Ianooc wrote:
There is a l aperture to Lightroom plugin available, and if you are using Lightroom 5.6 or later (I think) it may be integrated in the software.
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/10/aperture-import-plugin-now-available.html
Thanks!! The reply I wrote to lsimpkins actually applies to your link. The Victoria Bampton step by step link within your link, is excellent for anyone wanting to move photos from Aperture to LR. Thanks again.
Steve
lsimpkins wrote:
Adobe gives instructions at:
http://landing.adobe.com/en/na/products/creative-cloud/54511-aperture-switcher.html?promoid=KPNQO
THANKS! Within this link is another link to Victoria Bampton. She breaks down the Aperture to LR transfer into simple terms, that even I managed to follow (a miracle in itself). I converted one small project into its own library, and imported into LR, as a trial. It seems to have been successful! I will do this very slowly, until I get enough confidence to move my really large libraries, which I will try to also break down into smaller segments.
Thanks again.
Steve
Venser wrote:
In retrospect, I think I simply went to the individual folders and did a mass export of photos for each folder, and mass import for those same photos.
1 - Export all photos from a folder. (Command + Shift + S) If you highlight all photos in a folder, it should do this in bulk. You'll lose any adjustments made in Aperture. This wasn't a problem on my end since the only two adjustments I ever made in Aperture was crop and rotate, and that's if I forgot to do them in PS.
2 - Import those same photos into Lightroom. Again you can do multiple photos at a time.
Sorry there's no grand wizardry that's faster, but doing this allowed me to re-keyword my photos and better organize them which I put off for years.
In retrospect, I think I simply went to the indivi... (
show quote)
Thanks.
Please be patient with me. When I go to Aperture, and do "Command+shift+S" I get a drop down menu, with numerous options, none of which lists my projects in Aperture. Do you know what I am doing wrong?
Steve
Venser wrote:
I had a 12000'ish sized library and did manual export and import. One folder at a time. The plug-in linked above kept failing and I wasn't in the mood to figure things out.
Took about four hours solid, but it allowed me to some much needed bookkeeping and consolidating that I kept pushing off.
I am also looking to import my photos (about 30,000) from Aperture to Lightroom. I thought I would just keep them in Aperture, as I don't need regular access to these older photos. However, I am now concerned that Apple will "do something" and that I will lose access to Aperture, and my photos in Aperture. So, I now want to import them into Lightroom.
I also do not want to use the plug in, and I do not want to import every photo in my library. I have had success by moving one photo at a time to the desk top, and then dragging it into Lightroom, as needed. But, one photo at a time is time consuming.
After reading your post, I tried to move a project to my desktop and import it--didn't work. I then tried t import the folders within the project--didn't work.
Could you be a bit more specific as to how you imported "folders". I am not very computer literate, so if you could break down the process it would be very helpful.
Thanks.
Steve
johneccles wrote:
We have just returned from a visit to New York and Niagara Falls(Ont) we had a great trip arriving in New York on the Queen Mary 2 and travelled via Amtrak to Niagara Falls. The photo opportunities were endless and the weather was perfect.
I realise New York and Niagara are not typical of the US or Canada but the visit was worth the effort despite the attitude of ICE officials who's attitude needed some attention they were very unwelcoming making me feel like a criminal.They took mug shots and both hands were finger printed, for which privilege we had to pay $14 each.
US visitors are welcome to come into the UK FREE and I quote from the UK Gov website "You wont need a visa to come to the UK"
The other big mistake was using Amtrak to travel from New York to Niagara Falls, for the extortionate cost of $120 each we spent 11 hours covering a distance of almost 400 miles an average speed of 34 mph, on a very basic train controlled by very Hitler like guards.
Earlier this year I travelled from Paris to Avignon in France, a distance of over 400 miles in 2 hours 45 minutes, an average speed of 154 mph and at a cost of £19 ($29)
The moral of this post is that I will never use Amtrak again and if the attitude of ICE officials is the same all over the US I will never visit the US again
We have just returned from a visit to New York and... (
show quote)
First, I want to thank you for the beautiful pictures. I have been to The falls several times, and have no photos to compare with them! My wife and I love England, have been there several times, and have always been treated very well. I have family in Canada, and cross the border frequently. As an American, I have never had any difficulty. I didn't realize that non-Americans were treated so poorly. Please realize that 9/11 was a game changer. Nonetheless, everyone should be treated with respect. Don't judge Americans on the basis of this one bad experience, and please consider returning.
Isa wrote:
I have the Epson R2000 and the Dell monitor U2410 and Spider 4. It seems that the monitor is always brighter than what I print out. What to do? Datacolor Spyder4Pro S4P100 Colorimeter for Display Calibration:
http://sites.google.com/site/lomberode/Datacolor-Spyder4Pro-S4P100-Colorimeter-for-Display-Calibration
I think this is a universal problem. I know it was a big problem for me. I use an Epson 3880. At this point I have come to realize that my prints will never match what I see on screen, and I accept that. They are, however pretty close. This is what works for me: I always make adjustments (in Lightroom, Photoshop, eric.) with the monitor at about half brightness. I use the option in the printer that allows me to view a proof of how the photo will look on the specific paper I am using, and then use Lightroom to make necessary adjustments. I know it is usual to set the printer calibration temp to 6500k. But I find 5000k works better for me. Make sure your program, not printer, manages color. In Lightroom I set brightness up about 10-15, and contrast up about 5-10.
