Thanks for your suggestion but it looks like SWF’n Slide can only be purchased online. I have also sent them an email to see if they have a UK distributor, but again they have not responded.
I can understand that because of past experience you may have reticence about using your credit card online but in this day and age surely you must know someone with a PayPal account that would do it for you! (Most Ebayers do)
FWIW, Snapper, I’ve been using Lighroom far more than Photoshop for almost all aspects of my photographic workflow for the past couple of years, and while it is a significant capital spend up front, it’ll save you so much time, is such a powerful image processor/ file organiser, etc, etc that it is only with some reluctance that I venture into Photoshop nowadays.
When I do it’s usually straight from Lightroom to do something like pano-stitching or HDR that Lightroom can’t do, and the round-trip is so quick and easy.
Do you print your photos? If so, you’ll find LR streets ahead of PS in terms of speed and simplicity. No soft-proofing as yet, but it’s a fully colour managed workflow.
Also it has a set of html and Flash slideshow templates in the Web module that knock spots off PS in ease of use. And you can have your own i/d plate on them if you like. There’s also a set of plugins produced by LightroomGalleries.com that are free and ever-updating…
I’m covering the cost of LR by soft-pedalling on my PS updates strategy. Used to buy them all, but no more. LR will pay for itself mostly in time saved, but also in upgrades avoided.
Recommend you download the free trial version and put it through its paces. There’s plenty of stuff online to help you, but it’s so much easier/ more intuitive than PS. No need for the guru industry with Lightroom (and I say that as one who’s taught classes in PS at my local college)
No - far from it. Bridge is a browser, LR is a database - you have to load stuff into it before it can see it. It is really first & foremost a Raw processor, though if you don’t shoot Raw it can do most of its stuff on jpegs & tiffs too (though it can’t fully undo the stuff that your camera has baked in when it makes jpegs)
But its first use is as an image ingester - enabling you to add keywords and some preset processing, camera profiles etc at the point of download from your camera card. Once your stuff is in LR, you have a series of modules - Library, Develop, Slideshow, Print, Web - to organise and process your files. In a couple of minutes you can go from ingest, through raw processing, cropping, tweaking etc to outputting web galleries and starting a print run. Unlike PS, LR is built for photographers, not designers. Like recent PS versions, it is based on Adobe Camera Raw, but the UI is completely different and much more intuitive & workflow-based. No layers & stuff - it just adds all your changes to metadata until you need to get it to render a tiff or jpeg for some external use.
I could go on, but you be best to try it out for yourself.
I down load my Raw Images from Compact Flash cards to a HD, Point Bridge at it. Add all my caption data (Meta Data) into the Raw fills. Fine tune my selection, add colour adjustments ect and then process the images to a folder or through into Photoshop for fine details change.
Sorry you’ve lost me here - can you do colour adjustments in Bridge? Do you mean you go Br>ACR>Ps, or do you have CS4 and something I don’t know about (on account of I’m cutting back on upgrades)?
Anyway, in LR you can batch any number of pics, setting WB, HSL, Clarity, Vibrance, Lens Corrections, calibaration, then putting them all in a web gallery template with your identity plate, just by clicking along the Libray, Develop, Web tabs. And like I said, printing is a breeze. Up/down-rez on the fly, no continuously accumulating file size/ wear & tear on your processor/ ram
Get the download and give it a try for 4 weeks - I’m sounding horribly like an Adobe sales rep, but I emphatically have no link to that company.
Think of Lightroom as the Freeway equivalent of Photoshop It’s
faster, easier and more intuitive to use than PS, for a photo pro, PS
being more of a design and creation tool. As LR also maintains a
complete database of your images, on and off (i.e. CD/DVD collections,
etc.) your Mac, it enables you to find everything quickly and have a
logical workflow to output as files, in print or on the web - all in
one application. (Apple’s Aperture does much of the same, but (as far
as I know) lacks the direct hooks into PS) Which one you choose is a
matter of personal preference).
I am not a true photo pro, but do carry out some commercial work (when
the client’s strapped for cash and would otherwise want to use his own
happy snaps!) and I use LR for all basic manipulation of images,
leaving PS for the fancy stuff. I also use use SWF 'n Slide Pro for
web slideshows, when these are needed.
