Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Apple Aperture Q&A => Topic started by: BobShaw on December 18, 2021, 08:30:56 pm
-
I am finally and regrettably going to have to move from Aperture.
It really does not work well under Big Sur.
The import fails into Photos and so now looking at Lightroom Classic.
It says in the Lightroom / File / Plugins / Aperture
"Your (Aperture) libraries are automatically detected.
You have the option to select a different library, if applicable. Your images will be copied to a new location. A default location is listed, however you can also choose a different folder."
All of my images in Aperture are referenced and so I want to stay that way.
It seems that Lightroom wants to copy them into the Catalogue, which won't work as there are over 3TB of images and I don't want copies and don't have space anyway.
I can see no way to make them referenced.
Am I missing something please?
-
LR doesn't copy photos into any catalog. It references their locations.
-
I believe that all you need to do is to click "Import" at the bottom left of Lightroom. You will then see the import screen where you first select the source on the left (wherever your 3TB of images are). At the top of the screen select "Add" which it says "Add photos to catalog without moving them". The other choices are:
"Copy and covert to DNG"
"Copy"
or finally "Add"
I have the photos automatically put into folders by date, but you can decide how you want to have the images in the catalog after you import them. I have no idea what Lightroom does with a structure from Aperture since I use a PC and have never seen Aperture.
Good luck; I would try this with a subset to see for sure exactly what it does and how you want to use it.
-
The update on this is that you select "Options" once it finishes the initial process and then you can Tick “Leave Referenced Files in your Aperture Library in their current location”
You can also tick “For images which have been adjusted in Aperture import full size previews from the Aperture Library … “ as Lightroom does not carry over adjustments. This may make the catalogue very big.
Unfortunately however it did not progress past 3% after 12 hours. So still working on what might be going on there.
-
Maybe the import works better with an older OSX; can imagine not everything in LR is working perfect on Aple silicon..
Then, you can also make a clean break using an other program since LR does not take over the adjustments. ( that is painful if you depend on them)
I use Neofinder for finding everything in my archive... they can import Aperture but it is just a catalogue program not a raw converter.
It is a bad thing Apple pulled the plug on Aperture just like that.
https://www.cdfinder.de/en/en/en/sample_switcher.html
-
Maybe the import works better with an older OSX; can imagine not everything in LR is working perfect on Aple silicon..
It is an Intel machine but I am not at all impressed with Big Sur on a brand new 2020. It is slower than Catalina on my 2013 model with less RAM.
I think the migration tool was designed by an Adobe sadist.
Every single change you make to the Options then locks you out for about 20 minutes without even clicking OK.
You have to make 3 changes to leave the originals where they are and save a copy of the adjusted files before OK.
The import then has failed after about 6%.
I have had a play with Lightroom doing a basic thing like adjusting an image and then pasting it to the remainder of the selected images.
Plain copy and paste does not work like Lift and Stamp in Aperture.
What a stupid process to have to right click an image to get a different command as the menu copy and paste only apply to one image.
A long dark road paved with broken glass and bare feet I feel.
-
What a stupid process to have to right click an image to get a different command as the menu copy and paste only apply to one image.
You can copy and paste settings to as many images as you want. Just select all the images you want to apply the settings to and paste.
You might want to spend some time with the tutorials on Creative Cloud to get you started with LR if you've no experience of it.
-
...
I have had a play with Lightroom doing a basic thing like adjusting an image and then pasting it to the remainder of the selected images.
Plain copy and paste does not work like Lift and Stamp in Aperture.
What a stupid process to have to right click an image to get a different command as the menu copy and paste only apply to one image.
A long dark road paved with broken glass and bare feet I feel.
Sorry but every program has its 'logic'. don't jump to conclusions after 1 hour working with it.
I came late to LR and still have to learn, but i like the way you can past settings.
It is easy and very transparant. ( Not everything is however)
I have a problem with captureOne, but i know it is because i have to learn a lot.
-
On Mac, Command/Shift C: copy edits. Command/Shift V, paste into selected images. Simple.
-
Ok. So the Import is complete. Started on December 20 2021 and finished on January 9 2022. 167,900 images.
There were a few things that had to be changed in Aperture to make it happen. Lightroom apparently does not allow punctuation in Keywords or nested Keywords.
I might attach a process with the details.
Now the real fun begins.
-
Lightroom apparently does not allow punctuation in Keywords or nested Keywords.
Check your preferences>File Handling and it allows this if that's what you mean by "nested keywoards."
-
Check your preferences>File Handling and it allows this if that's what you mean by "nested keywoards."
Thanks, that would have been helpful and looks to provide what was needed. I don't know if the importer supports it.
