Importing Aperture into Lightroom Classic

[BobShaw]

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.

[digitaldog]

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.

[BobShaw]

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

[digitaldog]

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.

[BobShaw]

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.

[digitaldog]

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. 

[BobShaw]

(Insert typical rambling  5 disected sentence rant here)

LMFAO

[Rhossydd]

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.

[BobShaw]

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.

[Rhossydd]

Those screen shots are pretty meaningless.

[BobShaw]

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.

[Rhossydd]

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.

[digitaldog]

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

[digitaldog]

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

[Rhossydd]

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.

[digitaldog]

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.

[Rhossydd]

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.

[digitaldog]

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

[BobShaw]

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.

[digitaldog]

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.