Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Exit
web-weaver
People's Champ
web-weaver
People's Champ
Activity
‎Dec 25, 2011
10:44 AM
I meant the catalog file (the .lrcat file). As I said, the catalog and the photos do not have to be on the same drive. The Cache is a space on your hard drive that LR uses as temporary storage space for previews. You can see its location and set its size in >Edit >Preferences > File Handling tab. At the bottom you see the location. Set the size to at least to 25 GB. For more advice on how to increase the LR performance see here: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/400/kb400808.html WW
... View more
‎Dec 24, 2011
12:13 PM
Pete Marshall wrote: "I have a laptop with not much RAM but a SSSD where the previews are stored and this is faster for viewing previews than my desktop with 16 GB of RAM, but no SSSD when it comes to flying through images." That corresponds with my experience. I don't think it's the lack of RAM that is slowing down LR - at least if you have 4 GB or more; it's rather that the hard drive(s) get extremely busy resulting in a increasingly long queue of read & write cycles. Rather than throwing more RAM at LR it might be more helpful to alleviate the read & write cycles by spreading them out over several physical disks. Partitions of one disks won't do it, because it's the time that the head of the hard drive needs to go from one location to another. In my experience the following practices help to speed up LR; 1) Put your catalog on a different (physical) drive than where LR resides. You can have the catalog on an external drive, provided it's an eSata drive. USB drives are too slow - or more precise the connection speed is too slow. Remember, the catalog can be on a different drive than where your pictures are located. 2) If you have, put the LR cache on a third physical drive. 3) If you are on a PC, defrag your drive often. The seek times are significantly higher on fragmented drives. WW
... View more
‎Dec 08, 2011
03:36 PM
desertdiesel, When images are removed from LR they are not moved in any way. They are still sitting on the hard drive where they were before they were removed from LR. "Removing" from LR means only that their data in the LR catalog is deleted. That means that all the work that was done to this image in LR is gone. But the image itself (without the changes done in LR) is still on the hard drive. In the Library Module you can right-click any image(s) and select <Show in Explorer / Finder> and it will show you where it is located on your hard drive. WW
... View more
‎Dec 08, 2011
09:54 AM
In another thread, Geoff the kiwi offered to forward a corrupt catalog to Adobe. Get in touch with Geoff if you want to go this route. WW
... View more
‎Dec 08, 2011
09:24 AM
I'm running out of ideas. Last suggestion: Delete the previews file - or bette rmove it to a different folder - and try to relaunch LR with the catalog you were first having problems with - not the backup catalog. Your backup catalog might be faulty - since it was with the backup catalog that you got the error message about reading from catalog. WW
... View more
‎Dec 08, 2011
09:15 AM
Could be a problem with your preference file. See here: http://lightroomers.com/replacing-the-lightroom-preference-file/745/ WW
... View more
‎Dec 08, 2011
08:37 AM
There could be some filtering going on. In the Grid View press "\" so that the filter bar appears at the top. Then select <None>. Does this make the images appear ? WW
... View more
‎Dec 05, 2011
04:09 PM
3 Upvotes
In Grid View or Library View go to >View >View Options - or press Ctrl/Cmd + "J" - and select <Cropped Dimensions> in <Loupe View> or in <Grid View>. In Grid View you have to check the box <Show Grid Extras. first and then at the bottom under <Expanded Cell Extras> you can select <Cropped Dimensions>. Don't get confused by the words <Cropped Dimensions> - if you didn't fo any cropping what shows will be the pixel dimensions of the photo as it came from the camerra. The pixel dimensions will be displayed in Loupe View and in Grid View on the frame. Then just divide one number by the other and you get the aspect ratio. For instance my display shows "3872 x 2592". Now: 3872 / 2592 = 1.49 = aspect ratio. WW
... View more
‎Dec 04, 2011
02:29 PM
Cropping to aspect ratio: That is something I would do when I know the size of the print. For instance, if a print is to be 8" x 10". The aspect ratio is 4:5. For a 16" x 20" print the aspect ratio is also 4:5. But for a 12" x 18" print the aspect ratio is 2: 3. And for a square image the aspect ratio is 1:1. Since you don't know what aspect ratio the client wants - and maybe she/he wants different ones from the same photo, it is difficult for you to crop to aspect ratio. Naturally you could just choose an aspect ratio - say 4:5 - and the client has to live with that. The client still can order prints in different sizes but they would all have the aspect ratio chosen by you - unless the printer does some cropping. In your case I would probably choose an aspect ratio that is best for the composition of the image. Personally I find 4:5 more pleasing than the aspect ratio that comes out of my camera. If you want to crop to aspect ratio do that before exporting. Best practice: Create a virtual copy from your original and crop and then export the virtual copy. It doesn't matter if you select Long edge or Short edge. If, say, you have cropped your image (virtual copy) to an aspect ratio of 4:5 and you want to export for a size of 16" x 20", then it doesn't matter if you select 300 dpi and Long edge 20" or 300 dpi and Short edge 16". Keep the <Don't enlarge> button unchecked. If you check it you can't export to a size that is larger than your original And if you need to go up to 20" x 30" you probably need to enlarge. WW