Anyway, I have attached a PDF of my migration experience that may help someone attempting it.
-
Sorry but every program has its 'logic'. don't jump to conclusions after 1 hour working with it.
Thanks but after working with it for two weeks and having searched the web for reasons for slow imports with no progress on the import bar and other basic problems I have came to the same conclusion as others on the web as below. I really don't know how Lightroom Classic became the industry standard.
-
Thanks but after working with it for two weeks and having searched the web for reasons for slow imports with no progress on the import bar and other basic problems I have came to the same conclusion as others on the web as below. I really don't know how Lightroom Classic became the industry standard.
You are implying that the industry by large is wrong. You are entitled to that opinion, not much more. ;)
-
You are implying that the industry by large is wrong. You are entitled to that opinion, not much more. ;)
If you read the biography of Steve Jobs you realise that the majority of people can be wrong about most things, they just don't know it (;-)
I hope to eventually get Lightroom to at least a usable programme that I can import a card of files, do a few edits, crop them all the same pixel size, centre them and export them in a few minutes like I can still with Aperture. At the moment it is a long way from that. (The only problem with Aperture under Big Sur is lots of crashes.)
Simple things in Lightroom like no pixel dimensions on crop except when you are actually doing it and no X and Y start points, an import files progress bar that just sits there without feedback even though the Activity Monitor is at 100% and why would anyone want to control their files from an application instead of the operating system anyway?
-
If you read the biography of Steve Jobs you realise that the majority of people can be wrong about most things, they just don't know it (;-)
Indeed: "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."-Bertrand Russell
You tell us LR is an industry standard. Maybe you don't fit well into that industry or like Steve, you think different and need another product.
LR has no pixel dimensions for very good reasons; it isn't a pixel editor! Pixels result from rendering the parametric edits and you the user can define the number of pixels only at that point (export) and in fact, you can export a dozen different number of pixels from the source and parametric instructions at the same time! So considering this fact, what pixels would you expect the user to be shown?
Part of the problem is misunderstanding how a product actually works and assuming it should act like a different product (for example Photoshop). LR was actually designed by the former Photoshop architect NOT to behave like Photoshop. Look up its history and the work of Mark Hamburg.
-
I hope to eventually get Lightroom to at least a usable programme that I can import a card of files, do a few edits, crop them all the same pixel size, centre them and export them in a few minutes
It's an easy enough program to use if you can be bothered to learn the basic principles. There are very many great books and videos explaining it all.
The problem here isn't Lightroom, but your failure to learn about it.
-
There are very many great books and videos explaining it all.
One of my Favorites: https://www.lightroomqueen.com
-
Indeed: "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."-Bertrand Russell
You tell us LR is an industry standard. Maybe you don't fit well into that industry or like Steve, you think different and need another product.
LR has no pixel dimensions for very good reasons; it isn't a pixel editor! Pixels result from rendering the parametric edits and you the user can define the number of pixels only at that point (export) and in fact, you can export a dozen different number of pixels from the source and parametric instructions at the same time! So considering this fact, what pixels would you expect the user to be shown?
Part of the problem is misunderstanding how a product actually works and assuming it should act like a different product (for example Photoshop). LR was actually designed by the former Photoshop architect NOT to behave like Photoshop. Look up its history and the work of Mark Hamburg.
Well I guess we could all go back to the Sony Walkman, the Blackberry and Motorola FlipPhone and the Rotadex but let's move forward. (:-)
I use Photoshop extensively and understand the difference between a pixel editor and a catalogue.
Is it too much to ask that a catalogue be intuitive? I guess so considering it was made by the same people as Photoshop.
Knowing the pixel dimensions of a crop to me is really important because I shoot product regularly for the same customer and the products need to have the same relative size as last time. I am sure that others have the same need. It is also really easy to do. I asked Nik from Gentleman Coders to do it for Raw Power and he did quite easily.
Also is it too much to ask for a progress bar on import? This hasn't moved all morning but Activity is 100% Ciao
-
I use Photoshop extensively and understand the difference between a pixel editor and a catalogue.
So you say, but this has nothing to do with catalogs. ACR has no such catalog, and it too is a parametric editor identical to LR without a catalog! In fact, you can bounce back and forth between the two if on version parity, using the same settings and engine. And again, pixels never come into play until an image is rendered from the edits and part of the rendering is specifying the number of pixels you want rendered.
I think you need to study the product(s) a lot more before continuing to provide your opinion of how they should operate.
Knowing the pixel dimensions of a crop to me is really important because I shoot product regularly for the same customer and the products need to have the same relative size as last time.