HTH Colin
On 14 Jan 2009, at 23:21, Brian wrote:
Bridge does not have the power of Lightroom when it comes to editing
images.
I’m a pro photographer and since i started using LR 95% of my work
is done there. I hardly ever open PS anymore.
I really think Lightroom is much more user friendly than either PS Elements or FW. What PS and FW have in common in all their incarnations is the UI of palettes, tools, numbers, files you need to open, save and publish/ close, etc, etc - all a bit 20th century feeling.
LR is a leap into the web2.0, C21, interactive user experience.
That and the fact it’s all non-destructive and you can use - and only have to store - virtual copies (minimal drive space), make LR feel that the world has moved on from the era when big lumbering beasts like PS ruled it. And to be able to sync an adjustment across an unlimited number of pics at the click of a switch - wow! Even setting up batching in PS always had me 1/2 an hour in a Bruce Fraser book to remember how it was done…
And I do wonder a lot about FW in this new world. There are only a couple of FW tricks I can’t get done in RW yet. My needs in web design are not huge or highly sophisticated, and like the bish-bash-bosh of template-editing in the same way I love the bish-bash-bosh of LR. It feels like the way forward for me
Lightroom is certainly the way forward for photographers. For
designers, the needs are greater and its direct links to PS and co-
operative file reading are a boon. In relation to FW. LR can produce a
well balanced TIFF or PS ‘original’ that FW will scale and optimise
surprisingly well, without any special preparation. In general, no
‘Saving for web’ and colour counting required!!
Shame neither of us are on commission, though, with all this praise!!!
Colin
On 15 Jan 2009, at 13:48, Jim-St wrote:
LR is a leap into the web2.0, C21, interactive user experience.
Sometime around 15/1/09 (at 08:48 -0500) Jim-St said:
LR is a leap into the web2.0, C21, interactive user experience.
This is a fun thread, but Lightroom is a very different animal from
Photoshop in ways that don’t really help comparisons. It is at heart
an image file management tool whereas Photoshop is at heart a
heavy-duty bitmap image editing tool. There’s no real 20th/21st
century competitive-style thing there! (I might use Lightroom to
process and manage my photos, but I wouldn’t use it to really work on
them in any serious sense - just tweak & optimise them.)
Lightroom, and Aperture for that matter, are both designed for a niche market with the professional digital photographer in mind. They both organize catalogs of photos and have adjustment tools for tweaking the digital files as is important in professional photography.
They also both output html photo galleries. This is a secondary to what both programs are designed to normally do. This functionality is intended to save time, which it does. But, it is not necessarily the “best” way to do this.
What exactly does “best way to make a photos gallery” mean? If “best” to you means no brainer one button click easy and accept pre-designed templates, ok. If “best” to you means full control over every aspect of the process, then the answer seems to be no for both of the above products.
I have delayed answering while trying to look in to different options and stop my small brain from spinning at the thought of getting into Java Script.
Firstly, I have ordered Lightroom 2 so that I can give SlideShowPro a spin, ok it is the more expensive option, But I like the galleries that it has.
Can someone give me a quick run down on what I need to do once I have exported a SlideShowPro gallery please.
Secondly, Just to please Robin. lol
I have down loaded the demo of Mootools.
I have to say that the instruction manual leaves a hell of a lot to the imagination. A walk through of creating a slide show would be helpful.
The installation of the action was simple. But I was wondering where to go from there, because the instructions manual made no sense to me because it didn’t tell me how to do anything. it just seems to waffle tech talk.
Where do I store the pictures? do I have to up load them as well? or will the mootools action grab a copy for its self?
Can someone please explain in simple talk how I use the Mootools to create a gallery.
Hi … sorry late to this thread but I use the “simpleviewer” script straight out of Photoshop and then iFrame the generated microsite back into the main site … howlingbasset.com/mywedding/Ruth-David
… it’s a thought?
I know this is an older thread… .but I have mootools and I downloaded the instructions. I guess the chlorine has hit the brain… is there any more specific instructions on how to create this… this is the look I want on my daycare site.
with the link to start it… like the link below has…
The MooSlideshow was used on this site which I made for my daughter’s
business. It was very easy. I’ve used DropWatermark for the
watermarks, but don’t have them uniform size as yet. The Slideshow
was used on every gallery topic.
It’s