tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post3193786350868348854..comments2024-03-24T08:14:10.627-05:00Comments on Glen Barrington - My Dynamic Range: Converting From Lightroom To ACDSee Pro Or ACDSee UltimateGlen BArringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-20881315354184660462019-02-23T13:11:41.569-06:002019-02-23T13:11:41.569-06:00Thanks, Glen. Very good points. You have made it ...Thanks, Glen. Very good points. You have made it very obvious that I need to do a lot more culling of my photos from past years. Many of my photos were imported into LR with presets so things could get interesting. But, as you have said, there is no hurry when working with old photos. I do have all the time in the world at this point.<br /><br />I am sure we will be talking in the future. :-)<br /><br />ArtAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12611854011840595366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-72603283134432184072019-02-22T12:50:17.699-06:002019-02-22T12:50:17.699-06:00Art, Thanks for the kind words. But I have no exp...Art, Thanks for the kind words. But I have no experience with LR6, so I'm not sure I know why Lr is creating such huge files, or just how large exported Tif files from Lr6 should be.<br /><br />However Tiff files ARE frequently much larger than their their equivalent raw and jpg counterparts. The only files I converted to tiff were the 'done' raw images (That is those that were 'done' and not already stored as a tiff or jpg in done status) Those other file formats I just imported into ACDSee directly.<br /><br />ACDSee will import your raw files quite easily, but ONLY as they looked coming from the camera. Any changes you made to them via Lr and stored those changes in the sidecar file, can not be translated into the ACDSee format. <br /><br />I recommend Tif file exports for 'done' raws because the TIF exports DO include the changes when Lr exports them, and Tif files are a lossless format generally of higher quality than jpgs. <br /><br />I would NOT export unprocessed raw, jpgs, Png, or any other file format to Tiff, JUST those raw images you consider 'done'.<br /><br />If jpg quality is acceptable to you, it is perfectly OK to export them as JPG files. That should result in a much lower disk usage. But as I said previously, the unprocessed raw files should NOT be exported. Instead just import the raw files directly into ACDSee.<br /><br />I hope this helps.Glen BArringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-47114975523583360302019-02-21T10:39:26.055-06:002019-02-21T10:39:26.055-06:00Hi Glen,
I am thinking about moving over to Ultim...Hi Glen, <br />I am thinking about moving over to Ultimate 2019 from LR 6.14 and have been looking all over the web at reviews about it and you seem to provide the most detailed information. The info that you have provided out on DP Review and here is wonderful information. My big question at the moment - you reference exporting all LR photos into TIFF format. I have about 114K photos and when I exported one photo in TIFF format at 300ppi the file size jumped from about 29MB to 113MB. In other words, my storage will go from about 2TB to 7.5TB. Is my thinking correct or am I missing something? That just seems like a huge jump.<br /><br />As a note, I had also been looking at ON1 Photo RAW because they advertised an AI conversion tool to convert LR edits to the ON1 PR database. That did not work our very well for me so I am looking at ACDSee again.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Art<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12611854011840595366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-30661996348405211612017-12-10T11:38:18.364-06:002017-12-10T11:38:18.364-06:00Thanks Glen.
