Lightspeed 3.x

[W3MIV]

I don't know why Adobe keeps pestering me, but they just sent me an offer to buy Lightspeed 3.x for only $99 (instead of $299) -- so, of course, I bit.

I shoot a lot of raw files, usually processing them through Adobe Camera Raw in Bridge and also tuning in PhotoShop CS5 when necessary. Lightspeed has a fine set of development tools -- basically the same as Camera Raw -- but also combines some very powerful cataloging and photo management tools -- meaning file management tools.

Too soon to make any definitive comments, but I installed it on the laptop that I usually use to offload the camera. My most recent agricultural shoot resulted in about 259 raw images -- a total of almost nine gigglebytes. I shoot raw because the development does not alter the original image file -- the "negative" in effect -- but merely appends processing instructions to the image. The permits going back and making changes as often as desired without ever altering the basic image file -- something that you cannot do in PS without constantly saving new files as you proceed.

First impression is that this program is a far better choice (dollar-for-dollar) than PS for most digital photogs who are shooting raw files.

[w6tmi]

Should I assume you mean "Lightroom"?

I tried that, but removed it when I got the creative suite. I assumed it was a weaker version of camera raw/pornoshop.

I'll have to re-visit checking that out if it's more. While most of my "photoshopping" does tend to be simple cropping and light adjustment with the occasional vignette thrown in, some enhanced filtering might be nice for some low light/night shots.

[W3MIV]

Should I assume you mean "Lightroom"?

I tried that, but removed it when I got the creative suite. I assumed it was a weaker version of camera raw/pornoshop.

I'll have to re-visit checking that out if it's more. While most of my "photoshopping" does tend to be simple cropping and light adjustment with the occasional vignette thrown in, some enhanced filtering might be nice for some low light/night shots.

Indeed you should. Have no idea why I typed "lightspeed." Age and inattention. Perhaps worse.

I use both PS and the new "LightROOM" -- I shall scribble it 100 times on the blackboard (as soon as I can locate a blackboard).

It is a version of Camera Raw, but not weaker. It does not have the full range of capabilities of PS, but has cataloging advantages if you shoot a lot of pix, especially if you shoot raw -- which I do now as a matter of course. Raw files are never changed, unlike jpegs, and you can alter them again and again in different ways without degrading the original images. Of course, that holds for Bridge and PS as well as LR.

The search tools using keywords is an incredible tool for managing large numbers of images in a stable of image folders.

[KC2KFC]

I've used Lightroom for a couple of years now. I also shoot a lot of RAW images. For straight on editing such as cropping, adjusting contrast, saturation, etc. etc. I think it is a wonderful tool. I probably use it about 90% of the time and PS the other 10%. I haven't updated to the latest version, but I have found it loads slower as the database grows. I do backup the data religiously on a separate drive, just in case there is a problem. I think you made a good investment in another quality photo editing tool from Adobe.

[w6tmi]

With memory as cheap as it is, I shoot dual mode - raw and jpg

edit dual post misfire...

[w6tmi]

With memory as cheap as it is, I shoot dual mode - raw and jpg, for the utility of seeing what's what in windows photo viewer.

Yeah, I do like working with raw files. But more then that.. I REALLY need to get a handle on organization moreso then artistic content. I have sooo many basically snapshots, interlaced with good pictures I don't care to edit the snapshots as they are just visuals of people or landscape as memories not art.

Yeah, I feel there is a difference 'specially with videography recording a memorable event you just want it ALL, untouched even if it's horrid, and you'd be embarrassed to show anyone without severe editing, but it aids the memory of the event.

But I digress, I really need to get a handle on this stuff.. What I really need is that google enhancement that will go through the photos, "look" at them and insert the metadata "shot at Rhode Island naval ship yard..blah blah".

Failing that I guess I need to learn how lightroom or bridge works

[W3MIV]

Lightroom might be overkill for your needs; it is $300. ACDSee Pro may be better suited at half the cost. Both will let you organize your images, add keywords for searching and also add custom metadata entries about content, location, etc that become permanent part of the files.