And in EITHER product, you'd produce a export preset (in ACR, a workflow option) to produce exactly the pixels, big depth, color space and more you desire.
A crop in either product crops nothing, it produces an instruction alone. The resulting pixels must be defined and then rendered, from a crop or without a crop.
This isn't Photoshop! Nor Aperture. If you can't get hip to the workflow as designed, find another product.
Also is it too much to ask for a progress bar on import?
There is one. If you don't see one, either you don't know where to look or you have some issues of which we can maybe look into, but one exists.
-
There is one. If you don't see one, either you don't know where to look or you have some issues of which we can maybe look into, but one exists.
Thanks, as helpful as always.
I did see one (progress bar). It was in the photo I posted sitting stationary for hours next to the Activity at 100%. Perhaps you didn't see that.
-
Thanks, as helpful as always.
I did see one (progress bar). It was in the photo I posted sitting stationary for hours next to the Activity at 100%. Perhaps you didn't see that.
Also is it too much to ask for a progress bar on import? This hasn't moved all morning but Activity is 100% Ciao
You just complained for a progress bar on import which of course, exists. I told you, there is one, and if you don't see it moving, it's an issue on your end. IF you want help on that, ask. You didn't.
I think some people enjoy complaining almost as much as they enjoy doing nothing about it.
-
You just complained for a progress bar on import which of course, exists. I told you, there is one, and if you don't see it moving, it's an issue on your end. IF you want help on that, ask. You didn't.
I think some people enjoy complaining almost as much as they enjoy doing nothing about it.
Geeez. It one thing to have a progress bar, but I was hoping that it actually meant something!!! Others are saying the same thing on forums. Why not say "Importing 123 of 1234" or something useful.
I think you enjoy attacking people sentence by sentence who make valid observations on stuff designed by geeks with no real input from real users.
Don't Look Up
-
Geeez. It one thing to have a progress bar, but I was hoping that it actually meant something!!!
It does. At least for me and many others. But I've never had to wait 20 days or for that matter, 20 hours for an import and you did. Seems odd but, I'm not able to trouble shoot all your LR issues remotely. And 167K images, not that many. Maybe someone else will help you out here bud.
I think you enjoy attacking people sentence by sentence who make valid observations on stuff designed by geeks with no real input from real users.
You told us exactly what I placed in your own quotes. "is it too much to ask for a progress bar on import?" Perhaps you didn't see that <G>. One exists. And it works for many of us.
If that's an attack, maybe you need to consider what an attack is and how to form your rants and questions better.
-
It does. At least for me and many others. But I've never had to wait 20 days or for that matter, 20 hours for an import and you did. Seems odd but, I'm not able to trouble shoot all your LR issues remotely. And 167K images, not that many. Maybe someone else will help you out here bud. You told us exactly what I placed in your own quotes. "is it too much to ask for a progress bar on import?" Perhaps you didn't see that <G>. One exists. And it works for many of us.
If that's an attack, maybe you need to consider what an attack is and how to form your rants and questions better.
I said half way down the first page that it had a progress bar. It just didn't give any useful information, like images imported or left to import or estimated time left like pretty much every other progress bar in the finder or any other programme does.
And the pixels exported does not relate to the pixels cropped. If it is an 8000 pixels wide image then I can crop to 4000 pixels wide on the screen and export at 2000 pixels wide in the file.
Perhaps we will just agree to disagree on what I actually said and what I know I can do in other programmes.
Cheers.
-
I said half way down the first page that it had a progress bar. It just didn't give any useful information, like images imported or left to import or estimated time left like pretty much every other progress bar in the finder or any other programme does.
Correct. That isn't how the progress bar works. It wasn't how it was designed. But this statement is incorrect based on a misunderstanding how the product works:
Also is it too much to ask for a progress bar on import?
RTFM. ;)
And the pixels exported does not relate to the pixels cropped.
No pixels are cropped. Until the image is rendered and exported. Just as when you crop and type the L key, the image around the crop really doesn't change tone!
I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.
Perhaps we will just agree to disagree on what I actually said and what I know I can do in other programmes.
Perhaps you'll understand what this application actually does, and understand it wasn't designed specifically for your logic.
Perhaps you'll find how to use the product as designed or perhaps you'll find another one that works as you wish; this isn't how LR works or operates.
Worth repeating:
You are implying that the industry by large is wrong. You are entitled to that opinion, not much more. ;)
-
(Insert typical rambling 5 disected sentence rant here)
LMFAO
-
And the pixels exported does not relate to the pixels cropped. If it is an 8000 pixels wide image then I can crop to 4000 pixels wide on the screen and export at 2000 pixels wide in the file.
