cheer89fjh wrote: So which program is better? Which should I buy? I still have no idea. So, based upon your description of what you want to do ... there is no program that is "better" ... because you haven't told us what types of things you want to do with your photos, and that in turn will identify features you need. You need to tell us more about what you want to do with your photographs, and then perhaps we could say that one is "better" for you than the other. ... View more

Two-way syncing would let "sets" on Flickr become "collections" in Lightroom, and vice versa. As far as I can tell (and I use this plug-in regularly), "sets" in Flickr cannot be synchronized with Lightroom constructs. Going the other way, a grouping of Lightroom photos (whether they are in a collection, publish collection or neither) can be turned into Flickr "sets". If there is a Flickr "set" and a Lightroom "collection" that are supposed to be the same, but the number of photos contained in each is different, there is no automated way of determining where the mismatch exists. ... View more

It was mainly developed as a geotagging tool You must be thinking of a different plug-in from Jeffrey Friedl. ... View more

While Jeffrey's Lightroom Exporter plug-in is a very powerful piece of software, it was not designed to be (and falls far short of ) "two-way syncing" between Lightroom and Flickr. ... View more

Wow, etcetera, you still have a bunch of misconceptions it's fine with me if Adobe wants to call a database a catalog, cornelia-l... but it should have a pretty little button that says, "copy this database item, including its original image and metadata and stuff, over to this other database." oh well, i am but a lowly user and i am not the person Adobe makes these things for.  😛 No, the problem is that you are not a lowly user; the problem is that you are using LR in ways that it wasn't designed to be used. And the reason Adobe doesn't give you a "copy to another catalog" button is because Lightroom was designed for primarily a single catalog; yes you can indeed use multiple catalogs if you want to give up some features and work harder. i would rather not have a single database of around 10,000 images to deal with every time i want to edit, export, copy, or back up anything. I would guess that most LR users have a LOT more than 10,000 images in a catalog. I have a catalog of about 21,000 images, and I don't have a single issue with having a catalog that large. Nor do I have a single issue with trying to find, for example, my railroad photos in this large catalog that contains personal photos, architecture photos, landscape photos, travel photos and railroad photos. In this situation, you are given a HUGE number of tools (because that's what LR was designed to do) to find/organize/separate these photos when I want them. So its really your choice ... use LR in a way (one catalog) that has a HUGE number of tools at your disposal, or use it in a way (multiple catalogs) that has much more limited tools. also, for some reason my brain really objects to having the files I need for a single operation spread out all over the place and yet Lightroom was designed to eliminate the problems that you might have when your files are spread out i would like to have the Family database and all the image files in one place/in one folder/on one hard drive. something i can easily drag the whole thing onto another drive to copy it. Lightroom does not prevent you or hinder you from doing this. And if you want to drag the whole thing to somewhere else, use Lightroom to do this!! Lightroom doesn't prevent this at all. if LR's later versions make this easier, i might bother with upgrading! All of this is amazingly easy in the version of LR that you have. Upgrading doesn't make these issues any easier i suppose i could redo everything i've already done in LR over the last year, so it's all one catalog, You don't have to redo anything to create a single master catalog. You just merge them. You already figured out the process of moving photos from one catalog to another. Do that for ALL photos and you now have one catalog. I think you should give it a try. Everything you said you wanted can be done in a single catalog; it gets a little tougher with two catalogs. ... View more

I remain confused about how to quickly and easily get photos from one existing catalog to a different catalog I think you understood the process properly. The error you make, that causes you to be confused, is expecting a method that can be done "quickly and easily". Unrealistic expectations! Which is why you should use a single catalog, and then the effort of moving photos from one catalog to another is ZERO EFFORT! Can't beat that! ... View more

Well, next time we're in the same coffee shop, you can buy me a donut. Glad to see it worked, and now you know it really is that simple. If I could be so bold, I think you might want to spend some time learning about how the cataloging system in LR works, and how photos on your hard disk are referenced in LR. A good video on the subject is "Dude, Where Are My Photos". ... View more