[w6tmi]

Lightroom might be overkill for your needs; it is $300. ACDSee Pro may be better suited at half the cost. Both will let you organize your images, add keywords for searching and also add custom metadata entries about content, location, etc that become permanent part of the files.

I can get it really cheap, but if it's more an editing tool, or overkill I'll have to check out ACDSee. I think I used that to edit some time back.

At this point it's like wa6mhz's garage (house?) where there's just so much to go through, probably chuck some find dupes and even organize into folders. There's a certain split I can do based on the camera I used and I can probably do some of that with some Imagemagic scripting, then use a dupe finder.
Then go through the images.

then probably through some of the video into 1 stream and output it to a decent quality and be done.

Guess it still beats the shoebox full of pictures I've lost.

[kf0rt]

Lightroom might be overkill for your needs; it is $300. ACDSee Pro may be better suited at half the cost. Both will let you organize your images, add keywords for searching and also add custom metadata entries about content, location, etc that become permanent part of the files.

Lightroom appears to be De rigour <sp!&%*> among the pros these days. Tres popular, and I doubt Adobe will abandon it anytime soon. Installed the demo a few weeks ago and am interested it it's organizational capabilities. Turned it loose on a huge library here, and it only took about four hours to suck it all in (this is actually impressive). Ordered a legal license from B&H for $169, should be here Friday. The photo forums are full of $99 deals, but none came my way.

We'll see, and I need to shoot more pictures. Seriously, for all the photography I do these days, MS Paint works. Welcome to America.

[W3MIV]

Has a bit of a learning curve, Rob, but once you start getting into it, you will find that its organization and retrieval powers are incredible. The raw development module is no slouch, either; I especially like the lens correction capability and the fact that I can even re-crop photos as many times as I please without ever altering the original raw file.

Good luck, get out and have fun.

[kf0rt]

Having a ball so far, Albi. Got my whole photo library imported into two catalogs (easy peasy) and I've been working on a custom web gallery (I don't like that paginated stuff). Haven't played with the RAW stuff yet (really should shoot more in RAW). It doesn't come with many lenses in the correction thing -- of the 6 Nikkors I have, only one is in the list, but I think more can be added. I'm really liking the organizer -- seems fast enough, but it's a bit of a disk pig. 38,000 pictures generates about a Gig worth of database. Lots to learn! :)

[W3MIV]

I set up a separate 1TB drive to hold photo files, which I also backup onto a second such drive. External drives are so cheap nowadays it is a false economy in my view to use anything else. I keep my photos on the internal computer drive as long as I am using them, then archive them to the externals.

The ball-buster for older images being imported into LR for the first time is setting up keywords for searching and clustering. PITA for sure, but worth the effort when you want to locate one particular image out of some thousands.

I am also looking at cloud storage for a tertiary backup that is off-site on which to store stuff.

[kf0rt]

Much the same here... I've got a 1TB internal drive that's "data only" -- not just for photos, but everything. That's backed up to two external 1TB drives on a regular basis (each a copy of the other). No real interest in the cloud stuff. Yet, anyway. Between Limbaugh's touting of Carbonite and my aversion to monthly payments, it might be a tough sell. :) I was considering a small fire-proof safe to keep the backup drives in...

I'm going to have to dig into the keyword stuff at some point. I can see the advantage, but it sure sounds like a bunch of tedium. Between the two libraries I have set up, there's about 75,000 images. Need to learn more about it -- some simple batch tagging might not take that much work.

[W3MIV]

I am not expert enough to know whether or not batch metadata insertions are possible. I believe you can with images that are in the catalog you are working on -- I think that you can select several in the light table line up at the bottom and perform a range of batch functions, but have not tried to use that with metadata.

I can recommend Martin Evening's "Lightroom 3" book, published by Adobe and sold on Amazon. Lots of helpful stuff; expensive, but worth the cost. He also has one out on PhotoShop CS5 that is an excellent reference, and it has particularly good video tutorials on a DVD.