|
Lightroom question... I want to reorganise all my photos, and one of the import organizing settings would be perfect (../year/month/day) for what I'm after. At the moment it's all over the place, so i want to use the metadata to reorganise everything. I could just reimport _everything_ to get it this way, but I have hundreds of hours of lightroom edits on these photos, so I don't want to lose anything. suggestions?
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 11:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
I think you can export the catalogue including negatives, create a new blank catalogue for your organised images and reimport from your exported catalogue file. It then gives you the option of how to organise the negatives on disk while preserving all the metadata (including edits). I don't have LR on this work PC so I can't test it but it should work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 13:34
|
|
|
Edit - never mind, moving this to the photo business thread.
Bob Socko fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Nov 11, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 20:05
|
|
|
A little late, but my camera truck feature finally got published in our student paper this week. Print photo story: http://www.thecaptainslog.org/pdfs/Volume41/Issue10/pg2.pdf (only PDF, sorry, for some reason our online editor doesn't put up the Page Two feature section in our online edition) Soundslide show: http://www.thecaptainslog.org/multimedia/Camera_truck/
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 20:10
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Print photo story: http://www.thecaptainslog.org/pdfs/Volume41/Issue10/pg2.pdf I find this incredibly fascinating. How many improperly captured scenes did you try before getting one that looked something like what you were going for? I don't want to call them "failures" because I'm sure it was a leaning process, but what was the learning curve like? Also, in a capture like the one below, how did you manage to get the completely different scene on the edges? I assume you just covered your previous exposure and drove elsewhere... but I'm curious. http://cameratruck.net/files/zoom/firstkiss_l.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 20:39
|
|
|
Whoops, guess I should have explained again in this post. I'm not the camera truck guy. Somebody posted that link, I discovered he was nearby, so I wanted to get out to meet him. I put together the stories after interviewing him. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 20:48
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:A little late, but my camera truck feature finally got published in our student paper this week. That is really cool, I like the audio slideshow. More news stories should be done like that. What are the prints like? Did you get to see an imaged focused inside the truck?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 22:08
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:That is really cool, I like the audio slideshow. More news stories should be done like that. What are the prints like? Did you get to see an imaged focused inside the truck? Thanks, I've enjoyed playing around with Soundslides. It's a really easy program to use. The prints are super cool. I'm really not even sure how to describe them... parts are incredibly sharp and crisp, generally toward the middle, while portions to the edges are sometimes a mess, since the developing process is so absurd. They definitely have a handmade feel to them that I enjoyed. Also, they're just huge. It's neat to stand next to an 8x4 foot print and look at the original photo, not something that's been hugely blown up. It was a pretty overcast day when I visited him and the truck was parked under some trees, so it wasn't optimal for making an image. However he did seal everything up as best he could and opened up the lens and hung some paper, and sure enough, you could see the beginnings of a photo with the light that came through. I'd love to go out with him sometime when he starts shooting with it again to get a better idea of what the process is really like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 01:18
|
|
|
Tigertron posted:The Zack Arias white seamless tutorial has been a great resource for setting up my home studio. I am sure it could be of use to many others as well. I'm quoting this like twelve pages later just to say that I tried to watch one of his critique videos and literally had to shut it off after about a minute. What a terribly mediocre photographer. Oh, and his wife sounds like a bitch. Z fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Nov 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 02:29
|
|
|
Z posted:I'm quoting this like five pages later just to say that I tried to watch one of his critique videos and literally had to shut it off after about a minute.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 02:34
|
|
|
