner once that was a pain) that is cheap but don't know how that would be rated plus it is athlon 2 core rather than intel processor

basically my priority is photos since none of the other programs i use are such space hogs( well except itunes but that isn't even close gb)not big into games etc.
any ideas???
thanks

 

[RitchG]

Well, from what I read in the PC mags, Vista likes to have at least 1 GB. I use WinXP with CS2 and have 1GB; seriously considering going to 2GB, mostly due to tweaking RAW in PS. Have Core Duo, PS works well (uses both cores) but to really use both, RAM is key-the more the better. Not sure if PSE5 is dual-core "aware". When I get around to Vista (I have it on a test system now), I'll likely want to go to 4 GB or whatever the motherboard will hold. Watching the disk lite while the image gets swapped around is really tedious.

As far as the brand, Gateway just did really well in some testing in one of the mags; they said that "Wow, Gateway is back!" or something like that, so they'd probably be worth a try. Right now the "typical" Core Duo does better than the Athlon on graphics stuff; but AMD is releasing new chips soon (and then Intel will, followed by AMD, etc., etc.), but I doubt they'll be in the economy units right away.
HTH.
---Ritch