... View more
‎Dec 04, 2011
12:24 PM
1 Upvote
Yes, exactly. You multiply the dimension number in inches by the necessary / wanted resolution per inch (dpi / ppi). In LR you do this in the <Export Dialog>. You select the dpi/ppi number (for instance 300) and then you select Long edge or Short edge in inches. WW
... View more
‎Dec 04, 2011
12:12 PM
No, nothing gets cut off by enlarging - unless you combine it with cropping. But usually printers don't do cropping unless the client specifies it. WW
... View more
‎Dec 04, 2011
12:03 PM
You have to distinguish between resizing an image and cropping an image. Cropping means cutting away parts of an image for instance when you make a square image out of an oblong rectangle - you cut away at the top and at the bottom. And that way you can cut off heads or feet. The other thing is resizing an image, meaning printing it smaller or larger. By resizing you do not cut away anything but make the whole image smaller or larger. By resizing you cannot cut off heads or feet. The printer who prints the image for your clients will know how to resize the image. There is no limit to making an image smaller - you can print any image the size of a postage stamp. But there are limits to making an image larger. These limits are set by the resolution. That means you have to give your clients an image in the largest size they would ever want to print. For instance: If your client wants to be able to make a print of 20" x 30" you should give him/her an image file of this size @ 300 ppi/dpi. Iimages in any smaller size can be printed from this file. WW
... View more
‎Nov 18, 2011
03:48 PM
LR has no feature to recognize duplicates if they have a different file name. LR cannot recognize dupicates according to image content. I found an old forum entry where something called dupeguru was mentioned that supposedly would recognize duplicates based on image content. The post said that it would not work in LR so you had to apply it on its own. Check it out: http://www.hardcoded.net/dupeguru_pe/ I have no experience with this program; I don't know if it works. Don't even know if the link is OK. WW
... View more
‎Nov 03, 2011
04:36 PM
Up to now we were talking about the Destination Folder which can be saved as part of an Import Preset. You are talking about the Source Folder. I tried what you did with the "Add" function. The source folder that I had selected previously when I saved the preset was not highlighed when I selected the preset. It seems that the Source Folder is not part of the saved preset. When I select a different source folder (still in the "Add" function) , the name of my preset remains unchanged. When I select a preset in the "Move" function and change the destination folder, the name of my preset changes to "something, something (edit)". This behaviour would support my idea that a source folder cannot be saved as part of a preset. So in the end, if you do not want to import into LR by copying or moving the images from the memory card you'll have to live with having to select your source folder on each import. When you select Copy or Move the memory card will be detected by LR automatically and will be highlighted. And in >Preferences >General Tab you can also get LR to show the Import Dialog when a memory card is detected. WW
... View more
‎Nov 03, 2011
08:43 AM
Yes you can. In the Import Dialog on the right side in the <Destination> panel select <Into one folder>. Then select the folder you want to import into and import a few images. Normally LR "remembers" this setting so it should be present when you open the Import Dialog next time. But you also can create an "Import Preset". In the Import Dialog choose and select all the parameters you want applied during import (such as flags, keywords, Develop Presets, and folder to import into). Then at the bottom of the Import Dialog -sort of in the center - there is a dark bar named "Import Preset". Click on the small triangle at the right end of the dark bar and save your parameters as a new Import Preset. Every time you open the Import Dialog you can apply all the parameters with one click - just select your created Import Preset. WW
... View more
‎Oct 27, 2011
09:27 AM
4 Upvotes
No, there is no Levels tool in LR. But there is an option in the curve tool that you can use to mimic some of the features of a levels tool. In the Develop Module below the sliders of the Curve tool and to the right of the words "Point Curve" there is a small icon of a curve. Click on it and the sliders will disappear. But also the possibilities of your curve will have changed: you can now drag the left point (the darks) of the curve vertically up to set a black point of say 5%, And you can drag the right point (the lights) vertically down to set a white point of say 95%. You still can tweak the curve to increase the contrast if you wish. WW
... View more
‎May 03, 2011
01:41 PM