Glad to see this new forum! Printing is definitely one of my weakest areas. I look forward to reading the questions and responses; I expect I will be seeking much advice in the future.
Gobuster wrote:
The 28-300 is only 4.6 oz. heavier than the 24-120, less than 10% of the body/lens combo. The Tamron is 9.2 oz. less, a bigger difference.
I find the balance of the 28-300 on the D610 is good, I carry mine using a wrist strap and my fingers hooked into the camera grip. Also use an Op-Tech shoulder harness on occasion, hardly notice the weight.
Thanks. You make a compelling argument for the Nikon 28-300, as far as the weight issue is concerned. I looked on line, and found the Op/Tech single sling ($21.95 at B and H) Is that the one you use? I will have to order one and try it out on my present equipment. I doubt that the local camera stores will carry it, or will unwrap it for me to try out. Perhaps I can bring it along when I go to try out the cameras. Do you know what wrist strap you use?
Steve
hpucker99 wrote:
I like the 24-120. Attached is a sunset JPG I took last night.
Great looking picture. Good quality. Thanks.
I know there are different lenses involved, and it is like comparing apples and oranges, but can you make any judgement as to how this may have compared with your 60D?
Steve
cjc2 wrote:
I hate to be a party pooper, but why would one buy a D750 and then put a crappy lens on it because it would be lighter to carry around all day? Lighter than what? Lighter than a D4s and a Nikon 70-200/2.8G VR II for sure. If you really want to save weight not get a smaller camera like a mirror-less, a bridge or a point-n-shoot? The D750 is good, no, make that great, camera which demands a great lens. Perhaps a 70-200/4? Best of luck!
If you read my previous posts, you would understand why I ruled out a mirror less camera. And, as I make large prints, a point and shoot would not provide enough resolution. I will use good prime lenses for the shooting I do locally, and hopefully maximize the potential of the 750. When I travel, I take only one lens, and like it to be as versatile as possible. I understand this will not maximize the potential of the 750, but compromises often have to be made. I would rather have a shot of "lesser" quality (which will still be pretty good), than have no shot at all.
Gobuster wrote:
The 28-300 is only 4.6 oz. heavier than the 24-120, less than 10% of the body/lens combo. The Tamron is 9.2 oz. less, a bigger difference.
I find the balance of the 28-300 on the D610 is good, I carry mine using a wrist strap and my fingers hooked into the camera grip. Also use an Op-Tech shoulder harness on occasion, hardly notice the weight.
Interesting. I'm not familiar with the wrist strap or shoulder harness. I'll check them out on line, and try them out with the Nikon 28-300 before I make a final decision. Thanks.
bparr1 wrote:
You're concerned with the weight and rightly so. The photo I posted was not hand held. It was mounted on a Manfrotto 055xPROB tripod with a Feisol ball head because at 70, I'm not as strong as I was in my youth. That is a very weighty combo to be packing around. In the end, you have to be comfortable with your purchase. Given the choices above, the best I can advise is to rent both of them and see if they meet your needs.
I will be 70 on my next birthday, and can relate. I use the super zoom for travel, and don't have the luxury of a tripod. Your advise is well taken. Eventually, I will try out each lens and see which one works best for me.
Kiron Kid wrote:
Just a thought, and I'm not dissing anyone here. But why spend all that money on a body, and then skimp on image quality with one of these "super zooms?" Is it just a matter of taking only "record" shots, and the best possible image quality does not matter? Is it because a couple of much nicer and faster lenses are too much to haul around?
Like I said, I don't care how others choose to shoot. I'm just curious as to the mindset here.
Thanks
I use the super zoom for travel. It is the only lens I take.I find the wide range of focal lengths very helpful when a quick shot is necessary. I don't always have the time or the opportunity to get close enough to a subject, or to set up the subject. The super zoom allows me to get the shot. Hauling around several lenses is not practical when I travel, and I do not have the chance to change lenses to the best quality glass for each shot. It is not a matter of a "record" shot; it is a matter of getting a shot of somewhat lesser quality or not getting the shot at all. The former can often be corrected in post processing, the latter leaves me with nothing.
bparr1 wrote:
I have the set up you are questioning: D750 and a Nikon 28-300. The photo is sooc. One picture is worth a thousand words. Decide for your self if its' what you are seeking.
Your photo and that posted by gobuster, both taken with the Nikon 28-300 look to be of very good image quality. The weight is of concern to me. If not for that, it would be a no brainer. Because of the weight, the Tamron 20-300 and Nikon 24-120 are still in the mix. Although I prefer the versatility of the longer zoom. This will be a difficult decision.
GEEJAY wrote:
NIKKOR 28-300,on my D800 is my walk around lens.
It is a heavy lens. Do you find it tiring to cary it for long periods of time? Are you pleased with the image quality?