But for those of us that already had subtantial "libraries," it was not a
move that would be worth the trouble. If I were doing big shoots like the
over the top 1000 image weddings that are more common today, it might be
different.
-----Original Message-----
From: SwissPace
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 11:58 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Sagelight editor
I am sure it must have the ability to link to files rather than store
them in a library, However I also had the same misgivings and keep a
copy of my raw files in my file structure and then import these files
into an aperture library (but I am sure lightroom can do this as well).
there is however no need as you can export all raw files out again into
year month day files etc..
So I wouldn't shy away from the library part as this is the greatest
benefit, I can search through my photos much quicker than any other way.
I must admit though I went with aperture because it handled libraries
better than lightroom at the time but I would think lightroom has caught
up by now.
IanW
On 18/01/2012 18:34, Bill Pearce wrote:
> In my less than pleasant experience, it must have the libraries. Some
> shots
> were lost that way, and with hours of searching couldn't find where on the
> hard drive it kept them. It's very mac-like, a common thing with windows
> these days.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|