|
Ak Gara posted:Since there's talk of backing up, I want to do backing up that every time I backup, only new files are added to my external drive, and not 2 Terabytes of data every loving time. I've tried setting it to "daily" but it still backs everything up. It took 24 hours last time. What backup program are you talking about and is this Mac or PC?
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
Ak Gara posted:Since there's talk of backing up, I want to do backing up that every time I backup, only new files are added to my external drive, and not 2 Terabytes of data every loving time. I've tried setting it to "daily" but it still backs everything up. It took 24 hours last time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 07:13
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Having all the files being managed by the software is "the mac way" of doing things. Oh believe me, I know. I'm forced to switch between a Mac and a PC literally every day and it's made me want to smash every loving mac to bits with the amount of trouble it's "file management" causes me. But, lest this turn into Mac vs. PC again I will digress. I just used this tutorial on removing skin hotspots and it works really well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 07:32
|
|
|
I let Lightroom 3 manage my photos and sort them into folders automatically on import ... isn't that basically the same as "the Mac way"? In this case I think it's outstanding, and the catalogue and tagging add so much to it. All the files are still easily accessible too if I want to manually back them up, which I gather is the same Aperture?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:I let Lightroom 3 manage my photos and sort them into folders automatically on import ... isn't that basically the same as "the Mac way"? No, the Mac way is that everything is one huge file. So say you have 100GB of photos, your library would be one monolithic 100GB file. Apparently you can change that now, I'm not sure you always could.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 07:44
|
|
|
delicious beef posted:Kinda related, does anyone have a good workflow for doing a cloud based back up? I don't have anything set up, but I'd like to start using Amazon S3 or similar, I just don't know what the best way of doing it. Is there a good app that can automate things? I'm mac based if anyone has any suggestions. I use an app called Arq to back up my poo poo to S3. I've found it to be extremely useful and cost effective. Whilst I probably have a lot less data than most of you guys (maybe ~100gb currently), it only costs me $2-3 a month in S3 fees at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 07:47
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:No, the Mac way is that everything is one huge file. So say you have 100GB of photos, your library would be one monolithic 100GB file. Apparently you can change that now, I'm not sure you always could. Oh well, been fooling around with a new camera and that Nik Software bundle. (And watched many YouTube tutorials.) Dfine is amazing, and I'm in love Viveza, but I used Color Efex for the first time on this one for soft focus:  Original:  (it's a pretty big crop too, but I exported a copy without any changes in Lightroom for a 1:1 comparison) The software is amazing, but Color Efex and Silver Efex seem to encourage people making gimmicky poo poo heh. Very easy to abuse tools.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 08:05
|
|
|
moron posted:I use an app called Arq to back up my poo poo to S3. I've found it to be extremely useful and cost effective. Whilst I probably have a lot less data than most of you guys (maybe ~100gb currently), it only costs me $2-3 a month in S3 fees at the moment. That seems really cheap for 100G, I'll have to check it out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 14:56
|
|
|
Haggins posted:What backup program are you talking about and is this Mac or PC? Windows Backup.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 15:14
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:Windows Backup. It's a steaming pile of poo poo. I had to stop using it because, somehow, a 250GB drive wasn't big enough to protect 50GB of data, ~45GB of which never gets edited. It was constantly bitching at me about running out of space, so I told it to piss off and disabled it. I mounted the disks on my linux machine and use a script to back stuff up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 15:20
|
|
|
taqueso posted:That seems really cheap for 100G, I'll have to check it out. Whoops...I just checked my stats again, and it seems I was mistaken. I only have 50gb up there and my last bill was $6. Regardless, it's still a bargain. I guess it works out a lot more expensive than Carbonite/Backblaze/etc, but I never trust any web service that offers unlimited storage/bandwidth. Given that the whole point of backups is peace of mind, it's worth the money IMO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 16:32
|
|
|
You also have the advantage that Amazon is a massive massive company and isn't going to disappear overnight, which potentially could happen to the smaller providers out there. If only google did affordable storage...
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:The software is amazing, but Color Efex and Silver Efex seem to encourage people making gimmicky poo poo heh. Very easy to abuse tools. In ColorEfx there is some gimmicky poo poo but there are some real gems too. Darken/lighten Center, Film Grain, Grad Filters, Grad ND, Pro Contrast, and Vignette Blur are all pretty useful and not at all cheesy looking. Some of the others like Bleach Bypass, Midnight, and Ink can be real campy if used poorly, however, I've had them work well for certain photos. Like you I kinda wrote it off as gimmicky, but after watching some of Nik's webinars and seeing how other people use the program, I changed mind. One key to using it is to remember that the presets are only a starting point and you really need to tweak the settings before you apply anything. Same goes for HDR Efx and Silver Efx. As for SilverEfx, I think it's a lot easier to make a respectable image and avoid anything gimmicky. I feel like it's helped me become a much better B&W photographer. If I could only own one piece of Nik software, it'd be SilverEfx no question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
delicious beef posted:You also have the advantage that Amazon is a massive massive company and isn't going to disappear overnight, which potentially could happen to the smaller providers out there. https://www.google.com/accounts/purchasestorage $50 for 200gb
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
It's not an easy backup solution though, since it only works with the google webapps as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
delicious beef posted:It's not an easy backup solution though, since it only works with the google webapps as far as I can tell. There are some apps, Gladinet and Memeo Connect, that map your Google Docs space to a drive letter so that you can use Time Machine or whatever but they both have serious limitations. I think I'm going with Mozy - £5 per month unlimited space can't be beat
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
moron posted:I use an app called Arq to back up my poo poo to S3. I've found it to be extremely useful and cost effective. Whilst I probably have a lot less data than most of you guys (maybe ~100gb currently), it only costs me $2-3 a month in S3 fees at the moment. This looks pretty cool, I'll give it a try. I'm gonna see if it'll fit for my idea of a "safety deposit box" for my Aperture libraries and other very important files. I'm going to hang on to Backblaze because I'm still pretty happy with it and like the way it works. This will just be a compliment to it. Edit: meh, it costs too much. Ideally I'd like 300 gigs for my photos by I could be happy with 200. That'd cost me $30 per month and $20 respectively. Haggins fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Apr 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:I think I'm going with Mozy - £5 per month unlimited space can't be beat I'm pretty sure I read that Mozy no longer do the unlimited $5 thing anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
moron posted:I'm pretty sure I read that Mozy no longer do the unlimited $5 thing anymore. I webchatted them this morning to confirm that they did before I ordered.. however I am in the UK so the deals may well be different..
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 21:25
|
|
|
I use Carbonite for the online backup part. I still have 2 physical drives in my place. The speed is pretty good because I never notice it slow me down. I've put up 250gb so far and there's still another 80gb to go. I'm not seeing them going out of business anytime soon, and it's $50 a year for unlimited internal drives. I have a feeling that this deal will go away soon with 2TB drives being under$100 now. I have it set up where I'm concentrating on replicating my "keeper" .RAW files and processed .jpgs first. I still have everything locally, but the more important stuff goes online first. I really wish I could just mail them a hard drive when I first got started and be done with it because it's a constant uphill battle, I upload 2 gigs a day but then create 4 gigs of data per day. uughhh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I use Carbonite for the online backup part. I still have 2 physical drives in my place. The speed is pretty good because I never notice it slow me down. I've put up 250gb so far and there's still another 80gb to go. I'm not seeing them going out of business anytime soon, and it's $50 a year for unlimited internal drives. I have a feeling that this deal will go away soon with 2TB drives being under$100 now. I ended up with Crashplan. I didn't need to take advantage of it in the end, but for $125 they'll send you a 1TB drive, you put your stuff on it and send it back, and then you can do the regular online backups. Really neat. Same thing with restoring your files if it comes to that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Some of the others like Bleach Bypass, Midnight, and Ink can be real campy if used poorly, however, I've had them work well for certain photos. Many of the photos in this book utilize the Midnight filter : http://www.amazon.com/Art-Pregnancy-Photography-Jennifer-George/dp/1584282185/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302818163&sr=8-1 I followed that advice and the results were indeed quite nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Is there a way to batch convert a number of photos to a slightly different time? I have 3k photos from a cruise in a different part of the world and the camera was set to the "home time", which makes a ten hour difference. I am supposed to sort these photos according to separate days and the overlap makes this difficult. Plus I want to have the correct time displayed. So is there maybe a tool where I can set the time (EXIF) to current time-10 hours (that will also set back the date if needed) for all of these and freeware? That would be sweet. A bit of more googling points to Exifer: http://www.saltedlolly.com/2005/09/14/batch-adjusting-the-exif-time-date-data-in-your-digital-photos/ If you follow these instructions do not tick the "incremental" checkbox in step 5 (see comments). http://www.friedemann-schmidt.com/software/exifer/ lllllllllllllllllll fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Apr 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 16:56
|
|
|
I have a similar problem, although in my case I think I'd be looking to batch edit the EXIF time stamps rather than the file creation times. I recently imported all of my wedding photos into Lightroom, and it has them all shuffled around because our photographer had her camera set to the wrong time zone while her second shooter's camera was set correctly. The filenames don't match the chronological order either, so this seems like the only way to fix the order besides dragging a few hundred photos around my library. Is there any quick way to do this? Edit: I'll see if exifer meets my needs or not (ideally I'd like to avoid manually selecting the files to edit and just say "+2hrs on everything from the 50D, leave it alone if it's from the 5D2"). Edit again: Well poo poo, it looks like I can just do this within Lightroom. It just changes the time in the library file and won't change the actual exif data unless I export, but that should be fine for my needs. Beerios fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Apr 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 17:49
|
|
|
Speaking of Color Efex, is there any way to apply more than one treatment at a time without saving and re-running the filter? I've got the Lightroom version so I am guessing no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 17:59
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:After you have x number of gigabytes backed up they throttle your uploads. Woa, I didn't know about this. I just kind of let it do it's thing, never really measured how fast it was going up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Speaking of Color Efex, is there any way to apply more than one treatment at a time without saving and re-running the filter? I've got the Lightroom version so I am guessing no. I think there is a way to do it if you have the Photoshop plug in, but not for Lightroom/Aperture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
I just realized how much I would love me some official Adobe Nav + Lightroom integration. I think there's already an app that kind of integrates into LR but I don't know much about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
Been working on some B+W editing recently, would love some input on improving technique before I go through old photos and do some re-edits (. I start off with turning the image into a grayscale through lightroom 1) Lightroom: Boost exposure, clarity ~30, up blacks slightly and maybe some fill light/recovery if needed 2) Open up photoshop: Gradient Map ~33% fill, unsharp mask, subtle curves layer, maybe use shadow/highlights to up midtone contrast.   
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Hate to be the resident fanboy here, but give SilverEfx 2 a try if you're serious about B&W. It's easier, faster, and better than photoshop (or even a wet darkroom).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
I still <3 Jungledisk the most for my S3 storage because I just have it set up to sync to my online drive. I kinda like it this way because now I don't have to go out of my way to click a button (which is something one can forget to do)... it's pretty much a 100% guarantee that I won't ever lose anything. And yeah, I pay $2-3 a month for my storage, which is approaching around 40-50gigs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
Wheeeeee first time fooling around with HDR. Using Nik Software's HDR Efex Pro. The programme is stupidly good about aligning photos. I did this hand-held. I didn't notice the birds in the shot until I got home though, ah well.  Original  "Realistic (Balanced)"  "Realistic (Strong)" (standard cliche HDR)  "Monochrome (Soft)" (the hard one had severe haloing)  "Granny's Attic" (tempting to use on every bloody stationary photo  )
teethgrinder fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Apr 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
I like the sky in the 'balanced' on the best, but the contrast of the ground in the 'original' is the winner. It looks too washed out in the hdr images. Which seems to be typical for HDR images.. skies look really amazing, clouds pop like crazy, but everything else looks flat and dead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
A Wizard posted:Been working on some B+W editing recently, would love some input on improving technique before I go through old photos and do some re-edits (. I start off with turning the image into a grayscale through lightroom I like "split contrast filtering" for digital black and white conversions, because it's pretty easy but still lets you control the image, I did a write up here: http://winniejeng.com/blog/2010/11/converting-to-black-white/ Other than that, dodge and burn is always a go-to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
I generally thought people mostly do it on this sort of shot just for the skies. I could probably manually override it, but frankly the rails are the only thing interesting on the ground to me. Anyway before I ever try something like that again, I should find less cliche subject matter. I feel a little dirty posting it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:I generally thought people mostly do it on this sort of shot just for the skies. You should have left it up, I would like to see it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 05:14
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I like the sky in the 'balanced' on the best, but the contrast of the ground in the 'original' is the winner. It looks too washed out in the hdr images. It's really easy to use a mask to replace the clouds in the original with the clouds in the "balanced" one. I think together the combo looks really good. That HDR Efex Pro looks quite interesting, I'll have to give that trial a go. It's a couple extra steps in the workflow process but it's a good way to get definition in skies that normally look subtle or flat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 11:27
|
|
|
Haggins posted:You should have left it up, I would like to see it. edit: vvvv Thanks. Weird that they still showed for me even after refreshing. I did add one tag to each photo in Lightroom, funny that that was enough to change the saved preview files. teethgrinder fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Apr 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
The forum links are "currently unavailable" but clicking through to flicker worked fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
So I've been tinkering around with this image trying to rescue it and I got it to an almost acceptable place, but then I ran into this problem with the sky: Argh by Ebola Cereal, on Flickr Needless to say I need to fix it. Any suggestions on how to replace that gray mess with something more lively? I have CS5 and LR, but I can only struggle my way through basic things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 10:48
|
|