Which Version of Photoshop?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Greg Berchin, Feb 9, 2014.

  1. Greg Berchin

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, Feb 15, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Greg Berchin

    Savageduck Guest

    Snort! Choke! cough! cough!, splutter!
     
    Savageduck, Feb 15, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    i assume your'e talking about winfs & vista.

    winfs was supposed to be in vista, then later to ship after vista, and
    then not at all.

    vista was slow for other reasons. it certainly wasn't because of winfs
    which wasn't in it.
     
    Guest, Feb 15, 2014
  4. Greg Berchin

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Give it a bit more choke and try again. :)
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 15, 2014
  5. Greg Berchin

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Do you know enough about the Internet to give a URL for the particular
    one you have in mind?
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 15, 2014
  6. Greg Berchin

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I see screen shots on the .pdf you linked to, but not on any website.
    Perhaps nospam doesn't know the difference between a website and a
    ..pdf.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 15, 2014
  7. Greg Berchin

    Sandman Guest

    Unless your documents are handled by a document manager, in which place it
    can be found in a number of places if you so choose.
    Which is a restriction of a file system.
    No issue at all in a document manager.
    This is incorrect as well.
    Which, if you're using the file system, is a lot of manual work. In a
    managed environment - no work at all. That's the point.
    What you need is irrelevant.
    Bullshit. The need is very real for serious photographers.
    Setting attributes for hundreds of photos each month in a media manager
    would be trivial.
    What you "subscribe" to is totally irrelevant.
    Incorrect.
     
    Sandman, Feb 15, 2014
  8. Greg Berchin

    J. Clarke Guest

    A very impressive demonstration of the skill of the artist, however I
    doubt that an ipad is his main working tool.
    Now let's see you do Spencerian handwriting with it.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 15, 2014
  9. Greg Berchin

    Savageduck Guest

    Probably not. However, he seems to be happy enough to use an iPad and
    ArtStudio to noodle about with.
    "Spencerian"!!
    With my rudimentary skills, I am barely capable of of producing
    Savageduckian handwriting.
    < https://db.tt/HHD5hnnU >
     
    Savageduck, Feb 15, 2014
  10. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    Guest, Feb 15, 2014
  11. Greg Berchin

    Guest Guest

    then it's clear you have even less of a clue than i thought.
     
    Guest, Feb 15, 2014
  12. Greg Berchin

    Alan Browne Guest

    It may not be installed correctly. Remove it (using the Adobe tool) and
    reinstall it. Will not affect your photos.
    Bridge is not a database.
    Is your machine up to the size of your photo file sizes?

    On my prior computer (2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo) it worked fine. On my SO's
    MBA (1.8 GHz dual core) it works fine. (with 24 MPix raw files).
    Those are amongst my objections to database oriented management. The
    user is left unsure as to where data is kept. To me (as a photographer)
    it's what's with the photo in its folder that counts,that can be
    accessed via Finder to be sure.

    --
    Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
    or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.

    Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
    people are not trained to perform.
    - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 15, 2014
  13. Greg Berchin

    Alan Browne Guest

    Whenever you hand over control to an application you subscribe to the
    limitations of the application.

    This is plain and simple logic.
    There is no hassle factor in managing image files directly. None. Nada.

    There is a fear factor in using managed flows because one does not know
    where or how certain data is kept and managed. It is obfuscated. I do
    not obfuscate anything where my photos are concerned.

    LR is not that bad, actually, as one can step around it handily with no
    fear of damaging anything. (eg: one can grab a file via Finder as do as
    one wishes - it may or may not cause confusion with LR - but won't break
    the dB as some apps may be prone to do).

    By definition you are wrong.
    No, it's doing as the app restricts.
    That depends on ones definition of productivity - what is the objective.

    Using the file system directly to find images (using an appropriate tool
    such as Bridge) is all that one needs.

    When things break within the database (due to any number of issues) then
    the user is lost as to recovering his work. Using the file system
    directly I can recover a lost file via its direct copy on my backup
    drives or from TM. (Frankly it's quicker to use the direct approach v. TM).

    With a broken dB system one is more likely forced to do a complete
    restore which will take much longer as the complete dB needs to be
    copied from the backup volume.
    Even with LR you have to "manage" your work. There is no magic mind
    reading. You have to organize what folders to keep things in and so on.

    It is, if at all, so marginally less work as to not bear mention.
    No - it's an example of how DATA ENTRY is time restrictive. Applying
    attributes (esp. user defined data) is not less busywork with a dB than
    with Bridge. In both cases you have to type away and that is time
    consuming.

    Why a simple approach (whether LR or not) to naming folders and basic
    filenames goes a long way to solving the largest problem of locating
    files quickly.

