If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote: why would you do what? why would you recopy them? because if you change one the others are now out of sync. I sometimes send a copy to a different folder for a specific reason. There is no reason to keep that copy in sync with the original. For example, I have a folder titled Upload CandF. If I edit an image that I will post in a forum like DigitalGrin or a competition like Shoot-In, I send a copy of the final edit to that folder. It makes it easy to find when I want to upload it and gives me a record of what I've used in that forum or competition. I'm not going to re-edit that image unless someone wants to see a different version. In that case, I re-edit the .psd in the original file and send the new version to that folder. I don't want to over-write the original. Wow, that has got to be one of the most complicated workflows I've ever seen. suppose you go to france and take a photo of your wife in front of the eiffel tower with a nice sunset. that is three categories right there. photos in france, photos of your wife and sunset photos. your way would be to make 3 folders with a copy of the photo in each. if a photo has multiple people or fits multiple categories, then it's even more copies. that's insanity. What's that got to do with me? It's a generic scenario that is meant to illustrate a common need for people that have a desire to organize their photos. Just because it doesn't specifically mention your wife by name or the last city you visited doesn't mean it can't be applied to your horrendous workflow above. In the case above, the photo would be in Lightroom with whatever keywords I assign to it. One photo is all that's needed. You do know what Lightroom is, don't you? And how keywords work? You do know that Lightroom uses a *DATABASE*, do you? You just proved the entire point. It sounds like you do a lot of things more complicated than necessary and you need some computer crutch to allow you to do these things. nonsense. That you would even think the three photos in your example would be needed shows that you do. Incorrect. If the file system is all that you have then three files is what you'd be required to do (or create aliases, but it's the same manual work). The very fact that you just exposed that you DO use a database to circumvent the limitations of the file system is exactly the point, it sounds like you're stuck with the limitations that a file system imparts and don't understand that there are much easier and better ways to do things as well as being able to do many more things that were not previously possible. Learn about what the Lightroom Library module and keywording works and you won't be thinking of such ridiculous examples. Ironic. i brought it up because music is an *excellent* example how technology has advanced beyond the limitations of directly accessing it in the file system. photos are getting there. Once again, you apply your own needs to other people without any consideration of what their needs and interests are. Music is *not* an excellent example to people who don't listen to music using their iPad. But it *IS* an excellent example of how the computing world is moving *away* from direct file access. As is Adobe Lightroom, ironically. you are fixated with the past and want to remain with those limitations. fortunately, the rest of the world enjoys the additional features and capabilities and ease of doing things that once required more work. Why is it "fortunate" that other people see needs for their devices that I don't see? You do see it. You use Lightroom. The fact that I don't see a need for certain things doesn't affect anyone else in any way. The fact that you use Lightroom to circumvent the limitations of the filesystem shows 100% that you see a need for this "certain thing". No wonder you were in my killfile *rolleye* -- Sandman[.net] |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says... On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 01:31:20 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: I suppose what you've said means something to some people, but I put the same image in several folders by using "Copy to:". no, you made a copy. now you have *two* (or more) photos, one in each folder. Yes, I understood that from the get-go. apparently not, based on what you've written. you *cannot* have one photo in more than one folder. it is *not* possible. worse, *you* have to manage it. if you change one photo, you then have to then re-copy them to all of the other folders, assuming you remember where they all were. Why would I do that? why would you do what? why would you recopy them? because if you change one the others are now out of sync. I sometimes send a copy to a different folder for a specific reason. There is no reason to keep that copy in sync with the original. For example, I have a folder titled Upload CandF. If I edit an image that I will post in a forum like DigitalGrin or a competition like Shoot-In, I send a copy of the final edit to that folder. It makes it easy to find when I want to upload it and gives me a record of what I've used in