Z posted:I'm quoting this like twelve pages later just to say that I tried to watch one of his critique videos and literally had to shut it off after about a minute. I don't think I've ever made it through an entire one of those videos. They could condense it down to like a minute or two, instead it's half an hour of him and his wife trying to be cute and funny, which they are not. It's like 95% rambling. None of their critiques are particularly insightful either, they pick these people who's work is all over the place and then go "your work is all over the place". I know it's because of the economy, but I am really sick of all these people - most of whom have unremarkable work - who have somehow managed to develop these massive followings of desperate amateurs that they sell overpriced workshops and DVDs and poo poo too to make up for their lack of work. All the social media and Web 2.0 stuff has amplified it to the point where I want to punch all of them in the face. I seriously get like 3-5 emails a week from these loving fuddie duddie guys old enough to be my grandparent about their "$ECRET$ TO $UCCE$$: TWITTER & THE SOCIAL MEDIA REVOLUTION!!!!" seminars. They all think they're on the cutting edge, but they all sound like a cross between a used car salesman and a Nigerian scammer. If these people spent half as much time shooting and making new work as they did writing blog posts and lovingly perfecting their precious tweets maybe they wouldn't have to teach amateurs how to set up a seamless to pay their rent. There's like a million of them, I don't know how I get on their goddamn mailing lists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 03:19
|
|
|
brad industry posted:<3 I hate to admit it, but I do use Chase Jarvis' iPhone app 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 03:25
|
|
|
brad industry posted:long I follow Chase Jarvis on Twitter and I don't see the big deal outside his commercial shots, which I'm convinced most people could do given his manpower and payroll. I think he's more a businessman than photographer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 05:42
|
|
|
Sorry that little rant wasn't really directed at Chase Jarvis (I like his iPhone app - oh sorry I mean PHOTO ECOSYSTEM). But when was the last time he actually twittered or blogged his own drat work? It's all socialmediatwittercrowdsourcemyspacecontestseo stuff and I'm just tired of hearing about it. It's not really him that's that bugs me, it's the half a dozen LEARN THE SECRETS OF SOME PHOTOGRAPHER YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ONLY $300 PER SEMINAR emails I get a week.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 07:12
|
|
|
I like Chase Jarvis, because while he may be a bit of a ponce, he can still pull of some amazing creative work from time to time, like that ski shot he did with the strobes firing 8 times per second.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 09:41
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Sorry that little rant wasn't really directed at Chase Jarvis (I like his iPhone app - oh sorry I mean PHOTO ECOSYSTEM). But when was the last time he actually twittered or blogged his own drat work? It's all socialmediatwittercrowdsourcemyspacecontestseo stuff and I'm just tired of hearing about it. I do like Chase Jarvis's work. The man can be annoying, and talks more about himself than his work these days; true. I'm going to guess this is because he's discovered that he can make way more money speaking, writing, and selling things to wide-eyed amateurs than he could taking pictures. He's building up his name as a personality/brand. As annoying as that is, I can't begrudge him that. It says nothing about his photography, good or bad, but it says a lot about his business savvy. The downside, of course, (as you mention) is that someone like Jarvis being successful at this inspires as many new slimy businessmen as it does photographers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 13:58
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:I like Chase Jarvis, because while he may be a bit of a ponce, he can still pull of some amazing creative work from time to time, like that ski shot he did with the strobes firing 8 times per second. Seminars a big deals these days. Lots of people with fancy cameras who have no idea what to do with them. It's kind of scummy. Arias and Jarvis do decent work, but that's where they make their money. Even Joe McNally does seminars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2009 14:13
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:I really didn't think that was too impressive. It's not nearly as difficult as he made it seem. The video was all about showing off that he had lots of equipment and was a cool guy; I felt like it was more about marketing his seminars more than anything else. Photography as a business is definitely changing. I suppose we can't, on one hand, complain about amateurs making GBS threads up the industry with mediocre but nearly free photos, and then expect that some of the more savvy businesspeople won't turn to doing whatever is more profitable. On the other hand, a lot of professional photographers are just douchebags. Regardless of their business practices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 00:45
|
|
|
Ansel Adams did seminars and wrote books!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 17:41
|
|
|