So it seem that to import is the only way to get the ext hd into LR. Let me say emphatically that this is incorrect. We can link the LR catalog to your photos on the external HD without importing. Let me also say that I would like you to not go and do things on your own, because this will lead to more confusion and problems. Ok, let's get back to my earlier question ... I think that when you right-click on a folder name in the Folder Panel, you should see a menu item that says "Update Folder Location". You said no such item appears. So ... when you right-click on a folder name in the Folder Panel, and a menu pops up, what are the items in this menu? Make a screen capture, or write them down and then type them in and let me know. I also asked this next question, and I would appreciate it if you would provide me with an answer. Do you, or do you not, have question marks on your folders? ... View more

Let's stop right here. You should NOT be importing photos. If you really are importing photos, STOP. This isn't the solution. My suggestion above was not to import anything, it was to fix the links in your catalog Please clarify what you are doing. ... View more

According to this, you should have "Update Folder Locations" http://help.adobe.com/en_US/lightroom/using/WSE828B644-9097-46ab-98A7-E2719BBB6647.html Do you, or do you not, have question marks on your folders? ... View more

Right-click on a top level folder in the LR Folder Panel, select Update Folder Location, then point to the equivalent folder on the external HD By the way, for future reference, if a thread doesn't cover your situation, start a new thread ... View more

fotonatur13 wrote: I have copied alle my images (one folder with all its subfolders) from my Imac-internal hd to an external drive. Now i want to use the external hd in Lightroom, and delete the internal folder. But i cant find the external hd in LRs Folder and therefore move the images. Now i am very unsure what to do. Can somebody help? Have i done something wrong in this operation? Hello, fotonaur13 This thread contains all the information you need to fix the problem, particularly (if I understand you properly) the link given by Web-Weaver in reply #1 ... View more

I don't feel at all that LR is aimed at professional photographers, although many LR users are professional photographers. I myself am not a professional photographer, and I would bet there are a lot of experienced LR users who are NOT professional photographers. LR does require a certain amount of learning, and we joke in this forum about whether or not new users should be forced to sit through tutorials on how to use LR before the LR will actually work. If a photographic novice's goal is to download the software and then begin cranking out beautiful images on day 1 without any learning, then this is not the software for that person. In your case, whether you are speaking of photo (singular) or photos (plural), it seemed like your question indicated that you didn't drag the sliders and see for yourself which one would give you the result you wanted. It would have taken 10 seconds of your time. I guess that's my problem. As an anecdote, when LR4 was first released, I was all excited to learn about the new processing engine, and to see what it could do for my photos. So I tried to find some videos showing the difference between LR3 and LR4, specifically showing how to obtain higher image quality using LR4 compared to LR3 on the same photo. Maybe there are such videos, but I failed to find them. What I did find were videos that showed, for example, let's drag the whites slider to the right, and see what happens. Then, they showed what happens when you drag the black slider to the left. Thanks, video-maker, I could have done that myself. In my opinion, you wasted my time. Its as if you wanted to be a carpenter and make cabinets and tables, and all you could find were videos showing how to use each tool independently, but no videos showing how you put all of these together to make stuff. So, I started trying to work with LR4 myself. Like Rob Cole, I spent a lot of time working on it, and reworking on it, and I figured out a lot of stuff. Then Rob wrote his tutorial, and lo and behold, I had figured out a lot of what he had written ... but there were also things in his writings that I hadn't figured out. And I'm still learning. I don't claim to know or understand everything in the develop module, but I am very pleased with the way my images look so far, especially compared to earlier versions of LR. So, I have a bias towards action and experimentation. Especially with LR, where your edits are non-destructive, you can easily try things and see what they do. If you still don't understand, then, in my opinion, that's the point in time to ask questions. ... View more

I don't think you need to apologize for asking questions (although you did hijack this thread). The idea of asking questions in the forum is fine, especially for things that aren't obvious, like "what's the difference between highlights and whites?". But for things like "what slider should I use on this photo?", it does seem to me that asking in the forum isn't the best way to go. ... View more