One awkward aspect to understand is that Lightroom doesn't crop to pixel values, it crops to ratios. You then export that crop to a fixed size.
So a good example is exporting an image to fit into a HD TV frame. It needs to cropped to 16:9 ratio then exported at 1920px width (for full HD or 3840px for UHD), but that width doesn't have to be the entire width of the image it can be any part of the frame.
So it's a two stage process for a fixed dimension size image 1. Crop to format > 2. Output at fixed dimension.
Once you really understand how Lightroom works, you'll see it can't work any other way and makes sense.
-
One awkward aspect to understand is that Lightroom doesn't crop to pixel values, it crops to ratios. You then export that crop to a fixed size.
> Awkward is one way to put it. You can go unconstrained but you can't see what the values are. I can do that in Aperture, Raw Power etc. See photos below. If my image is 8000 pixels wide SOOC how do I make it half as wide (every single time).
So a good example is exporting an image to fit into a HD TV frame. It needs to cropped to 16:9 ratio then exported at 1920px width (for full HD or 3840px for UHD), but that width doesn't have to be the entire width of the image it can be any part of the frame.
So it's a two stage process for a fixed dimension size image 1. Crop to format > 2. Output at fixed dimension. > completely agree. That's how they all work.
Once you really understand how Lightroom works, you'll see it can't work any other way and makes sense. > There is where we disagree. See photos. I now understand though why there was this discussion elsewhere about what ratio one should use.
-
Those screen shots are pretty meaningless.
-
Those screen shots are pretty meaningless.
Well you have to enlarge them by CMD + or dragging. The forum limits the size.
On each you can see the actual pixel size of the crop and the start point of the crop (X + Y co-ordinates) and the Unconstrained option.
If there is a way to see that in Lightroom enlighten me please. All you can do is set a ratio, not a size by the look of it.
As far as I can see you can set say 4 x 5 and it is 5 units wide by 4 units high, but if you want 4 units wide x 5 units high you would have to create a new one. I can't see a little reverse ratio option in Lightroom like Aperture.
Creating presets is Ok but shooting say luggage I have large, medium and small bags that have to be a repeatable size this month as they were last month so I have standard crop sizes and some need to be portrait and some landscape for different websites.
-
If there is a way to see that in Lightroom enlighten me please. All you can do is set a ratio, not a size by the look of it.
That was the point I made.
Adding the pixel dimensions has the potential to create confusion and mislead as output for any crop ratio can be at any size.
An export doesn't have to be at the native file resolution and very often it's not what you want at all.
-
Creating presets is Ok but shooting say luggage I have large, medium and small bags that have to be a repeatable size this month as they were last month so I have standard crop sizes and some need to be portrait and some landscape for different websites.
Absolutely doable. RTFM!
"Listen to understand instead of listening to respond." - Barack Obama
-
That was the point I made.
Adding the pixel dimensions has the potential to create confusion and mislead as output for any crop ratio can be at any size.
An export doesn't have to be at the native file resolution and very often it's not what you want at all.
Perhaps Bob is too young (or old, or inexperienced) in printing in the darkroom of which Lightroom mimics. Consider its name Bob.
One shoots a 4x5 negative and makes a proof sheet. One can use cropping L's and a maker to crop the proof sheet, in no way have the cropped or rendered a print** at any size. Not until the neg is placed into an enlarger and the user decides the paper size, adjusts the enlarger and cropping and exposes the paper does the print get cropped. This is no different in Lightroom.
The idea that someone needs exact numbers of pixels to crop equally makes zero sense to me. I was trained by some very good photographers (Jay Maisel being one) to crop based on the image itself, not on some arbitrary number. I can't fathom how to crop based on pixels and not the image itself and perhaps an aspect ratio although for me, image content is paramount. I don't see how cropping a print or an image to 8x10 exactly, or 8.25x10.25 or 8.22x10.22 is at all a means to affect a crop. Ditto with 1200x1600 or 1209x1609 or anything else for that matter.
If I want a rendered image at 1200x1600, I tell LR what I want and I get exactly that number of pixels. And at the same time, I can get any set of HxW pixels from the same image at the same time when I export in a batch.
This idea one needs to crop by pixels makes zero sense to me and apparently others including the Adobe teams. Certainly with a product that isn't a pixel editor. Photoshop is a pixel editor. Photoshop provides those controls.
Use the right tool for the right job after understanding how the tool works.
** as to rendering a print, maybe Bob will find this useful too: http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf
-
The idea that someone needs exact numbers of pixels to crop equally makes zero sense to me.