Not really sure if this is the right place for this or if it deserves it's own thread, but I'm gonna try it out here first. I'm beginning to consider my options for replacing my photo editing PC, and wanted to find out if anyone's done what I'd like to do: go virtual. I'm at a point where I've got so many drat computers laying around -- servers, home theater stuff, kitchen, office, various laptops -- that I want to just buy a SAN and a host server and turn them all into virtuals with a few of these guys scattered around the house so I can remote into any box I need from anywhere I want. I'm not worried about processing power, since the server is plenty beefy for running Lightroom and Photoshop. My concern is color management. Has anyone ever tried photo editing through Windows' Remote Desktop software before? Can I reasonably assume that Remote Desktop won't gently caress with my color depth or any other settings necessary for accurate color reproduction on the local monitor? My initial reaction is that this won't work at all, but I wanted to find out if anyone's managed to pull it off yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 20:11
|
|
|
evensevenone posted:Ansel Adams did seminars and wrote books! Ansel Adams wasn't rehashing Twitter for the umpteenth time.  slartibartfast posted:My initial reaction is that this won't work at all, but I wanted to find out if anyone's managed to pull it off yet. It'll work physically, it just depends on your definition of what qualifies as working enough. RDP is poo poo slow for things like Photoshop, and it's not color managed. Molten Llama fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Nov 13, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 20:55
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:It'll work physically, it just depends on your definition of what qualifies as working enough. I've got a 2Gbs backbone between the client box and the server box. I don't think it'll be slow, I'm just worried about the color always being consistent. The other option would be to use the server like a desktop machine -- keep it in the office rather than locked away in a server room -- and just run the VMs off it in the background. I'd really rather not do that for a number of technical reasons that are outside the scope of what we're taking about here, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 21:11
|
|
|
evensevenone posted:Ansel Adams did seminars and wrote books! Yes but Ansel invented the zone system, probably the most important technical development in the history of photography. It's also fairly complicated so you actually need books and poo poo to wrap your head around it. He was also one of the most important advocates for photography, and did more for the medium than anyone before or since. These middle aged guys who just discovered the internet and feel the need to spam me about Twitter aren't really on the same level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 21:28
|
|
|
Hello folks, hopefully this is the right place to post such a newbie question, otherwise feel free to redirect me elsewhere. I was thinking of getting the following Nikon D90 package as my first serious DSLR: "Nikon D90 Black 12.3 MP 3.0" 920K LCD Digital SLR Camera w/ AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Lens" I'm visiting some Western Europe in December and I'm probably going to be taking a lot of city and landscape shots (I love the area around San Marino in winter). The thing I'm not so sure about is if I should get one or two additional lenses with me to make sure that those pictures are as awesome as they can be. As I understand, the 18-105mm lens that comes in that Nikon offer is a very generic lens that works "ok" for most cases, but would you guys recommend additional lenses for my situation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 22:05
|
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:Hello folks, First, try here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2934270 Second, I have no idea about the nikon kit lens, but the D90 has a good reputation. Third. Nikon? Really. All the smart kids go canon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2009 22:42
|
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:I'm visiting some Western Europe in December and I'm probably going to be taking a lot of city and landscape shots (I love the area around San Marino in winter). The thing I'm not so sure about is if I should get one or two additional lenses with me to make sure that those pictures are as awesome as they can be. As I understand, the 18-105mm lens that comes in that Nikon offer is a very generic lens that works "ok" for most cases, but would you guys recommend additional lenses for my situation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 00:52
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I very much love my D90, but I'd get a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a fast prime. Pardon my noobness, but what exactly is considered a fast prime?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 02:51
|
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:Pardon my noobness, but what exactly is considered a fast prime? Prime means a fixed lens, generally has higher optical quality. Fast means a low f stop number (bigger whole) to let in more light- thus letting you use a "fast" shutterspeed. Fast Primes are usually something like the 50mm 1.8
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 03:21
|
|
|