RichardThanks Glen.<br />RichardBrandon Birderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03465854406364536586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-73804482887506965292017-12-10T04:32:07.014-06:002017-12-10T04:32:07.014-06:00RMWD - re Q1 yes, you can leave them in place. Yo...RMWD - re Q1 yes, you can leave them in place. Your storage method resembles mine.<br /><br />RE Q2 Yes, I do it all the time.Glen BArringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-44515208284931318362017-12-10T04:15:17.909-06:002017-12-10T04:15:17.909-06:00Hi Glen,
Thanks for this thorough explanation of m...Hi Glen,<br />Thanks for this thorough explanation of migrating from LR to ACDSee.<br />I have all my images stored in a YYYY/MM/DD FOLDER format which is created on importing into LR. I also rename the files into a yyyymmddâunique sequential index number format. So my two questions are. So I have a mixture of raw files, and jpegs exported from developed raw files in the same folder.<br />1. Can I leave my images where they are and just import them into ACDSee after writing metadata to files?<br />2. Can ACDSee ultimate import, move and rename files into my preferred structure or do I have to use Bridge to do this?<br />Thanks,<br />RichardRMWDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17949421526910164109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-32668229462510607322017-08-05T19:02:25.486-05:002017-08-05T19:02:25.486-05:00Sorry for the late reply, I just noticed this pen...Sorry for the late reply, I just noticed this pending comment. <br /><br />I have never used the Lr Conversion utility since I did a manual conversion before this was released. It can be found in the "Tools|Database|Import|Lightroom database" menu selection.<br /><br />Basically, it is a metadata conversion utility, it does not import your edits. You will need to convert the edited photos to Tif or jpg images. <br /><br />As far as I know, it does not destroy your old Lightroom database. It is pretty self explanatory, in that you point to the location of the database, and tell it to import.Glen BArringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-44155449880263096812017-02-07T19:48:07.859-06:002017-02-07T19:48:07.859-06:00You speak of a lightroom conversion utility but AC...You speak of a lightroom conversion utility but ACDSee does not mention it on their website and I cannot find much on it. Can you point me to a place where I can read up on it, how it works, and what it does?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11796307334653950713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-52787959400397844862015-08-04T19:47:53.602-05:002015-08-04T19:47:53.602-05:00One last thing: ACDSee and most of the other non ...One last thing: ACDSee and most of the other non Adobe software packages READ DNG just fine, however since they can't make use of the proprietary Development instructions that Adobe stores there, any DNG files will appear as they originally did before being imported into Lightroom. However once you develop the DNG in the new software, it will look the way you have developed it.Glen BArringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-10636401002486026942015-08-04T19:44:40.918-05:002015-08-04T19:44:40.918-05:00Unfortunately, converting to DNG won't help wi...Unfortunately, converting to DNG won't help with the conversion. While the dng format is free for anyone to use, HOW the various photo packages store their information in the dng file itself is proprietary. If you re-read the above article, particularly the sections titled, "Every NDE program is Different", and "Legal Protections". This applies to DNG as it does to every other raw format. and DNG is really just another raw format. In fact Leica and Pentax both use DNG as their native raw format. At least, they used to.<br /><br />What that means is NO ONE can legally read the development parameters Adobe stores in the DNG file (or in their database either, for that matter). and even if they could, the parameters would not make sense to the non Adobe software. There are just too many differences in how each program does things.Glen BArringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-11842353354837410512015-08-04T17:28:06.865-05:002015-08-04T17:28:06.865-05:00Yes that does seem a lot of work. I am wondering w...Yes that does seem a lot of work. I am wondering whether a conversion to .dng before import to ACDSee would do the trick as. .dng is meant to be a universal format which should broadly translate to any program. Or would you say that the settings baked into .dng are the same as those in separate car files -only readable by Lightroom? I could put up with same variation as I am currently thinking updating some images to my current processing style via using presets.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11599266605899108413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-78919245178063293222015-03-25T10:53:32.440-05:002015-03-25T10:53:32.440-05:00Personally, I suspect 'cultural inertia' w...Personally, I suspect 'cultural inertia' will keep TIF/JPG as a viable and usable photo file format for a very long time. There's a LOT of jpg images out there, and probably quite a few tifs, as well!Glen BArringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14059587483668684991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2584666562974702898.post-80614324724203687012015-03-23T13:08:10.531-05:002015-03-23T13:08:10.531-05:00Great description Glen. I particularly agree with ...Great description Glen. I particularly agree with storing as much photo data within the photo itself. This could preserve family photos for future generations (assuming TIF/JPG remains active -- while databases come and go)<br />BertIverson of DPRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com