The idea makes sense to me. Quite often you get a specific pixel requirement for an image to go into some sort of electronic document. Having a 'one stop shop' to deliver that would be useful.
The problem is making an interface that enables that concept, which maybe not be as simple as Bob thinks and possibly baffling for some other users.
-
The idea makes sense to me. Quite often you get a specific pixel requirement for an image to go into some sort of electronic document. Having a 'one stop shop' to deliver that would be useful.
But I can specify the pixel requirements of a crop in Export. Setting pixels WxH to crop when no pixels have been rendered seems unlikely.
The problem is making an interface that enables that concept, which maybe not be as simple as Bob thinks and possibly baffling for some other users.
More doable in ACR since the single rendering of an image is based on the current set Workflow Options. In LR, much more difficult when the product provides the ability to export multiple ways, all at the same time.
If this 'request' ever sees the light of day, it would take place in ACR first. But I kind of doubt it ever will.
-
Setting pixels WxH to crop when no pixels have been rendered seems unlikely.
You specify the crop and at what size you want/need rendered in one step.
It really isn't a difficult concept to understand.
-
You specify the crop and at what size you want/need rendered in one step.
It really isn't a difficult concept to understand.
So I do that and then ask LR to export three differing pixel densities in batch export which is a possibility in LR (not ACR); the one specified for cropping, and two different ones. As you say: baffling for some other users.
Seems a solution in search of a problem.
Anyway, the way to get this some attention (or likely not) is here:
https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/how-do-i-write-a-feature-request/idi-p/12386378
-
The idea makes sense to me. Quite often you get a specific pixel requirement for an image to go into some sort of electronic document. Having a 'one stop shop' to deliver that would be useful.
The problem is making an interface that enables that concept, which maybe not be as simple as Bob thinks and possibly baffling for some other users.
Be prepared for personal attacks sentence by sentence by the Don't Look Up keyboard warrior.
As I showed in the pics of both Aperture and Raw Power, it is quite easy to do.
Each month I shoot the latest luggage products for a customer and the new colours generally have to appear the same size on the website as the current colours of the same bag.
I measure the distance of the camera from the product and the height and use the same lens. The raw files of 8225x6165 will therefore have the product the same comparative size to the previous products. In post I crop each large size bag to a standard pixel dimension of say 6750 x 4500 and centre them. Small bags I may crop to 4200x 2800 and insides and details 2400x1600. I then export them at 2400x1600 pixels wide. All the large bags then appear on the web in the same relative size as last months bags of the same size. If the pixel dimensions are not known then I will need to guess which is both inaccurate and slow.
Thinking about the whole "industry standard" thing last night I realised that the answer is easy. It is the industry standard because there is nothing better. It supports all cameras and is cross platform. You can't put it on a server though. You could use Capture One but it doesn't support all medium format cameras and the database apparently is not solid. So Lightroom becomes the 6 CD stacker in your boot, the Blackberry in your hand, the Sony Trinitron monitor on your desk. A jack of all trades, master of none and the tool for photographers in the 20th Century. No need to improve anything because there is no real competition.
-
Be prepared for personal attacks sentence by sentence by the Don't Look Up keyboard warrior.
Nope, at least his opinions are based on an actual undertanding and use of the product.
Thinking about the whole "industry standard" thing last night I realised that the answer is easy. It is the industry standard because there is nothing better.
Have you done any software development? Specifically in the imaging environment?
"There are times in life when, instead of complaining, you do something about your complaints." - Rita Dove
Worth repeating:
You are implying that the industry by large is wrong. You are entitled to that opinion, not much more.
As I showed in the pics of both Aperture and Raw Power, it is quite easy to do.
Got nothing to do with ease per se, and maybe you should be using those products instead.
Worth repeating:
Perhaps you'll understand what this application actually does, and understand it wasn't designed specifically for your logic.
Perhaps you'll find how to use the product as designed or perhaps you'll find another one that works as you wish; this isn't how LR works or operates.
And:
The problem is making an interface that enables that concept, which maybe not be as simple as Bob thinks and possibly baffling for some other users.
-
As I showed in the pics of both Aperture and Raw Power, it is quite easy to do.
No, there's nothing in those screen shots to explain how easy or not it is to achieve the desired aim.
Aperture is dead, so just forget it.
'Raw Power' ? I'd never heard of it before and from the tiny amount I've seen from it's web site suggests it isn't a serious competitor to the major players.
I really do understand what you're trying to achieve here, but all the current players don't make that particular task easy.
The reality is that you either have to use a package that has this niche feature implemented in a way you like; like 'Raw Power' and you'll have to accept there's a lot you'll miss out on. The alternative is to learn and adapt your workflow how to use the class leaders like LR, CO, DXO etc.