Both highlights and whites will make your whites more white. I would probably start with using "whites", if that's your goal. I get the feeling — not just in this post, but in other posts — that you are looking for the definitive answer, the solution that everyone (except maybe you) knows is THE RIGHT WAY to do this. There is no definitive answer. You do what you need to do to make the photo look good to you. And this isn't rocket science either — there's no reason you can't experiment and get your own answer. In less time than it took you to type the post above, you could have seen how the two sliders affected your image. (And by the way, there may indeed be some situations where you use "highlights" and other situations where you use "whites") ... View more

I've been attracted to Lightroom because of it non-destructive elements (mainly for cropping etc), and it cataloging features. My issue though is feeling very uneasy using the basics panel, because i always feel like i'm not quite doing things right (adjust this slider, then that one then needs adjusting & so on and so on (so confusing, and hit and miss)). There's nothing wrong with this (either the feeling uneasy part, or the going back and adjusting other sliders). Eventually, I suspect you will get to the point where you no longer feel uneasy, and your need to go back and adjust sliders that you previously adjusted will decrease. Please note that in the link to Rob Cole's develop instructions that I posted earlier, he clearly indicates that sometimes you will need to go back and re-adjust certain sliders, and that is my experience as well. You are faced with a tradeoff ... additional work and additional time to use the levels tool in PSE, or additional work on each photo in LR (which should be reduced over time as you get more comfortable with LR). I can't make that tradeoff for you, but it seems to me you are headed down a path where EVERY photo will have to be sent to PSE, instead of heading down a path where this step will not be necessary, and I would hope you give up this insistence on using the levels tool in PSE (because LR can indeed accomplish the equivalent). But its your choice. ... View more

Pbeck1 wrote: Bit confused. All my photo's are Jpegs (yes i had 1 or 2 raws, but i corrected any major over exposure problems and kept only finished Jpeg versions. Normally i discard any Raws straight away and keep just the Jpegs, as i feel they are good enough already to work with). When i right click on a Jpeg in the Library in LR one of the options is "edit in photoshopshop elements". When i choose that i get options come up asking me if i want to edit a copy or edit the original. If i choose edit the original for example, the original is opened up in PSE but it's opened up as a Jpeg, not a Tiff. It's saved as the Jpeg too. Okay, I assumed that your originals were raw. I was incorrect! Thus, you are correct, no TIFFs are involved, just JPGs. Everything I said about the other drawbacks above still is true. Plus, you are introducing a JPG save in the process now, which of course results in a small decrease in quality, and a 2nd JPG for every photo you edit using this procedure. One other point ... JPGs are 8 bit, but when you edit them in Lightroom, 16-bit arithmetic is used, and I have seen examples of how 16-bit arithmetic on 8 bit JPGs produces better results than doing the equivalent operations with 8-bit arithmetic (which is what levels in PSE would be using). ... View more

1) Is this a viable method than can be used to enhance an image? Depends on what you mean by "viable". Yes, you CAN do this, but should you do this is another question entirely. It sure is a lot of extra steps and waiting time for each photo just to get a "proper levels tool". And while I can't speak for Rob, he did produce a very detailed an excellent summary of how he edits photos in Lightroom, which does not include this exiting out of LR4 to use a "proper levels tool". Plus, most Lightroom users gets extremely good results without this "proper levels tool". A major drawback is that you now are creating a 16bit TIF for every photo you want to edit. Can I send the image to Photoshop Elements at any time, i.e. does it have to be sent to Photoshop Elements 1st before anything is done to it in Lightroom, or can things like the non-destructive cropping and healing be done 1st in Lightroom and then the image still be sent to Photoshop Elements at any time for the levels to be corrected? Yes. However, at the point in time that you choose to send the photo to PSE, your non-destructive editing ends. Anything you do after that has a "destructive" step in Elements ... View more

