Developing a good Photography Workflow for Enthusiasts & Artists
( Archival | Fast | High Quality | Powerful | w/o monthly payments )

 Overview

 

Page 6: Requests for Comments ( Please help if you know the answer )

In this section I post two types of Requests

Plain Question Requests

Plain Questions to which I want to save my time for research hoping that somebody already knows the answer without research and hopefully with added experience that I might lack in that topic and your experience will make the answer more meaningful. 

Musings

Talking about something we think is very interesting, but I have no clear idea about it. Musing is an invitation to a discussion on these topics to dig out its relevance and how to present it.

 

Plain Question Requests

R1: Do you know Photographic Tools which are missing in the Similar Tools Column on the Comparison Table in Page 2 ?

Please comment only on tools which you use are which capability you have seen first hand

Musings 

M1: Has Adobe rendered their own usefulness in terms of archival purposes obsolete ?

Original Question by GaryJP. Many Thanks.
When I wrote about lack of Archival Quality in my current Adobe centric workflow, it was only from my personal perspective that in case I can not / want not use Adobe SW any more, I loose all my data. I have not considered the much bigger ramifications that Gary is are suggesting. That is quite a different matter. My original take was that I made mistakes in not considering the Archival qualities of the workflow. So I can make adjustments, such as convert all RAW to DNG during import. Next I can export every finished Image as non compressed TIFF. Next I can move tagging into metadata, so it is replicated in the file in a format other Asset Manager can read. But what can I do about my retouch work in Lightroom. It is most likely stored in proprietary fashion. And even if would be standardized, other SW packages has other tools. Would this mean such kind of information can not be archival due to its nature ? What do you think ?

More thinking: We can not look into the future, say 40 years from now and see how Lightroom Archives are dealt with. We can however look how today Archives of years ago are dealt with. Let take Ansel Adams for example. Archived: ( Negative | Working Methodology | Artists Intent | Finished Print | Collections ). Not archived: The actual work on performing the print. If we transfer this to Lightroom it would mean we archive: ( Original exposure in an archival format | Artists Intent | Finished Picture in an Archival Format | Collections in Archival format ). The working methodology would be responsibility of the User and can be documented in writings, illustrations or movies, not Lightrooms responsibility. I think all this can be done and I believe Lightroom offers the tools to do so. But it requires thinking the workflow through and then adhere to it with discipline. The one thing which I have no idea on how to save would be the working instructions on the edits. Maybe we can take a page from the "Perpetual Photoshop" Article and the way to go is to put the entire Lightroom installation on a Perpetual PC. So every time one wants to access how the edit is done, one can use the perpetual Lightroom System. What do you think ?
 

Page 6: Requests for Comments ( Please help if you know the answer )