-
'Raw Power' ? I'd never heard of it before and from the tiny amount I've seen from it's web site suggests it isn't a serious competitor to the major players.
It isn't a serious competitor. Mac only, 'affordable' and not a bad converter from one of the former engineers at Apple on the Aperture team. Its a one man band which isn't an objection (so is Iridient Developer and it is a fine product).
I think this is getting pointless and the answer to the very first question (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=139827.msg1230964#msg1230964) asked her by the OP is (and has been shown to be in several exchanges): Yes! ;)
-
...
I really do understand what you're trying to achieve here, but all the current players don't make that particular task easy.
The reality is that you either have to use a package that has this niche feature implemented in a way you like; like 'Raw Power' and you'll have to accept there's a lot you'll miss out on. The alternative is to learn and adapt your workflow how to use the class leaders like LR, CO, DXO etc.
Thanks. As accurate cropping is a key requirement I will look at another database.
-
Thanks. As accurate cropping is a key requirement I will look at another database.
Which means, maybe not Raw Power:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252894031
It's a raw processor that can work with Finder folders or a Photos Library. It has no database of its own.
-
I can use almost anything to do an accurate crop. It is not a big ask I think.
Even the Preview app will tell you the pixel size on a crop.
So if you all agree that Lightroom does not do tell you the pixel size on a crop then I can say it is a very poor cropping tool and unsuitable for my needs.
-
I can use almost anything to do an accurate crop. It is not a big ask I think.
You were told where and how to ask (Adobe), did you?
Don't hold your breath.
As for your assumptions of the task, what imaging software products have you developed?
So if you all agree that Lightroom does not do tell you the pixel size on a crop then I can say it is a very poor cropping tool.
And yet, the installed base of this "industry standard' has been doing so for since 2006.
You are implying that the industry by large is wrong. You are entitled to that opinion, not much more. ;)
-
So if you all agree that Lightroom does not do tell you the pixel size on a crop then I can say it is a very poor cropping tool and unsuitable for my needs.
Certainly LR is unsuitable for your comprehension skills on this tool.
It's been explained to you how and why this tools works as it does, but if you can't grasp the concept use something else.
-
Certainly LR is unsuitable for your comprehension skills on this tool.
It's been explained to you how and why this tools works as it does, but if you can't grasp the concept use something else.
My comprehension is that Lightroom does not a provide digital indication of the crop size, let alone location.
Neither you or the sentence autopsy guy have provided any information to dispute this.
Unless that is wrong then we are done as Lightroom is no good to me. Bye.
-
+1 to the comment that LR is unsuitable for your comprehension skills on this tool.
Nearly every comment and comprehension you've made about Lightroom in this thread has been wrong.
Should we list them?
Seems pointless and indeed, you should stop while behind and indeed, bid adieu.
Am I missing something please?
Glad we settled that question.
You're welcome. ;)
-
Nearly every comment and comprehension you've made about Lightroom in this thread has been wrong.
Should we list them?
Says the guy that doesn't know the difference between Crop size and Export size
I will say it again
LIGHTROOM CLASSIC DOES NOT DISPLAY DIGITAL VALUES OF THE CROP SIZE
Go
-
Says the guy that doesn't know the difference between Crop size and Export size
I think Andrew has a far better grasp of this than you do.
It seems you're wanting to crop and resize in one operation, that's simply a task parametric editing won't deal with. That workflow might work well for your specific requirement you've outlined in this instance, so you're going to have to try other converters until you find something that might have that niche feature, but you'll then find that other things probably won't work as well or as you expect.
The underlying problem you seem to have here is a failure to understand the concept of parametric editing. The idea that you edit images separately from exporting them (rendering to pixels).
LIGHTROOM CLASSIC DOES NOT DISPLAY DIGITAL VALUES OF THE CROP SIZE
Shouting about something that's not in dispute is pointless.
Other converters do have a display that shows what crop dimensions are being set of the full frame, but that's really not very helpful when you need to resize for output.
You've started this thread to try to gain some understanding of Lightroom, some us have tried to help you, explaining that you're failing to grasp some fundamental concepts about the program and point you at some resources to help you gain that understanding. The feature you're not understanding isn't unique to LR, it's common across all parametric editors which are now the industry standard way of handing raw files.
-
Says the guy that doesn't know the difference between Crop size and Export size
Wrong again.
All doubt removed.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Am I missing something please?
Indeed. All doubt removed!