I would think the easiest thing to do is to move the photos from your SSD to your HD. You do this INSIDE Lightroom, in the Folder Panel, select the Pictures folder and then drag and drop this folder to the HD. Problem solved. Do NOT do this in your operating system. Now your photos are on the HD, and Lightroom thinks the photos are on the HD, and everyone is happy. In the future, with new photos, put them on the HD and import into LR by clicking on Add; OR import into LR from the camera card, instructing LR to put the photos on the HD (not the SSD). ... View more

I want the full image quality of the original (which is why I am not resizing), but would also just like to keep the same PPI as the original. Okay. Again, I say keeping the same PPI as the original is a meaningless goal; one that forces you into extra work with no benefit. Somewhere in one of your replies, you mentioned that this value sets the default print size. You said the goal was to automatically size a potential future print according to the original photograph. And yet any digital image (and film negative) can be printed or used at other sizes, whether you like it or not. There's no way to prevent someone from printing the photo at a different print size, or from using it at a different size in an electronic form. Furthermore, while I can't speak for Adobe, I would expect they would ignore such a feature request on the grounds that they have better things to do to improve Lightroom. Even if you could explain it to me (or to Adobe), which I know you can't because of the non-disclosure agreement, and I (or Adobe) agrees that you have a legitimate need, I would think that this is such an extremely specialized and rare need that Adobe wouldn't go ahead and add a feature for a single customer. ... View more

Way back in the earlier parts of this thread, I asked "why are you doing this?". In your carefully formatted reply, you had a section entitled "why am I doing this", and you then proceded to explain what you are doing, not why you are doing this. What use do you intend to make of all of these exports? Saying "general usage" or "for viewing" doesn't convey your goals (at least not to me). Every photo ever taken by anyone on the planet (and on moons and other planets as well) could be used "for viewing" or for "general usage". I am guessing that you have a long-term goal on how to use these exported photos, that still hasn't been communicated clearly, that would definitely help in understanding. ... View more

I want to export the images at the same DPI as the original scans. With all due respect, this makes no sense. Although I don't know exactly how you plan to use these photos, I do get the feeling you are making things unnecessarily difficult for yourself. First of all, exports are measured in Pixels per Inch (PPI), not DPI. You can't really compare the two, its like comparing apples and cream cheese. You didn't say why you are exporting every photo. The way Lightroom works, you don't normally do that. Even if you do have a valid reason for exporting every photo (and you may have a valid reason), why do you need to resize every photo? Why don't you just ignore the image sizing (leave it unchecked), and export the entire set of pixels in your cropped photo, and then the PPI is a totally meaningless number, it doesn't matter what you set it to, you get the same image regardless of the PPI number in that case. ... View more

As I understand it, the main advantage that Lightroom has versus Photoshop and Camera Raw is the workflow features that are especially optimized for handling large amounts of photographs. Yes, I agree this is a big advantage of LR over Camera Raw. It's been a long time since I used Camera Raw, but I think another advantage is that you can create presets in LR to give you various different looks/edit settings. The cataloging/organizing/searching in LR is also much more powerful than Photoshop/Camera Raw/Bridge. Is there anything image-editing-wise that I can do in Lightroom that I can't in Camera Raw? You should be able to get the exact same results in both, as far as the final edited image is concerned. LR might get you there quicker, as discussed. How essential are the workflow options? Do you recommend I buy Lightroom? (Cost is not an issue, although I'd rather not waste 80 dollars) I can't judge what is essential to you. I do know that many people and domesticated animals who use Lightroom, including myself and my pets, make statements similar to "I don't know how I got along without it". Yes, I recommend it. But please don't go out and waste 80 dollars (although I thought the cost was much higher). Instead, download the free trial, view some tutorials, and try it for yourself. And please please please do not skip the viewing tutorials part (or equivalently reading FAQs and other beginner materials), this is where many people go wrong, because LR does not work the same way that other photographic software works. Many people just assume it works the same, or "how different can it be", or I can figure it out myself, and that is the downfall of many potential LR users. ... View more