im enjoying LR's ability to allow changes w/o commitment fears, and
unlimited undo. but thinking of the future im wondering:
1) if switching machines or platforms, can users bring their LR
library w/ changes in tact? im thinking yes, based on some posts like
this one: http://tinyurl.com/2erumd.
2) im not clear on where the nondestructive changes are stored -- as
XMP metadata in the DNG (in sidecar for non-DNG), or in a proprietary
LR db? meaning, does using LR tie users to this proprietary product
line?
spacemarine@mailinator.com wrote:
> hey folks,
>
> im enjoying LR's ability to allow changes w/o commitment fears, and
> unlimited undo. but thinking of the future im wondering:
>
> 1) if switching machines or platforms, can users bring their LR
> library w/ changes in tact? im thinking yes, based on some posts like
> this one: http://tinyurl.com/2erumd.
Dunno; I don't go to tinyurls. But, yes, you can switch to Mac, or port
from Mac to Windows.
>
> 2) im not clear on where the nondestructive changes are stored -- as
> XMP metadata in the DNG (in sidecar for non-DNG), or in a proprietary
> LR db? meaning, does using LR tie users to this proprietary product
> line?
It- they, all the edits, keywords, etc. are stored in the database as
well as the file folders themselves. So, you are not tied to LR per se,
but while the metadata is transferrable, most likely the edits will be
applied only in PS.
On Apr 16, 12:00 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Dunno; I don't go to tinyurls.
what do you have against tinyurl? im guessing a fear of malicious
programs running on your pc (activeX) via URLs hidden behind
tinyurl.com's shorthand, but no decent browser will allow any unknown
programs to run on your machine w/o you giving specific permission for
it to do so. further, any hacker or troublemaker could easily hide
such programs behind safe-looking bogus urls (ie, if i registered
"www.myCoolPhotoSite.com")... since you cant possibly distinguish all
Good from Bad sites by sight, the advantages of tinyurl.com use (no
clipping, no cutting & pasting) outweigh the disadvantages (fear of
unknown urls).
> It- they, all the edits, keywords, etc. are stored in the database as
> well as the file folders themselves. So, you are not tied to LR per se,
> but while the metadata is transferrable, most likely the edits will be
> applied only in PS.
in the db.. ok. somewhat disappointing -- if the db is damaged, or if
only the DNGs are archived, it would be preferable to host the changes
in the files themselves. especially since DNGs should be capable of
storing XMP meta data.
hmm, im looking in my "file folders", but i dont see anything other
than my DNGs. where would it be stored if not in the DNGs? i *thought*
i had read .XMP files would be used only for when working w/ RAW
instead of DNG.
>
>> It- they, all the edits, keywords, etc. are stored in the database as
>> well as the file folders themselves. So, you are not tied to LR per se,
>> but while the metadata is transferrable, most likely the edits will be
>> applied only in PS.
>
> in the db.. ok. somewhat disappointing -- if the db is damaged, or if
> only the DNGs are archived, it would be preferable to host the changes
> in the files themselves. especially since DNGs should be capable of
> storing XMP meta data.
The db is backed up automatically; the metadata is stored with the
individual files in the case of RAW; in the file for the other supported
formats.
>
> hmm, im looking in my "file folders", but i dont see anything other
> than my DNGs. where would it be stored if not in the DNGs? i *thought*
> i had read .XMP files would be used only for when working w/ RAW
> instead of DNG.
It is inside the DNG itself, and yes, sidecar .xmps are used only for
RAW files.
spacemarine@mailinator.com wrote:
> On Apr 16, 12:00 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Dunno; I don't go to tinyurls.
>
> what do you have against tinyurl? im guessing a fear of malicious
> programs running on your pc (activeX) via URLs hidden behind
> tinyurl.com's shorthand, but no decent browser will allow any unknown
> programs to run on your machine w/o you giving specific permission for
> it to do so. further, any hacker or troublemaker could easily hide
> such programs behind safe-looking bogus urls (ie, if i registered
> "www.myCoolPhotoSite.com")... since you cant possibly distinguish all
> Good from Bad sites by sight, the advantages of tinyurl.com use (no
> clipping, no cutting & pasting) outweigh the disadvantages (fear of
> unknown urls).