DreadCthulhu posted:Pardon my noobness, but what exactly is considered a fast prime? f/2.8 as a max aperture is slow for a prime lens, fast for a zoom lens. A fast prime is f/2.0 or faster. The 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 are good, reasonably priced fast primes. Sigma's 30mm f/1.4 gets great reviews also.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 03:25
|
|
|
slartibartfast posted:I've got a 2Gbs backbone between the client box and the server box. I don't think it'll be slow, I'm just worried about the color always being consistent. Things like photoshop would be slow even if you RDPd into a VM on the same physical machine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 04:38
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Third. Nikon? Really. All the smart kids go canon. If he were talking about getting a D40 I'd say you're right, but the D90 is about where Nikon's sweet spot is right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 04:54
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:The 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 are good, reasonably priced fast primes. Sigma's 30mm f/1.4 gets great reviews also.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 12:57
|
|
|
Z posted:If he were talking about getting a D40 I'd say you're right, but the D90 is about where Nikon's sweet spot is right now. No, I'm saying all canons of any kind are better than any nikon. Canon 300D versus Nikon D3x? Take the canon. It's just superior in every possible way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 13:13
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:No, I'm saying all canons of any kind are better than any nikon. Canon 300D versus Nikon D3x? Take the canon. It's just superior in every possible way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2009 13:41
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Yes but Ansel invented the zone system, probably the most important technical development in the history of photography. It's also fairly complicated so you actually need books and poo poo to wrap your head around it. He was also one of the most important advocates for photography, and did more for the medium than anyone before or since. Yeah it's not the idea of workshops or tutorials that are annoying, it's when someone not qualified is both doing it, and actually making money off it that's annoying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2009 14:40
|
|
|
I apologize if this has been touched on, but since upgrading to Windows 7 (x64) I've missed Canon's RAW codec since it doesn't work on x64 machines. On a whim today I decided to search for a fix and came across a few links to this site: http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/ They offer free 32/64-bit RAW codecs for most manufacturers. Just installed it and it's working like a dream. Very handy if the official codecs you need are only 32bit. Looking at you Canon. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2009 08:08
|
|
|
I want to start taking wildlife photos, mainly birds (in flight if possible), night-photography (eg. the moon and stars) and some more specific close-up shots of things. Would anyone here recommend the Tamron 70-300mm lens? It seems within my price-range and would work alongside my Nikon D40. It also seems to have a good reviews, but I like running things by you all first. Thanks in advance!
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2009 00:25
|
|
|
So, with it being the peak night for the Leonid meteor shower tonight, anyone have any tips for capturing the drat things? I have a Canon 400D with a 50mm/F1.8, 28-90mm/F4-5.8 and a 100-300mm/F5.8 lens available. My last attempt at meteor photography (in August) was a stunning failure, so I'm hoping that perhaps someone here has some advice that'll help me avoid wasting another evening. edit: Hurr, I didn't read the first page. Looks like there was some advice in the 7th or so post. However, it doesn't have much info on whether I'll want to have my lens stopped down or left open. I'm suspecting I should leave it open. Lights fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Nov 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2009 02:37
|
|
|
I'm having some problems with star trails. I'm using a D50 with a 30 second exposure, f/3.5, manual focus, long exposure NR turned OFF. I roll with a ghetto setup involving duct tape and a coin keeping the shutter held down, and I'm quite sure it doesn't slip off or anything like that. Battery is fully charged. Shooting JPG fine, not RAW. At first, it shoots continuously- one shot starts right after the other. After a while, however, it starts taking its sweet time in between shots, ending up with my picture looking like this: When it slows down, I look through the viewfinder and the light meter is blinking, the AF area diagram thing and the dot next to it is blinking (even though I'm on manual?), and the flash icon is blinking. No idea what this means. I understand that continuous shooting only works until the buffer fills, but with 30 whole seconds in between data writes, shouldn't it keep on going? What is going on?! The Wensey fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Nov 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2009 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Edit: might help if I calibrated my monitor. Durrr.
aehiilrs fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Nov 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2009 04:29
|
|