![]() So all the hours you spend on facial tagging, and staring etc are basically wasted if you ever decide to go to a non-picasa world. While Picasa does support some XMP keywords/tags there is no standard output (that I could find) for your "Star Rating", crops or Facial recognition information. Your hard work goes in and nothing comes out. With LR any of your metadata is exportable as XMP data either into the file itself (jpeg) or as a sidecar. The second thing that killed me was how non-standard Picasa is with metadata and that there is basically no interoperability with any other program. According to picasa you are supposed to do a backup/restore when you do that, but it's a slow PITA and will probably fail 1/2 way through it. This will be highlighted if you ever move computers. Picasa has a database, but it won't tell you about it and there is no (easy) way to move it around. LR calls it a catalog, lets you have a bunch of them and easily move them around. ![]() What killed me on Picasa was the way they treat their database.īoth picasa and LR use a database. I'm a former picasa user but I moved to LR. Also that one physical image may be represented inside LR as several different, separately editable database entries - virtual copies - which is an economical and efficient way to explore variations and versions of your processing. If you go and open the starting image by other means, you will accordingly not see the LR edits - since everything done has been completely reversible and nondestructive. The LR term for getting to this point, is "importing" - an administrative matter, but not any kind of a physical change to the image file itself. This makes everything very fast and flexible but only for images which are represented in the LR database. The pictorial results of these adjustments are not separately saved to the image file itself, but occur on-the-fly as needed (for printing, or for saving out new JPG version for the web, or whatever). However, a preview of this is separately saved by LR for speed of working. Each image is given organisational tagging and also visual ("develop") adjustments which are stored in the database. The images stay where they are, and the database merely tracks them and displays them inside the LR environment. Lightroom does not "copy or move the images into its own image database on disk." I've heard that Lightroom does it in the latter manner - namely it maintains its own image database. I know Picasa organizes in the former manner. ![]() Or it copies or moves the images into its own image database on disk. Simply catalog the images it finds on your hard drive(s) and leaves those files where they are. Your milage may varyĮssentially organizers work one of two ways. I see no adavantage for me in using Lightroom, and The organizer that comes with Elements is terrible. I think Picasa is more than adequate for my needs. Picasa is also handy if I want to email a photo quickly as it works with me gmail account and it also is good when I want to post to a picasa web album. Zoner is a very nice as a viewer but Picasa has better search features. I can move or delete files in Picasa and windows keeps up, same with zoner. All my organizing is done with Picasa or Zoner or even in windows sometimes because they all keep track of the files. For the same reason I don't use bridge with cs2. I do not use lightroom or the oraganizer in ps elements for organizing because they don't play well together. I prefer to edit jpgs in photoshop as well. I really don't use lightroom much, when I work on RAW files I will generally use photoshop. I have lightroom ver 3, picasa, photoshop elements, photoshop cs2, and a viewer/organizer called Zoner photostudio.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |