Processing Program
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: curanzia versicherung, berufsunfähigkeits versicherung, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung für selbständige, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
Next: Why only 4.6MP?
From: Alan Lichtenstein on 24 Feb 2010 16:27 Savageduck wrote: ( previous post snipped-follow thread ) >> I had already assumed I would need that. >> >>> Also start keyboarding as you go. It's worth it. > > > Just remember LR2 is current, LR3 is still in Beta, and LR2 will do just > fine for some time. I realize that. However, if I know in advance that my equipment is, essentially, obsolete, it would make more sense to adjust my plan accordingly. After all, I was able to use my old Power Mac 5400 for several years after the introduction of Mac OS X. No third party software was compatible with the older hardware, and when I needed some, it was time to upgrade. That system, however, lasted me 13+ years. I bought this one less than six years ago. > The PPC Mac is going to lose full support in the near future. A move to > an Intel Mac might not be a bad idea. I currently do most of my work on > a MacBook Pro, but I also have a G4 iMac (the goose neck), & a PowerBook > G4. > There is a tangible performance difference between the Intel machine and > the G4 & G5 PPC machines. You will be happy. I also have a MacBook, but my tower is a G5 1.8 dual, which I figured would last me for at least ten years, maybe a bit more, if my particular needs didn't expand drastically. I added another 1.5 gigs of RAM to give me what I thought would be that cushion. Unfortunately, I wasn't planning on replacing this tower anytime soon, however, if the lack of computability of photoediting programs is an indication, I'm sure other third party software will follow. > ...and if you are going to spring for LR2, you might as well add PS > Elements 8 to the shopping list. I'm probably going to spring for a new tower first and then purchase the programs. While I saved up for the possibility I might have to spend a couple of hundred dollars on a photoediting program, I didn't count on spending a couple of thousand. With that in mind, Lightroom 2 may be the best answer, as I know the upgrade can be purchased separately when I buy the new computer to go to Lightroom 3. If the upgrade is still available. Anyway, is Elements 8 necessary with Lightroom? If so, why?
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 24 Feb 2010 15:15 nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <7uiv0iFb4lU9(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> > wrote: >> No need to. You claimed "no books, no support forums, no tutorials" - you >> were wrong. > that's just semantic games. No, that's being exact in the use of language. I could claim I post this posting using no computers (only one is directly involved, after all, compared to all computers on the internet). And where I to kick you in your backside, I'd say "I never kicked him" --- after all, what's a kick versus a full beating? > you know damned well it's a colloquial > phrase and doesn't mean absolutely none whatsoever. You know damned well better than to use misunderstandable colloquial phrases in written communication, where noone can hear the tone of your voice or see your body language. -Wolf"I see a great need to give you 'no kicks, no beatings, no happyslappings'"gang
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 24 Feb 2010 15:04 John A <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>2. USM (Sharpenning): They still only show the "preview" in a tiny >>window. Which you can enlarge to your heart's content. >>In PS, the entire image shows the preview effect. Much better >>for locating areas where the USM is over/underdone. > That is lacking. I'd like to see a zoom on such dialogs. File an > enhancement request. Use a slightly stronger USM on a new layer and then play with the opacity. Problem solved. For bonus points, write a little routine that does that and also create a mask that masks out all but edges. -Wolfgang
From: nospam on 24 Feb 2010 16:51 In article <2010022413462770933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > That is my exact issue with both iPhoto and Aperture. They both bury > files in a labyrinth of nested folders with no logic to the naming. when iphoto and aperture manage the library, the folder hierarchy is not supposed to be for user navigation. that's why it's called a managed library. if you want an image, you can query it from the app, i.e., photos of beaches taken in summer, 2009, with julie but not bob. you *can't* do that with a folder hierarchy (at least not without significant pain). however, if you prefer to manage the location of the images yourself, simply disable the option. you can still do queries based on content.
From: Savageduck on 24 Feb 2010 16:56
On 2010-02-24 13:51:38 -0800, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> said: > In article <2010022413462770933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >> That is my exact issue with both iPhoto and Aperture. They both bury >> files in a labyrinth of nested folders with no logic to the naming. > > when iphoto and aperture manage the library, the folder hierarchy is > not supposed to be for user navigation. that's why it's called a > managed library. if you want an image, you can query it from the app, > i.e., photos of beaches taken in summer, 2009, with julie but not bob. > you *can't* do that with a folder hierarchy (at least not without > significant pain). > > however, if you prefer to manage the location of the images yourself, > simply disable the option. you can still do queries based on content. OK, but I have pretty much moved down the LR2 + CS4 road. -- Regards, Savageduck |