-
It seems you're wanting to crop and resize in one operation
No, I don't. I want to crop the individual images as I said at say 6750 x 4500 which changes the shape and relative size of the product in the frame, and centre them. That's it. Later I can select all images (which may be 300) and export as required at say 2400 x 1600.
Anyway, we have categorically established finally that the digital values of a crop are not displayed in Lightroom Classic so end of story.
Thanks for your interest.
-
Anyway, we have categorically established finally that the digital values of a crop are not displayed in Lightroom Classic so end of story.
We, those of us using this product for decades, understood and accepted this long before you got here!
Am I missing something please?
Yes.
-
"we have categorically established finally that the digital values of a crop are not displayed in Lightroom Classic so end of story."
We, those of us using this product for decades, understood and accepted this long before you got here!Yes.
I would have thought with a name like "digital dog" that you would want a digital display. Perhaps consider "analogue dog".
I am not sure you have even understood the difference between cropping size and export size, but nobody cares. You seem to believe that your opinion and how you use the product is the only one that matters.
Your argument that because Lightroom is the "industry standard" I need to use it is just frog droppings.
It comes free with Photoshop, I pay for it, but I don't have to use it.
It does not meet my requirements. It may meet yours but they may be different. Again, end of story.
95% of people will be broke at the age of 65. Do you take financial advise from them?
The majority of people are often wrong. Often they just don't know it because they haven't seen something better.
-
No, I don't. I want to crop the individual images as I said at say 6750 x 4500 which changes the shape and relative size of the product in the frame, and centre them. That's it. Later I can select all images (which may be 300) and export as required at say 2400 x 1600.
You really haven't made yourself clear here at all.
What you've just said is that the actual pixel dimensions you expect to see aren't what you need to export. What you want is a 3:2 crop, then output at 2400x1600.
That's absolutely possible right now, the 3x2 crop* is a standard option, you can export at 2400px wide (or any other specific size) with a user defined export pre-set.
*You could even define that as a 2400x 1600 crop ratio if maths isn't your strong point.
-
I would have thought with a name like "digital dog" that you would want a digital display. Perhaps consider "analogue dog".
The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument. And in this case, a clue about the topic.
I am not sure you have even understood the difference between cropping size and export size, but nobody cares.
You have demonstrated over and over again all the areas you are not sure or understand.
You told us several times you were leaving and yet you come back to make more of a fool of yourself on this topic. Glutton for punishment.
Your argument that because Lightroom is the "industry standard" I need to use it is just frog droppings.
If you had a clue, you'd see you (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=139827.msg1234553#msg1234553) brought up LR being an 'industry standard' after which I made your comment, like so many others here, appear as foolish as they are.
It comes free with Photoshop, I pay for it, but I don't have to use it.
That too is wrong and absurd. Nothing new for you.
It does not meet my requirements.
As you were told days ago and didn't comprehend, that's fine and you should find something else. And it isn't Raw Power, you didn't yet grasp the concept of what a DAM is.
95% of people will be broke at the age of 65.
More absurdity. Are you making a special effort today?
The majority of people are often wrong.
Well the paper trail here certainly puts you in that category. Will you provide us more examples or move on? That is a rhetorical question and that admission will likely go over your head.
You're the OP; you can lock this or move on. You really should. Because again, yes you're missing a lot.
-
You really haven't made yourself clear here at all.
What you've just said is that the actual pixel dimensions you expect to see aren't what you need to export. What you want is a 3:2 crop, then output at 2400x1600.
That's absolutely possible right now, the 3x2 crop* is a standard option, you can export at 2400px wide (or any other specific size) with a user defined export pre-set.
*You could even define that as a 2400x 1600 crop ratio if maths isn't your strong point.
Indeed on both points (what can be done and the OPs math problems).
I have a client that I shoot a product that has several sizes but must be cropped exactly the same and ratio, and the size of the products must be fixed, just like Bob described. I do this monthly in Lightroom Classic. One can easily copy and then go and paste a crop (from other like images), onto all the others, then export to any fixed pixel ratio that matches that proportion. Do able for years and years in Lightroom Classic.
That Bob hasn't figured this out isn't a surprise and I'll be damned if I'll explain how to do this simple task for him.
-
LMFAO
I am not sure why I try to explain, but I will have another go.
The original file is 8272 × 6200 pixels
I want to crop to 6750 x 4500
That is because the images I do for the same customer need to be the same every time. I can't do an arbitrary crop.
(Yes, assuming of course if I have them on the computer I am using I could go back and find whenever I did the last shoot and copy the settings from that and then paste them into the first image but that is really clumsy when I know the size I want already.)
This is only a little bit smaller than frame size just to make the product a bit bigger in the frame and change the aspect ratio and leave enough room to centre the image.
