October 2012 - Digital Group - Lightroom, Browsers, SSDs

Meeting Notes March 2009 to 2018.
Post Reply
spb
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:04 pm

October 2012 - Digital Group - Lightroom, Browsers, SSDs

Post by spb » Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:09 pm

NEWS

- Security vulnerabilities in Photoshop CS have been fixed in CS6 but were only fixed in CS5 after protests - thanks Adobe once again!
- Kodak have finally exited from consumer imaging, now leaving only film, inkjets and patents in the business.
- The Mars Curiosity rover was specified in 2004 and as a result only has a 2Mpx camera!
- Sony is investing in troubled Olympus but, in fact, made a much bigger loss itself last year.
- Photoshop Elements 11 is due out any day soon but the press release struggles to identify any meaningful new features. Worthwhile if you don't have Elements 10 perhaps.
- Google has engulfed and devoured Nik software probably to get their hands on Snapseed. The photo editing app. They have also acquired Instagram the popular social media photo app.

SOLID STATE DRIVES

Conventional spinning hard disk drives (HDDs) are gradually being eclipsed by Solid State Drives (SSDs) which have no moving parts and use the same technology as USB memory sticks. They are typically used for the C: to store the operating system and all the applications, where their rapid access time is very beneficial. Windows starts up in about a minute and Photoshop takes about five seconds on my desktop. Although they are only options on many new computers, Apple increasingly rely on SSDs in many of their Macs and they have now hit the mainstream.

On the downside, they are about ten times the price per GB of HDDs but a relatively small C: of 60GB or 120GB is sufficient to give the benefits. Bulky files, data, images etc should remain on one or more HDDs. Another issue is that the number of write cycles for each bit of storage has a finite limit. This has increased in recent years from around just 10,000 to around 1 million but tasks that involve continual data change should be pointed to the HDDs. A lifespan of many years should be easily achieved if a few appropriate tweaks are made to the operating system settings. SSDs typically have warranties of 3 or 5 years so early failure is clearly not expected. The firmware that controls the SSD ensures that any continually changing data does not 'wear out' one area of the disk.

Having said that, my first SSD (OCZ Vertex 2 120GB) failed this summer catastrophically, after only 18 months. It was eventually replaced under warranty but by then I had purchased an Intel 520 Series 180GB SSD. I believe that the underlying cause of the failure was either a fault in the SSD firmware or the motherboard driver. Nevertheless there's no going back to HDDs for my C: drive! The benefits are too spectacular.

In conclusion I would recommend considering an SSD for your next computer but make sure that it comes with a long warranty and that it is set up appropriately. As always you must backup your data. Recovery from a catastrophic loss of your C: becomes relatively simple if you have made a Disk Image on an external HDD. In Windows 7 this is very easy - just type Backup and Restore in the search box and follow the instructions for a Disk Image.

IMAGE BROWSING AND ORGANISING SOFTWARE

In the past, with modest numbers of JPG images, Windows Explorer has been sufficient for most people to browse and organise their images. As the quantity of images has increased and in particular with the popularity of raw images, Explorer has failed to keep pace and we need better tools. There are hundreds of software applications available but I have reviewed a handful which seem to have a good reputation. The software falls into two broad categories; Browsers and Databases.

IMAGE BROWSERS

I require an image browser to do the following;
- thumbnail and preview all image types quickly including raw images
- bulk re-name and re-size images
- automatically rotate images to match the original orientation of the camera
- create a simple full-screen slideshow
- recognise embedded colour profiles and display images correctly
Extra facilities such as the ability to perform simple image corrections, pick selections of images, view camera settings, and manage non-image files are beneficial if they do not interfere with ease of use.

I looked at many image browsers and here are my top four;

WINDOWS EXPLORER (free with Windows)
The Win 7 Explorer failed to thumbnail almost half of my test images. It also failed in many other areas including auto-rotation, colour management and re-naming. The poorest of all tools I looked at. Nevertheless it remains adequate as a general purpose file manager for Windows. The add-on Codec Pack made a slight improvement in raw image thumbnailing.

ADOBE BRIDGE (free with Photoshop CS) - Windows and Mac
Providing good features in all areas, Bridge may be sufficient for your needs if you already own any recent version of Photoshop CS. The only significant shortcoming is bulk re-sizing, for which you will need to use CS itself. Bridge is also slow to load and cannot be purchased without Photoshop. *RECOMMENDED FOR CS USERS*

XNVIEW (free download) - Windows and Mac
This application has developed from a program which could convert between a bewildering number of different file formats. Most of us will not need this capability at all but XnView also provides everything that we could want in an Image Viewer. It is maybe a little too complex and it is not the fastest at loading a directory of images. *RECOMMENDED FOR MAC USERS*

FASTSTONE IMAGE VIEWER (free download) - Windows only
This is an attractive application that appears to excel at everything I require in an image browser, without unnecessary complication. One limitation is that it does not show non-image files at all, so it cannot be used as an Explorer replacement however the author might argue that this was never his remit. This has been my default image browser for over two years * RECOMMENDED FOR WINDOWS USERS*

IMAGE DATABASES

You will know when you need an image organiser/database. You will have thousands of images, you will need to to quickly find specific images based on keywords, you will need to regularly create subsets of images for albums, blogs, shows etc. you will probably be highly organised by nature or possibly a professional photographer. Alternatively you may be drowning in chaos with images in random folders, directories or external disks and you need help! In all of these cases a simple Image Browser, as above, will not be enough.