that forum or competition. I'm not going to re-edit that image unless someone wants to see a different version. In that case, I re-edit the .psd in the original file and send the new version to that folder. I don't want to over-write the original. suppose you go to france and take a photo of your wife in front of the eiffel tower with a nice sunset. that is three categories right there. photos in france, photos of your wife and sunset photos. your way would be to make 3 folders with a copy of the photo in each. if a photo has multiple people or fits multiple categories, then it's even more copies. that's insanity. What's that got to do with me? What you do is apply your own system to other people's system with a total lack of understanding of how they use their system. Consequently, your comments make little sense and are usually totally off-base. In the case above, the photo would be in Lightroom with whatever keywords I assign to it. One photo is all that's needed. You do know what Lightroom is, don't you? And how keywords work? It sounds like you do a lot of things more complicated than necessary and you need some computer crutch to allow you to do these things. nonsense. That you would even think the three photos in your example would be needed shows that you do. it sounds like you're stuck with the limitations that a file system imparts and don't understand that there are much easier and better ways to do things as well as being able to do many more things that were not previously possible. Learn about what the Lightroom Library module and keywording works and you won't be thinking of such ridiculous examples. I understand my system. You are a hater of good systems. A systems basher. you don't understand it as well anywhere near as well as you think you do, and i don't hate anything, nor was i bashing systems. You have proven yourself to be a file system hater and a basher. In fact, you have become an Apple basher and hater because you are criticizing the use of the product if no apps are added. You may have your Apple Kool-Aid subscription cancelled. you are once again lying and twisting, trying to change this into something it isn't. What is it? Isn't it part of a long-running series of comments from you that I don't do what you do or what you suggest and that this indicates that I am mired in the primordial soup of anti-technology? And, that I am saying that I am doing exactly what works for me? What am I trying to change? I don't have music on my iPad unless it was pre-loaded from the source. I haven't bothered to look. Why are you nattering on about music? Who brought that up? i brought it up because music is an *excellent* example how technology has advanced beyond the limitations of directly accessing it in the file system. photos are getting there. Once again, you apply your own needs to other people without any consideration of what their needs and interests are. Music is *not* an excellent example to people who don't listen to music using their iPad. but must have known that, because you 'understood it from the get-go'. i guess you didn't understand anything. you are fixated with the past and want to remain with those limitations. fortunately, the rest of the world enjoys the additional features and capabilities and ease of doing things that once required more work. Why is it "fortunate" that other people see needs for their devices that I don't see? The fact that I don't see a need for certain things doesn't affect anyone else in any way. Well, except you. You are constantly in a state of frenzy because I don't do what you do or what you think I should do, but no one else is affected. The future of app developers is safe and secure without my participation. You are evidently under the impression that everyone else except me (cf: "the rest of the world") is embracing every new technological advance. Do you realize that there are millions of people who think "Apple" is only the name of something to make pies from? Take another airplane ride, nospam. You might find your "market survey" will show that there are a few people on that airplane who don't even own a mobile phone, let alone an iPad or other brand tablet. Try not to faint from shock. I hate to tell the iContingent but NTFS lets you assign keywords to files directly. Right click on the filename and pick "properties" then "details". The options available depend on the file type. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote: Take another airplane ride, nospam. You might find your "market survey" will show that there are a few people on that airplane who don't even own a mobile phone, let alone an iPad or other brand tablet. Try not to faint from shock. I hate to tell the iContingent but NTFS lets you assign keywords to files directly. Right click on the filename and pick "properties" then "details". The options available depend on the file type. I hate to tell you, but NTFS doesn't have support for keywords, and the keyword options in Windows is the same as the "Spotlight comment" in OSX, it's saved in a filesystem-external database. Here's some more info about NTFS: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l...0%29.aspx#w2k3 tr_ntfs_how_rxtc -- Sandman[.net] |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote: Wow, that has got to be one of the most complicated workflows I've ever seen. I know, I know. Good. It takes seconds to accomplish. Sometimes - oh, ten or twelve seconds - of backbreaking labor. I guess it could seem complicated to some people. Let's see, right click, copy to, navigate to folder, click, done. You might need notes to keep all of that straight. It's a mess. It only applies to those images for which I have a need to do it. Uh, yeah? Do you think any task applies to images that doesn't need to have that task applied to it? What's the purpose of the above remark? You'd have to be a blithering idiot to have a task that you have to apply to ALL images or not at all. Just for ****s and giggles, I'll reveal another horrendous workflow practice of mine. All images are uploaded from the SD card to a file designated by month. Today, it's 2013-08-RAW. Bridge automatically puts each day's output in a sub-folder by date (ie: 20120807). I allow Bridge to number them up from DSC_xxxx_xxxx. I then go through that sub-folder and delete the obvious no-keepers. I then re-number the rest 2013-08-07-001 and up. I then make a second pass through the folder and rate the keepers. Some will be kept, but nothing further done to them since they don't appear to have great interest. Wow. By now my brain would be hemorrhaging from all the unnecessary crap it is being forced to do. The better ones (assuming there is a better one, or are a few better ones) are then opened in the CS6 RAW converter, edited in CS6, and saved as .psds. They are then cropped and saved as .jpgs for web use or printing. My GOD. Now - get this, it will shock and dismay you - the .jpgs are moved to a 2013-08-JPG folder. (I could save-as directly to the folder, but this increases navigation time.) This allows a quick glance through one folder at the keepers to see if I want to copy them in the Lightroom file, copy them in some other special folder, or add them to my iPad. THE HUMANITY. Only jpgs are in Lightroom since I don't edit in Lightroom. The file name, though, tells me where to find the .psd or RAW image if I want to do something with it in the future. AAAAAAARRRRRRGH!!!!!! WORST WORKFLOW EVER INVENTED BY A HUMAN BEING Now...what's your workflow? Import using Aperture to an existing or new project. Using minus and plus keys to rate images, smart folder that shows my favorites. Automatic tagging of RAW files, and automatic version handling for specific purposes (i.e. I want a Flickr version of this image (alt-G), edit using Aperture or Photoshop or any other app, share to FLickr with one click. Smart folder created for favorites of that particular shoot (or for several shoots), export command for web versions on the fly for whatever thumbs I currently have selected. The same can be done in Lightroom, of course. Using files and folders in the horrendous way you do isn't just 1980, it's worse. It's a generic scenario that is meant to illustrate a common need for people that have a desire to organize their photos. Just because it doesn't specifically mention your wife by name or the last city you visited doesn't mean it can't be applied to your horrendous workflow above. But is isn't my scenario. I just said that, Sherlock. Read the words above. Why bring it up to convince me of something? I find it hard to believe anyone would set out to convince you of anything. The discussion isn't about you though, it's about file system versus database. Even so, it is not any kind of generic or common scenario. Yes it is. To be a generic scenario, it has to be relating to a whole group or class. As it does. That's what "generic" is. Exactly. You think there's some whole group or class out there that creates three files as described above? Sigh. Maybe English just is a third or fourth language to you? The scenario was this: "suppose you go to france and take a photo of your wife in front of the eiffel tower with a nice sunset. that is three categories right there. photos in france, photos of your wife and sunset photos." nospam then used YOUR system and applied that to the generic scenario: "your way would be to make 3 folders with a copy of the photo in each" And your workflow above reinforces this. You do know that Lightroom uses a *DATABASE*, do you? You just proved the entire point. Yes, I do. What it proves is that I use the system that works the best for the application. I use a folder/file system for general storage and Lightroom for retrieving photos by keyword. *rolleye* You use a database to circumvent the limitations of the file system, which is the entire point. then three files is what you'd be required to do (or create aliases, but it's the same manual work). The very fact that you just exposed that you DO use a database to circumvent the limitations of the file system is exactly the point, I haven't "just exposed" anything. I've been using Lightroom for several years and made many mentions of it here. I've had you killfiled, remember? But it *IS* an excellent example of