I then centre the image in the same crop process.
Then do minor things like increase contrast.
I then copy that to all images which may be say 300 and individually centre them.
Once finished I export all of the images at 2400 x 1600 and upload them.
I am still not sure what is difficult to understand here but don't worry about it.
-
LMFAO
LMFAO
Don’t repeat yourself. It’s not only repetitive, it’s redundant, and people have heard it before." -Daniel Handler
The answer to your original and first question continues to be:yes!
-
I am still not sure what is difficult to understand here
The difficulty is understanding why you need to crop every frame to some curious specific size.
"The original file is 8272 × 6200 pixels
I want to crop to 6750 x 4500"
When the desired output is different again; "2400 x 1600"
It makes little sense to me throwing away a quarter of the image all the time. Not only is it a waste of pixels(=quality), but it's giving you a headache in post processing.
Then you say you don't want to have to put an arbitrary crop on every frame, but then go on to say that every frame will have to be adjusted for centring anyway.
Surely the smart thing here is to frame correctly when shooting so you can use the standard locked 4:3 crop ratio on import to just trim the edges of frame ? This can all be done with a simple preset, as can the reduced size export.
-
Surely the smart thing here is to frame correctly when shooting so you can use the standard locked 4:3 crop ratio on import to just trim the edges of frame ? This can all be done with a simple preset, as can the reduced size export.
Exactly! Which is pretty much how I handle my monthly product shots. They are small so all shot on a fixed copy stand setup. Bobs major problem here other than an ability to listen or RTFM:
“There seems to be some perverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult.” -Warren Buffett
-
No, I don't. I want to crop the individual images as I said at say 6750 x 4500 which changes the shape and relative size of the product in the frame, and centre them. That's it. Later I can select all images (which may be 300) and export as required at say 2400 x 1600.
Anyway, we have categorically established finally that the digital values of a crop are not displayed in Lightroom Classic so end of story.
Thanks for your interest.
I think i would use photoshop to that for me in some batch action... never crop in LR
It is in the photo subscription and a very essential part for me.
-
I think i would use photoshop to that for me in some batch action... never crop in LR
It is in the photo subscription and a very essential part for me.
Thanks.
That is one approach but it is destructive and a lot slower.
Never cropping in Lightroom is the answer though. (:-)
I batch the images in Photoshop to remove backgrounds.
I shoot 600 shots a day so comments to re-frame each shot are just not practical. There are large bags, medium bags, small bags, accessories, shoulder bags with long straps that are held vertical and I shoot front, back, sides, inside, bottom sometimes and a shot accessorised. So where possible they are all shot from the same spot, cropped, centred and exported. Done.
-
Thanks.
That is one approach but it is destructive and a lot slower.
No and yes, so again you're in need of RTFM; Photoshop has a totally non destructive crop, IF you know how to use it. You don't it seems.
Slower, indeed. So I'll give you that!
-
No and yes, so again you're in need of RTFM; Photoshop has a totally non destructive crop, IF you know how to use it. You don't it seems.
Slower, indeed. So I'll give you that!
The great thing for you as a true narcissist is that you will enjoy picking up a mirror and having a good hard look at yourself.
-
The great thing for you as a true narcissist is that you will enjoy picking up a mirror and having a good hard look at yourself.
What you said was wrong, nothing new in this thread:
That is one approach but it is destructive and a lot slower.
Clearly you don't know much about Photoshop and Lightroom Classic.
You can stop posting incorrect text about these products anytime you desire. Then most of us that have posted here can stop correcting you!
"Learning to control your reactions, saves you a lot of explaining, regretting, and apologizing." -Remez Sasson
-
What you said was wrong, nothing new in this thread:Clearly you don't know much about Photoshop and Lightroom Classic.
You can stop posting incorrect text about these products anytime you desire. Then most of us that have posted here can stop correcting you!
"Learning to control your reactions, saves you a lot of explaining, regretting, and apologizing." -Remez Sasson
LMFAO x 3
You spend your entire life waiting for me to say something so that you prove what I just said. You must have some alert set to post in the same minute.
You don't understand my requirement so why devote your entire life to proving it? Let it goooooooooo.....
Again,
The great thing for you as a true narcissist is that you will enjoy picking up a mirror and having a good hard look at yourself.
-
LMFAO x 3
LMFAO
LMFAO
Don’t repeat yourself. It’s not only repetitive, it’s redundant, and people have heard it before." -Daniel Handler
The answer to your original and first question continues to be:yes!
-
Well this has been fun.
I am on holidays at the moment without Netflix so since the Tennis has finished this has been great entertainment.