Typically when you first open an Image Database it will be empty. It is necessary to import images from specific folders or drives to build the database (or catalogue) which is a characteristic of these applications. This database will contain thumbnails, image modification instructions, pick lists, selections, tags and ratings. You will probably invest a lot of time in populating this database because it will be the reference manual for all of your images. Conversely this catalogue will have to be maintained, stored and backed-up and if you move images around using other applications you will probably have to tell the database where to find them again. Typically Image Databases only manage images and will not recognise non-image files at all. If you adopt a different Image Database program in the future it is unlikely that the database can be converted.

Here are three good ones;

PHOTOSHOP ELEMENTS ORGANIZER (free with Photoshop Elements) - Windows and Mac
This has been bundled with Photoshop Elements for many years. It has comprehensive, if basic, facilities. Also for the Mac since Elements Ver 9. *RECOMMENDED FOR ELEMENTS USERS*

ADOBE LIGHTROOM (£90) - Windows and Mac
This has become the must-have image database for those who take and process large quantities of images. More than just an organiser, Lightroom simplifies the process of converting Raw images in bulk. The professional photographer's essential application, Lightroom will probably be bundled with CS in future versions. See below for more on Lightroom.

PICASA (free download) - Windows and Mac.
Part of Google's bid for world domination, Picasa starts by cataloguing all of your images (whether you want it to or not). Facilities are fairly basic in comparison to the others here but it scores heavily when offering external links to on-line services and social networking sites. I can see that this would be attractive to the non-enthusiast digital camera owner who simply wants to find, organise, tweak, print and share their images. *RECOMMENDED FOR NON-PHOTOGRAPHERS*

MORE ON LIGHTROOM

Now at Ver 4.2 (or Ver 3.6 for XP and 32bit Operating Systems), Lightroom has become the default image organiser, capable of importing, sorting, cataloguing, keywording, comparing and showcasing large numbers of images. It is thus described as a workflow tool, but it can also make overall and localised adjustments to exposure, colour, contrast, sharpening, effects etc. as well as crop and print. It is inherently non-destructive, saving all work as a list of actions and never changing the source image data. However you do need to put some thought into your catalogue(s) - where stored, whether to include all or just some of your images, backup and management. Catalogues can become of significant size quite quickly and some people choose to only include current projects, deleting them later.

By comparison Photoshop/Photoshop Elements are the world's default image editors, capable of making changes to precise image components down to the bit level. Complex image manipulations, combinations and distortions are possible and you are literally only limited by your imagination - or more likely by your skill, as it has a steep learning curve. It is also inherently destructive to image data although this is not a problem with good working practices.

There is a clear and deliberate dividing line between these two applications; Lightroom cannot make detailed edits to images - it has no selections, layers, filters, clone tool - indeed few tools at all. It cannot combine separate images. Conversely Photoshop is a single image editor and cannot process images in bulk, except via actions or scripts.

There is much angst amongst photographers over whether they should be using Photoshop or Lightroom or both. Here are some typical scenarios;

LIGHTROOM IS GOOD FOR;
- batches of images under similar lighting conditions requiring adjusting together
- album or slideshow production, social media
- filing, keywording, mapping or cataloguing large numbers of images
- users who prefer to create images 'in camera' and not by post-processing
- users who don't 'get' Photoshop or can't cope with it's complexity

PHOTOSHOP IS GOOD FOR;
- detailed image manipulation of single images
- merging of image components from different source images
- people who have already mastered Photoshop and are comfortable with it's complexity
- anyone who spends more than a few minutes on an image
Photoshop users will also need to manage their images. They may maintain them in named folders and hierarchies in a personal filing system independent of any database but they would benefit from a browser such as Faststone or XnView to view and sort them.

Of course, there is nothing to stop users from employing both Lightroom and Photoshop as they can be quite tightly integrated, however this becomes a more expensive solution.

PHOTOSHOP CS vs. PHOTOSHOP ELEMENTS

The other source of angst is whether confirmed Photoshop users should be using Photoshop Elements or vice-versa.

With the increasingly aggressive Adobe pricing policy, my view is hardening that everyone should use Photoshop Elements - especially all new users - except;
a) people who have grown up with Photoshop CS and have it in their blood
b) people who really do need the few extra tools CS provides (Puppet Warp, Vanishing Point, 16 bit colour, Warp Tool). Note that all other CS features and capabilities can be added to any version of Elements via Elements+ for £7. A bargain.