Not for me; it's not fear, it's experience. Usually not worth seeing,
and sometimes a hoax.
I have zero fear of any virus until there's something more than proof of
concept for Macs.
On Apr 16, 6:00 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Are you that invested in tinyurls??
only in that i think theyre efficient and make sense. they prevent
urls from being clipped by many popular email clients, and well as
usenet groups -- basically anything that wraps at 80 chars tends to
have issues w/ lengthy urls. not for everyone, of course, but for
enough* that i have a button on my browser that converts long urls
into...well, tiny ones.
*even in my outlook-to-outlook exchanges, they get clipped. guess its
our babel.
On Apr 16, 5:51 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
> It is inside the DNG itself, and yes, sidecar .xmps are used only for
> RAW files.
ok, that sounds good then -- the XMP changes & metadata are stored
*in* the DNG, as well as in LR's db. tho that begs the question -- if
changes are in the DNG, what purpose do they also server in the db?
using the db for keywords and camera metadata i could see, for
searching & cataloging, but im not sure what use the changes would be
(yet).
i read on their site "Where Lightroom contains additional enhancements
to raw processing, the enhancements you make will be recognized when
the photo file is opened in Camera Raw." so i did a test w/ adobe
bridge, opening a DNG to see if showed my changes -- no dice. i
believe i had installed the required updated ACR engine in AB, so im
not sure why it didnt work... ill have to mess with it further.
On Apr 17, 12:00 am, spacemar...@mailinator.com wrote:
> believe i had installed the required updated ACR engine in AB, so im
> not sure why it didnt work... ill have to mess with it further.
ah... theres a checkbox for writing the changes to XMP in-file. not
sure if its checked or unchecked by default, but mine was unchecked. i
also had to go back and select the images, and use the "Metadata->XMP-
>Export XMP Metadata to File" command on my previously edited images.
not sure if this will be required going forward w/ newly imported
files (since i have now checked the box).
spacemarine@mailinator.com wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:51 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> It is inside the DNG itself, and yes, sidecar .xmps are used only for
>> RAW files.
>
> ok, that sounds good then -- the XMP changes & metadata are stored
> *in* the DNG, as well as in LR's db. tho that begs the question -- if
> changes are in the DNG, what purpose do they also server in the db?
> using the db for keywords and camera metadata i could see, for
> searching & cataloging, but im not sure what use the changes would be
> (yet).
>
> i read on their site "Where Lightroom contains additional enhancements
> to raw processing, the enhancements you make will be recognized when
> the photo file is opened in Camera Raw." so i did a test w/ adobe
> bridge, opening a DNG to see if showed my changes -- no dice. i
> believe i had installed the required updated ACR engine in AB, so im
> not sure why it didnt work... ill have to mess with it further.
>
> curious if youve tried this and if so, it worked?
Yes, it works, but I've tried it only with CS3.
Having the metadata in the database is where it gets put by default, and
is faster than writing out changes to the files each time.
That's why I don't automatically write the changes to the files, but
only when I plan to move a folder.
spacemarine@mailinator.com wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:00 pm, John McWilliams <j...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Are you that invested in tinyurls??
>
> only in that i think theyre efficient and make sense. they prevent
> urls from being clipped by many popular email clients, and well as
> usenet groups -- basically anything that wraps at 80 chars tends to
> have issues w/ lengthy urls. not for everyone, of course, but for
> enough* that i have a button on my browser that converts long urls
> into...well, tiny ones.
>
> *even in my outlook-to-outlook exchanges, they get clipped. guess its
> our babel.
I don't mind them when from a friend, but a good newsreader doesn't
break the "real url", when enclosed in < >.
Many folks on usenet ignore them as they've been used for mischief, and
can be a waste of time.
Lightroom - two questions 
Linear Mode