    A very silly thing to do. I have a lot of time and money invested in my
    photos (and other things) that I would never trust to a system to manage
    for me.
    If I go somewhere where I will need particular files I transfer them to
    my laptop. (Work is another matter - VPN in ... to the file system).
    No. My images are single files. The raw. Derivative works. Single
    instances on my Mac. (Backups are simply copies of those).
    Not in my photo work flow (or most other documents for that matter).

    Not anywhere wrt to my photos, Word, Excel, PPT docs. They are simple,
    regular files. There may be asset sets - but that would be of my
    making. (eg: writing a proposal everything will be in one folder along
    with the proposal ... but it's managed by me).

    Wrt to applications on a Mac I don't disagree. The app "file" buries a
    lot of detail and supporting files. That's okay.

    Wrt my files (images, docs) there is no need to agree as it isn't so, at
    all. They are standalone, withing their folders as they should be.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 15, 2014
  14. Greg Berchin

    Savageduck Guest

    Currently my primary cataloging tool is Lightroom.
    I have no problem navigating to a specific image using LR, Bridge, or
    the Finder on my Mac, because I know exactly where I have LR stash
    stuff. The only issue is LR *Virtual Copies* do not exist in the Finder
    or Bridge Worlds.
    So I have the following methods of tracking down a specific image. In
    this case a 2010 shot taken at Laguna Seca.
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_581.jpg >
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_582.jpg >
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_580.jpg >
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_583.jpg >
    < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_584.jpg >
     
    Savageduck, Feb 15, 2014
  15. Greg Berchin

    PeterN Guest

    I took a step back. Over the last year I used DXO on no more than
    fifteen images. I am effectively eliminating it from my workflow, and
    using it only as a possible outside tool. I need to simplify my life.
     
    PeterN, Feb 15, 2014
  16. Greg Berchin

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Tony Cooper, Feb 15, 2014
  17. Greg Berchin

    Sandman Guest

    Which are far less than the limitations of the file system itself.
    So why are you having such problem understanding?
    Incorrect. You have highlighted several yourself, unknowingly.
    There is no such fear. At least not amongst photographers. It is obvious
    you feel such fear, but that is not relevant to anything being discussed.
    For good reasons.
    And then you live with the limitations of the file system.
    No, they're not.
    By reality, you are.
    Which is more than can be done in the file system.
    Less work to achieve same result.
    Unless you want something quicker, more flexible and more powerful - at
    which point you move away from the file system.
    Weakest argument ever. If your file system fails, you use your backup. If
    your Aperture DB fails, you use your backup. Same solution to both
    problems.
    The DB is tiny.
    Much less so than with the file system.
    Incorrect. LR and Aperture handle a lot of data indexing for you.
    As long as you can remember it four years later.
    Incorrect.
     
    Sandman, Feb 15, 2014
  18. Greg Berchin

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Just Winfs.
    Nor was it due to molasses which wasn't in it either.
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 15, 2014
  19. Greg Berchin

    Alan Browne Guest

    Virtual copies in LR are "master" + "process" = V-copy.

    Where process is tags/effects/instructions in the form of metadata.

    So there is no straight file "world" for them to exist in. You'd never
    find them via Finder or Bridge since they don't actually exist as files.

    It's a "neat" system (as in "neato"), not especially breakable (if you
    move the master then the virtual copies (the "added work") might not be
    recoverable). It's not clear to me where the tags and such are stored.
    "Virtual copies are metadata in the catalog that stores different sets
    of adjustments." is the helpless description from Adobe. So if you move
    the master (with Finder or whatnot) then those edits are lost. If you
    put it back unsullied, perhaps not. If you put it back but changed it
    with an edit, then I'd venture you'd have an unpredictable outcome in
    the V-copies - said unpredictability being proportional to the off the
    ranch changes.

    Some forensics on the catalog would likely tell you more about the
    catalog and how/where the metadata is stored. But that may be tedious.

    ific image. In
    <s>

    I have the same - other than LR - and I've written a program to catalog
    GPS recordings and make "pins" for Google Earth (.kml) with a link in
    there to the files. Scans my entire computer looking for GPS data (and
    is amazingly fast). No GUI (no need). It can also search for
    particular areas or dates for those files (based on the GPS date, not
    file date).

    Next time I'm in a programming mood I'll add scans of photos to make
    different coloured pushpins for the same or a separate .kml files.

    I also have a program compiled for Windows that I may bring into Mac
    Land - it generates straight or random slide shows from my saved photos
    with various simple filters (date and so on). But the viewer program is
    LViewPro - something I haven't found a suitable substitute for in Mac land.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 15, 2014
  20. Greg Berchin

    Eric Stevens Guest

    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.