Lightroom with Mac

[PrincessMe]

Take a look at this web page. It has a pretty clear explanation of how to open your iPhoto library. It's all pretty simple to do but it is hard to explain.

http://lightroomsecrets.com/2009/03/moving-your-images-from-iphoto-to-lightroom/

 

[PrincessMe]

One more thing.... You can accomplish the move either by exporting from iPhoto OR opening the iPhoto package through finder. The best option may depend on how many photos and events you have. I had about 10,000 photos in my library and found it easier to copy files than to export all of the separate events. Whether or not you've done a bunch of edits may also matter. Wasn't applicable to me because I disliked iPhoto do much that I never did anything with my photos.

 

[wbeem]

Well, this is an interesting thread.

First, if you want to find your original file inside of iPhoto, use the menu option to show it in the Finder. Select a photo and here's how it looks:

Next, exporting from iPhoto does not cause any changes or artifacts in the original. Changing it to export as a different file type *may* cause changes because you're losing data when you make the export, but that's true of any other program, too.

Finally, I run a web site for those of you who are interested in comparing Aperture and Lightroom. Some of the posts are also tutorials, and there will be more of those coming up next year. Both are fine programs. Each does something the other doesn't, but they mostly do much of the same thing. Which one works best for you really depends upon your needs (and presumes you're using a Mac, since Aperture doesn't run on Windows).

http://aperturevslightroom.com

 

[jimim]

Well, this is an interesting thread.

First, if you want to find your original file inside of iPhoto, use the menu option to show it in the Finder. Select a photo and here's how it looks:

Next, exporting from iPhoto does not cause any changes or artifacts in the original. Changing it to export as a different file type *may* cause changes because you're losing data when you make the export, but that's true of any other program, too.

Finally, I run a web site for those of you who are interested in comparing Aperture and Lightroom. Some of the posts are also tutorials, and there will be more of those coming up next year. Both are fine programs. Each does something the other doesn't, but they mostly do much of the same thing. Which one works best for you really depends upon your needs (and presumes you're using a Mac, since Aperture doesn't run on Windows).

http://aperturevslightroom.com

Will,

I'm glad you jumped in here cause I know there was alot of info jumping around. I thought if you exported correct like I had said above, and now you, that the original file comes out without loss of quality.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Thanks for the link also!

Jim

 

[photo_chick]

Next, exporting from iPhoto does not cause any changes or artifacts in the original. Changing it to export as a different file type *may* cause changes because you're losing data when you make the export, but that's true of any other program, too.

There's a blog, and I'll try to find it, that deconstructed the files into data and showed the differences. If you go through the actual export process yes, it does cause artifacting. Any time you do something like this it will change the file from the original. It may be only slightly where most people won't notice, but that does not mean it's not there. And since artifacting is cumulative....

If I have time later I'll see if I can't find where I read that blog post. it was a while back.

 

[wbeem]

There's a blog, and I'll try to find it, that deconstructed the files into data and showed the differences. If you go through the actual export process yes, it does cause artifacting. Any time you do something like this it will change the file from the original. It may be only slightly where most people won't notice, but that does not mean it's not there. And since artifacting is cumulative....

If I have time later I'll see if I can't find where I read that blog post. it was a while back.

An export of the original file should not have any artifacts because it doesn't change format. If something is making changes, then it isn't exporting the original. Considering how easy it is to do so - read a byte, write a byte - originals should never have any kind of change upon export because there is no translation taking place.

Now, that's not the case when you export to a different format because some translation is taking place, particularly when going from a RAW to a compressed format like a JPEG. Data gets lost and interpretations vary from one product to the next.

 

[photo_chick]

An export of the original file should not have any artifacts because it doesn't change format. If something is making changes, then it isn't exporting the original. Considering how easy it is to do so - read a byte, write a byte - originals should never have any kind of change upon export because there is no translation taking place.

Now, that's not the case when you export to a different format because some translation is taking place, particularly when going from a RAW to a compressed format like a JPEG. Data gets lost and interpretations vary from one product to the next.