Rob Cole wrote: "So, did you? And, did it help (e.g. performance or reliability)? Did it hurt (e.g. performance)?" Yes I did. The 'hardware acceleration" slider had been all the way to the max. I took it down to a middle value (50%). I also un-checked "Enable Write Combining". At first I did not notice anything different but then did a Impromptu Slideshow in LR 3.4 (final) and noticed that the transitions between siles was not going smoothly but in several "steps" that made the transition somewhat "jerking". I put the "garphics acceleration" up a notch and the transition between slides was much better. In Win XP you'll find the graphics acceleration in >Control panel >Display >Settings Tab >Advanced >Troubleshoot Tab. WW
... View more
‎May 03, 2011
01:14 PM
Yes, rob, could be. It seems sometimes the graphics acceleration is a bit too "ravenous" for the taste of the OS. This happened on my system and a Windows message advised me to decrease the 'hardware acceleration" of the card. WW
... View more
‎Apr 28, 2011
08:37 AM
thewhitedog wrote: "...Many previous posts had discounted the role of the graphics card..." Yes, I remember the posts but recently had an experience that made me doubt that the graphics card has no impact on the performance of LR. I had trouble with my graphics card and Windows advised me to decrease the acceleration of my card. So I did. When back in LR I did a Impromptu Slideshow from the Library Module and noticed that the transition between slides was not going smoothly but in several steps making the transition somewhat jerky. I then increased the garphics card cceleration a notch and the transition was much smoother. So, at least for slideshows the performance of LR is dependant on the graphics card to a certain extent. In Windows XP the graphics acceleration can be found in Control Panel > Display > Settings Tab > Advanced > Troubleshoot Tab. There is a slider called "Hardware Acceleration". WW
... View more
‎Apr 15, 2011
01:15 PM
I wonder if the discussion about CPU and RAM is at all important to the performance (or lack thereof) of LR. I am not a software developer, nor am I a computer engineer, nor do I know anything about the inner workings of LR. But the fact that quite a few people have severe performance problems with LR running on machines that are far more powerful than mine, while my performance problems are more or less minor (clone brush is still slow, particularly when many spots are cloned; adj. brush is also slow) and the complete freeze-up that I experienced with previous versions of LR has not occurred since I installed 3.4 RC, points in my opinion into a different direction. I am pasting here my system specs; Lightroom version: 3.4 RC [733717] Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 (Build 2600) Version: 5.1 [2600] Application architecture: x86 System architecture: x86 Physical processor count: 2 (Intel Pentium D (dual core) (no Hyper-Threading) Processor speed: 2.9 GHz Built-in memory: 3582.0 MB @ 667 MHz (nominal 4 GB) Real memory available to Lightroom: 716.8 MB Real memory used by Lightroom: 99.8 MB (13.9%) Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 165.3 MB Memory cache size: 0.0 MB System DPI setting: 96 DPI Displays: 1) 1920x1200 So you see, by todays standards, a very modest system. Yet I don't experience the severe problems that many still encounter. I am not qualified to give an opinion as to the reasons - but it seems to me there's more to a fine-tuned computer than sheer CPU and RAM. There is lots of advice for the specifications and tuning of the computer hardware on Adobe's Hardware Forum. This is the link: http://forums.adobe.com/community/premiere/hardware_forum WW
... View more
‎Apr 10, 2011
11:23 AM
MojaMike wrote: "And after I reconnct the card reader to my motherboard, I get the big delay with the import screen again. How does that make any sense?" What are your settings for Autoplay for the card reader? On all my drives - including the card reader - I have Autoplay disabled, i.e. it is set to "Take no Action". WW
... View more
‎Apr 01, 2011
09:08 AM
2 Upvotes
I think it would be better not to think in terms of that LR "applies" edits. Since LR stores changes in the catalog, the changes are "applied" to the image only on Export. I think it wouldbe better to use the term "display" instead of "apply". So then: When from LR you open a RAW image in PS the LR-edits done up to then are displayed in PS and then "applied" when you save from PS (remember PS CS5 opens the RAW image). If you do more edits in PS and save these, LR will display these edits - you will notice then on return from PS, LR will re-load the image. On "Save" PS applies (and here the word "apply" is correct) the edits by writing them into the image file. LR reads the saved file and displays it with the PS-edits. But the LR catalog settings are still in the state of the point in time before you opened the image in PS. This is so because PS writes the edits into the image file and not into the LR catalog. So now you have one set of edits in the LR Catalog and another set of edits in the image file. To describe this as "kinda 'over-top' with the PS edits applied, but it really hasn't applied them" doesn't fit the bill because LR "applies" only on Export. What LR does at this point is reading the image file with the PS-edits and displaying the image accordingly. But LR "senses" that what is displayed is not in line of what's in the catalog. This is the conflict that Lr wants to resolve by popping the message. You say " If so, then you would really want to import the settings from disk so that the file will take on the PS edits, right? " Yes, if you want your PS-edits to override your previous LR-edits. I have now come to a workflow where I do not make edits in PS that I can do in LR - and I do not do edits in LR that PS is better at. Practically speaking: In PS I do cloning and also noise reduction when the LR-NR is not enough (for instance in noisy scans). I don't do any tonal or color adjustments in PS because it's easier in Lr and gives me better results. When the message in question appears, I select "Overwrite disk settings" - this preserves any Lr edits and does not overwrite the cloning. WW