how the computing world is moving *away* from direct file access. As is Adobe Lightroom, ironically. That is, as you so frequently say, irrelevant. Incorrect. The fact that you use Lightroom to circumvent the limitations of the filesystem shows 100% that you see a need for this "certain thing". What I subscribe to is using what benefits me and eschewing what I don't see as a benefit to me. Anyway, the "certain things" are apps for the iPad. What benefit you and you alone is totally irrelevant to anyone but you, so I have no idea why you keep telling us about it? No wonder you were in my killfile *rolleye* Were? What unfortunate change of circumstances let me out? A backup restoration of my dropbox folder, which contained the newsrc file for my newsreader. (As if I'd ever been there in the first place. You are too egotistical to have really killfiled me. You want to know if I've talking about you.) Wtf? You don't know the first thing about me. I had you killfiled for quite a while and the group became a rather pleasant place again. When I saw that your posts popped up I thought I may give you the benefit of a doubt and a second chance. Great work in showing me just why I had you killfiled. What's with "*rolleye*"? I dunno about Sweden, but in the US that's something small children do when presented with a parental command to do something they don't want to do...like "Put away the Legos and go take your nap". We grow out of that here. http://english.stackexchange.com/que...-roll-your-eye s-mean You're welcome. -- Sandman[.net] |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
In article 2013080706073955640-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: it's not a file system. it's a database. The database won't work without a file system. A database is a file system. no it isn't. it's a database. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
In article 2013080706162010679-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: You're not as hostile as usual. Did you take "be nice" pills recently. He isn't responding to you or Tony. that too. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
In article , PeterN
wrote: You're not as hostile as usual. Did you take "be nice" pills recently. i was waiting for your idiotic and inane comments to let loose. i didn't need to wait too long but they weren't as stupid as usual. you disappointed me. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
In article , PeterN
wrote: If you said you had folders full of files, nospam would argue that you had files full of folders. definitely not. more stupid comments. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
In article , Sandman
wrote: i don't assume anything. however, making things easier is something all users want. except maybe you. Do you know his needs? You can't suggest how to make things easier, unless you understand the user's needs. One size does not fit all. Well, using a database is most certainly a superset of using the filesystem. Everything you do in your file system can be done with the database approach and more. So generally speaking you most certainly cold make the claim that a solid database application would make it easier for everyone, even if they currently can't see any use outside of their current system. exactly. if they want to be limited to what a file system can do, they can still do that, but if they want to avail themselves of additional functionality, which *does* make things easier, they can do that too. Think of it as Adobe Bridge vs Adobe Lightroom. In Bridge, what you see and handle are files in the filesystem, while in Adobe Lightroom, you manage the database that in turn point to files kept inside the Lightroom Catalog structure that you don't have to deal with at any point. yep. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Nibbling on an Apple
In article , PeterN
wrote: users want to access *content*. where that content is does not matter. it might not even be on their device. If the content I need is "what to do when the power goes out," I want it on my device, so I can access it while I still have battery power. what's your point? get a ups if power outages are an issue, or plan ahead and get what you need before the power goes out. or just move to where power outages aren't a serious problem. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
They are nibbling among the desert now, won't jump stickers later. | Doug Miller | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | June 27th 06 07:08 AM |
just nibbling with a exit under the spring is too quiet for Rob to fill it | Rick Drummerman | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | April 22nd 06 04:48 PM |
try nibbling the morning's young cloud and Jonathan will seek you | Roger A. Young | Digital Photography | 0 | April 22nd 06 04:29 PM |
they are nibbling for the hallway now, won't learn books later | Lionel | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | April 22nd 06 03:50 PM |
he'll be nibbling within stale Valerie until his smog cares easily | MTKnife | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | April 22nd 06 02:06 PM |