Even if no changes are actually made it's still opening and re-saving the file. If you have jpegs in your library they will be subject to artifacting in this process.

 

[DawnM]

Thank you. I will take a look.

OP, check out the free training videos that are available on adobetv.com. There are some excellent ones. This one in particular may be helpful: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-lightroom-4/importing-existing-images/#

Try importing your My Photos folder (sorry, PC user here and don't know what Mac equivilent is) and set the "Include Subfolders" option on. This should show you all photos on your machine. If that still doesn't find them, go up to the hard drive level and import from there, again ensuring the include subdirectories option is on.

 

[DawnM]

Thank you!

Well, this is an interesting thread.

First, if you want to find your original file inside of iPhoto, use the menu option to show it in the Finder. Select a photo and here's how it looks:

Next, exporting from iPhoto does not cause any changes or artifacts in the original. Changing it to export as a different file type *may* cause changes because you're losing data when you make the export, but that's true of any other program, too.

Finally, I run a web site for those of you who are interested in comparing Aperture and Lightroom. Some of the posts are also tutorials, and there will be more of those coming up next year. Both are fine programs. Each does something the other doesn't, but they mostly do much of the same thing. Which one works best for you really depends upon your needs (and presumes you're using a Mac, since Aperture doesn't run on Windows).

http://aperturevslightroom.com

 

[DawnM]

A lot of useful information. Thank you.

I have been quite busy with Christmas stuff the last few days but will be jumping on this very soon.

I also plan to get myself a new walk around camera to keep in my purse. 2013 will be the year of picture taking for me......watch out world! n

 

[wbeem]

Even if no changes are actually made it's still opening and re-saving the file. If you have jpegs in your library they will be subject to artifacting in this process.

Nonsense. I've written programs like this and validated them with checksums. The files were identical. Bits are bits. They don't magically transform. You have to do some kind of conversion to get the issues you're mentioning. Exporting an original file will give you an identical file.

 

[photo_chick]

Nonsense. I've written programs like this and validated them with checksums. The files were identical. Bits are bits. They don't magically transform. You have to do some kind of conversion to get the issues you're mentioning. Exporting an original file will give you an identical file.

You know...

No, you're just not worth it. Have fun. Happy holidays.

 

[DSLRuser]

Nonsense. I've written programs like this and validated them with checksums. The files were identical. Bits are bits. They don't magically transform. You have to do some kind of conversion to get the issues you're mentioning. Exporting an original file will give you an identical file.

Sorry but you are incorrect.

Generational loss

Google it

Jpegs suffer from it. The mere fact of copying a file from 1 hd to another will ad a generation to it.

 

[wbeem]

Sorry but you are incorrect.

Generational loss

Google it

Jpegs suffer from it. The mere fact of copying a file from 1 hd to another will ad a generation to it.

I did and I reject it. I noticed that the Wikipedia article cites no references. That's because copying a bit from one source to another does not change the result. Seriously, it's not that complicated. Read a "1", write a "1". Read a "0", write a "0". Also, note that this concept refers in part to transcodes, which is not the same as original export.

No generational loss happens under this kind of export. However, transformational exports are a different matter - which is what I've said already.

There's no magic in computers. If you end up with more bits that expands your file, then you have an application from a bad programmer.

Having done this for over 30 years, I'm pretty confident with my observations on the issue.

 

[DawnM]

I received Lightroom with the instructional video for Christmas!

Dawn

 

[photo_chick]

Sorry but you are incorrect.

Generational loss

Google it

Jpegs suffer from it. The mere fact of copying a file from 1 hd to another will ad a generation to it.

It's the act of uncompressing when you open it and then re-compressing that data when you save again that causes artifacting. You don't get generational loss when you just copy a file without opening it (you used to with things like tape drives). Otherwise most of us would have horribly artifacted image libraries.

 

[Shutterbug]

I received Lightroom with the instructional video for Christmas!

Dawn

Good to hear I hope it works out for you!