... View more
‎Apr 01, 2011
08:37 AM
Thanks! It took me a while to find it down there at the bottom almost lost in the dark. WW
... View more
‎Mar 31, 2011
05:19 PM
As far as I know, you have to specify the directory every time you import images. WW
... View more
‎Mar 31, 2011
05:17 PM
1 Upvote
You wrote When you're finished in PS, and save the file, the image should be saved with everything you've done to - which it does. Correct. But then there is a discrepancy between your saved file and what is in the catalog. The catalog still reflects the state prior to your edits in PS while the image file reflects the state after your PS-edits. LR wants to reconcile this discrepancy and asks whhich of the two should prevail. WW
... View more
‎Mar 31, 2011
01:29 PM
1 Upvote
You wrote So if I adjust, lets say, brightness on an image in LR - export it to PS for further editing (clone/heal/retouch) and then maybe tweek the brightness a little with a curves adjustment - and save it - shouldn't that whole workflow from LR to PS back to LR be preserved in that newly saved file? No, LR saves all edits in the Catalog (and ONLY in the Catalog) whereas PS saves the edits in the image-file (in the pixels itself when you don't preserve the adjustment layers). LR now "perceives" that there are edits in its catalog and there are edits in the image file. I don't know if LR actually compares those two sets of edits (I think not) but it wants to make sure that there is no conflict and sends you the message in question. WW
... View more
‎Mar 31, 2011
10:15 AM
6 Upvotes
When you "import settings from disk" then the edits that you did in PS will be imported into LR and previous edits that you did in Lr will be overwritten. When you "overwrite disk settings" then the LR edits take precedence over edits in PS. But this is only the principle. And this principle holds when you edit the same setting (for instance exposure or brightness) differently in PS than what you did before in LR . So for instance if you'd increase exposure in LR and the decrease it in PS then only one of the two can prevail - that's logical. But usually we don't do the same edits in Lr and in PS differently - that would make no sense. I regularly use PS if I have to make extensive use of the clone tool (and the patch tool) since the clone tool in Lr is OK for a few "splotches" but not for hundreds. After saving the clone tool edits in PS and returning to LR I receiove the message you are talking about. I always chose "overwrite disk setings". This has the follwing effect: Previous LR edits (for instance develop presets on import) will be retained but the clone tool edits done in PS will alo be retained (not overwritten , not un-done!). LR-overwrites do not change the pixel-based clone-edits of PS. So basically, as long as you don't edit the same "issue" differently in PS than what you did in LR select "overwrite settings" and you'll "have the best of both worlds". WW
... View more
‎Mar 25, 2011
04:05 PM
thewhitedog wrote: The i7 used in Macs does offer hyper-threading, though I don't how you can turn it off. But that's a good point: since hyper-threading causes problems in Windows it might do so as well on the Mac. Which raises the question, why can't Lightroom handle hyper-threading, since it is a feature of many modern CPUs? I don't have answers for these questions. I don't have a hyper-threading processor. In fact I have a Pentium dual-core processor that is now more than 5 years old with 4 GB of RAM, and - strangely enough - although LR 3.4 is certainly not super-fast on this machine, it's is now quite workable, and that goes also for the clone tool. Go, figure. My HD where I put the Catalog and the Cache hast 180 GB of free space. WW
... View more
‎Mar 25, 2011
11:03 AM
I'd like to add one more suggestion since you have an i7 processor - although I don't know if it is equipped with Hyper-Threading. One poster in this forum said that LR performance got better after he/she turned Hyper-Threading off. WW
... View more
‎Mar 24, 2011
04:49 PM
I can give you the following very general "rules" to speed-up LR and avoid "freezing". 1) Make your Cache very large - mine is set at 75 GB. Set size in Preferences > File Handling. 2) Have the Catalog and your Cache on a fast internal drive but preferably on a different drive than where LR resides. Do NOT put the Catalog or cache on an external HD - the connection is too slow, particularly with USB drives. 3) Play around with the preview size in Catalog Settings > File Handling. This is a weird one and there was some discussion on this forum. Since I set my preview size ot 2048 pixels, I experienced a better performance. 4) Defragment your HD often and leave lots of free space particularly on your drive where the Catalog and the Cache are. 6) Close all unnecessary programs that run in the background. 7) In Catalog settings > Metadata do NOT check "write Changes into XMP" - this slowed my Develop module significantly. If you want XMP files do it via Metadata > Save Metadata to File or short Ctrl?Cmd. + "S". Hope this helps. WW
... View more
- « Previous
- Next »
Copyright © 2025 Adobe. All rights reserved.
AdChoices