Most people who use CS don't actually seem to fit into a) or b) above. Many simply feel that it must be better because it costs £600 vs £60, or they only have it because they didn't pay for it. I would argue that they should consider Elements anyway because it has been designed to demystify the process of image editing whereas CS is intended for the professional and makes no concessions to learners. Necessary upgrades for Elements (to accommodate new cameras for raw files) are also far more affordable.

Cheers, Steve.

Scott Taylor

Re: October 2012 - Digital Group - Lightroom, Browsers, SSDs

Post by Scott Taylor » Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:12 pm

Hi Steve

Thanks for this, very useful. There were some helpful tips on backing up, hardware and software, during the meeting; if you get a chance, would you mind putting together some notes, please?

There was also talk about the limitations of Elements 10 and the fact that it cannot handle 16 Bit images. I'm a complete novice so I can't comment on it but there is a video by Mark Galer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA2_pEg-8pQ) which shows how to edit in Elements 10 using 16 Bit images.

Yours

Scott

spb
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:04 pm

Post by spb » Sun Oct 28, 2012 5:32 pm

a
Last edited by spb on Tue Nov 06, 2012 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

spb
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:04 pm

Re: October 2012 - Digital Group - Lightroom, Browsers, SSDs

Post by spb » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:22 pm

Scott,

On the subject of backing up, there are many different strategies but personally I treat my important data and my applications differently. All of my important data (documents, images, music etc) is stored on a separate internal HDD disk (D: or E:) in a small number of top-level folders. These are periodically synchronised to matching folders on an external HDD using SyncBack Free . By so doing, the backups are in plain sight and not encoded or compressed. This strategy includes emails, addresses, browser favourites etc which, depending up on the applications you use, may need to be told to store this data in a location other than their defaults.

My operating system and applications are stored on C: a Solid State Drive (SSD) which is exceptionally fast but has failed once catastrophically and therefore not to be trusted! In the event of failure I could re-load everything from disc but it would probably take a day or two. My C: is backed up by means of a System Image onto the external HDD. This is a bit-for-bit copy of the C: I use the Win 7 Backup and Restore feature which is very easy to set up and worked flawlessly when the SSD failed. I was up and running again in half an hour, once I had replaced the drive. Other popular commercial applications for creating system images are Acronis True Image and Norton Ghost.

Other than that, I rely on products such as Microsoft Security Essentials, AVG Free, Malwarebytes , Ad-Aware and CCleaner all of which are free and have proved reliable and successful (touch wood!) over several years.

I can't say this too often - HDDs and SSDs will all fail, it's only a matter of time. The Mean Time Between Failures of a conventional HDD is usually quoted at between 3 and 5 years. If your data is never backed up, you WILL lose it all sooner or later.

Cheers, Steve.

Scott Taylor

Re: October 2012 - Digital Group - Lightroom, Browsers, SSDs

Post by Scott Taylor » Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:12 am

Steve

Inspired by your meetings, I am trying out Lightroom. I have tons of questions, most of which I'm sure I'll figure out but I'd really like some advice on setting Preferences in LR for editing in Photoshop. Lightroom seems to be nudging me towards TIFFs and ProPhoto RGB, whereas I have been using PSDs and Adobe RGB. I have spent quite a bit of time stumbling down blind alleys through ignorance so I'd apreciate any comments on which to go for and what compromises I am making.

I know I probably can't see all the colours/detail available, and my skills are certainly not up to making the most of them, but I take the view that I might as well have them if they're there.

Yours

Scott

spb
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:04 pm

Re: October 2012 - Digital Group - Lightroom, Browsers, SSDs

Post by spb » Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:07 pm

Scott,

I would welcome others' opinions but PSDs and sRGB have served me well and I see no reason to change. TIFFs are more popular with the Mac community as a universal format. If you are an PC user, PSDs do everything you need. Adobe RGB and ProPhoto colour spaces give you lots more colours - none of which I have ever been able to see in tests that I have done with domestic printers and screens. They also bring serious issues of compatibility with non colour-aware software such as our competition software (and the entire internet, for that matter).

Keeping it simple works for me - set the camera and software to sRGB, edit in 8 bit colour and then use PSD and where appropriate, JPG. This may be a controversial view but has been backed by couple of expert visiting guest speakers to the club. One concession to quality is to capture Raw files in camera for images that may be of competition potential but even these are set to 12 bit compressed rather than 14 bit uncompressed Raw in order to make major file size savings.

The colour space issue is discussed in more detail in a downloadable paper 'Achieving Consistent Colour' on the Digital Group page of the APS website.

Cheers, Steve.

Scott Taylor

Re: October 2012 - Digital Group - Lightroom, Browsers, SSDs

Post by Scott Taylor » Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:42 pm

Steve

Very prompt and helpful!

Thanks

Scott

Post Reply