Hi All,

I believe that I am correct in saying that it makes sense to set the camera to save both raws and small jpegs when shooting wirelessly with qDSLRDashboard (small jpegs for quick viewing over the wireless connection, raws are of course for developing).

So, when importing the card to my computer, my non-timelapse workflow (when shooting still images, that is), is to get Lightroom to import both the raws and the jpegs, but ignore the jpegs when displaying photos. Edits are only applied to the raw photos.

LRTimelapse doesn't ignore jpegs though (took me a little while to actually notice this!). So, when does everyone remove those jpegs from the folder, and what method do you use? Just selecting them all in the Finder/Explorer and moving them manually, or using Lightroom to do it? (I personally have LR set up to not even show the jpegs, so that's an awkward option for me). Or do people have some way to not even import them off the card in the first place?

It'd be nice if LRTimelapse worked the same way as LR: ignore jpegs when raws are present (just more convenient, and in line with the LR way of doing things :-)

Thanks for any tips!

Chas

If you use the LRTimelapse Importer to import from your Card, it will nicely separate the JPGs from the RAWs into different folders - or - if you set the "ignore jpgs" checkbox, won't import the jpgs at all, that's what I do.

Right, that makes sense, thanks very much for the info.

btw: I've read your ebook and watched your tutorials, I don't recall seeing a mention of raws being separated from jpegs anywhere (though I might have missed it, it was a lot of info in a short space of time :-)

If LRT's import function was the equal of LR's, then I wouldn't hesitate to use it. Things that I personally greatly depend on are flexible renaming of files on import, importing to a second location simultaneously, and keywording.

May I suggest that, in future iterations of your software, that you consider letting LRTimelapse keep any metadata created by lightroom? I've been using LR for a long time now, and I always carefully keyword my imports, and LRT of course erases all that when initialising. Those keywords are invaluable when it comes to searching and organising over time.

I can do all of these manually, of course, but it would certainly add several steps to what used to be a single-step process (I think I've figured out a workflow, still making sure).

I know that software development isn't your primary occupation, and I'm sure that the zillions of development suggestions from us users can pile up, but LR has a very defined workflow, and it'd be great if we could stick to it, and still use your rather fantastic program.

Cheers!

Chas

If LRT's import function was the equal of LR's, then I wouldn't hesitate to use it. Things that I personally greatly depend on are flexible renaming of files on import, importing to a second location simultaneously, and keywording.

Those are not possible currently.
Please feel free to post your feature requests separately into the feature request forum.


Existing metadata like keywords will be kept by LRTimelapse. But of course you will have to write them to the XMP files (Write metadata from files) before starting working with LRTimelapse.

Of course, this is where I was going wrong! Thanks.

"Existing metadata like keywords will be kept by LRTimelapse. But of course you will have to write them to the XMP files (Write metadata from files) before starting working with LRTimelapse."

I'm so used to having changes automatically written to .xmp files by LR. Can you tell me why we have to turn this off?

Cheers!

Chas

This post was last modified: 2014-09-24, 19:02 by Gunther.

I'd recommend to turn it off, because LR sometimes just messes with things otherwise. Feel free to test if it works for you in combination with LRT, I sometimes have experienced weird behaviors.
Apart from that I think that Lightroom-Feature is a big performance killer.

Thanks again for the reply, Gunter.

I do a lot of work daily in LR (not all time lapses :-) and I depend on LR writing on the fly to the .xmp files. But yes, it is a big performance killer!

Before I turn it back on, though, what sort of weird behaviours did you notice? As I'm in the process of mastering LRT, I probably won't notice any weird behaviours right away, so any insight from your greater knowledge perspective would be very helpful.

Chas

Hi Chas,
to be honest I never tried it again, because I just find the specific read/write is much faster and controllable for the average user.
So please feel free to share your experiences - you won't be able to destroy anything since we are only talking about XMP data, don't worry.
Best
Gunther