After Editing in LR which viewer ?

justa1972

justa1972

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,188
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello

After editing your photos what viewer do you use to show people your lovely snaps ?

Do you just use Lightroom ? I find LR a bit slow for viewing so wondered if anyone used anything else ? I use a mac so must be mac friendly :)

thanks
 
thanks but thats not mac friendly - anyone else ?
 
Perhaps the image file size you are using is affecting the speed of display in LR.
Have you considered the effect on the speed of viewing in terms of the size, resolution and colour space of the "snaps" you have exported? The resolution required should match the monitor used for display. Apart from these, also make sure you have enough RAM memory and don't try and run too many applications at the same time.
 
Photo mechanic, that I'm aware of there isn't any software which does it quicker
 
charleyboy14 said:
Photo mechanic, that I'm aware of there isn't any software which does it quicker
Click to expand...
Photomechanic is very fast for sorting multiple images using the embedded jpegs prior to importing to LR for editing. These images have already been imported and edited.
 
BrynBoru said:
Photomechanic is very fast for sorting multiple images using the embedded jpegs prior to importing to LR for editing. These images have already been imported and edited.
Click to expand...
Yes but as a way to display edited images, its great, much better than lightroom
 
charleyboy14 said:
Yes but as a way to display edited images, its great, much better than lightroom
Click to expand...
Good for photo journalists but at something like $150 a bit of overkill, especially when LR is pretty fast enough for "snaps" if the OP attends to the points I listed earlier.
 
BrynBoru said:
Good for photo journalists but at something like $150 a bit of overkill, especially when LR is pretty fast enough for "snaps" if the OP attends to the points I listed earlier.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree wholly just assumed $ wasn't a factor
 
I export my finished Jpegs from LR [on external drive] to iPhoto and use that to show them either on my iMac or via Apple TV to the plasma in the lounge.
 
Deckard said:
I export my finished Jpegs from LR [on external drive] to iPhoto and use that to show them either on my iMac or via Apple TV to the plasma in the lounge.
Click to expand...
I've just tried a test slideshow using Lightroom on a 27inch iMac, with a stack of images up to 2.5MB each and I see no problems with speed settings for slide times and fade times of 1 second. Why in that case is there any need to export to iPhoto, which, compared to LR is one of the worst bits of software ever to curse the Earth.:)
 
Lol! Soon to be replaced with plain "Photo" in OS X Yosemite. I only use it as a photo browser but it allows me to stream photos remotely to my Apple TV as mentioned and also sync selected events to my iPad to take out and about if I fancy, I can't do either from LR directly, nothing to do with speed.
 
Deckard said:
nothing to do with speed.
Click to expand...
You said you found LR a bit slow and I've tried to offer you some reasons. So I'm not sure where you consider the problem lies. Adobe and Apple TV probably don't interface well, if at all.
I also use an iPad through Apple TV to a big screen, but rarely do I want to do that. I would export my images from LR to a suitable folder with a small enough file size, which can then be imported into iPad "Photos".
I don't see LR as a vehicle for displaying snaps but it's not a problem to show them as fast as anyone can reasonably expect, on an iMac, as I've said earlier.
 
BrynBoru said:
You said you found LR a bit slow and I've tried to offer you some reasons. So I'm not sure where you consider the problem lies. Adobe and Apple TV probably don't interface well, if at all.
Click to expand...
No I didn't mate, look at my posts. I'm not the OP.
 
thanks for all replies but I've solved it my following this advice

Just in case.... have you created full-sized previews for these images.



In Library mode, if you go to the "Library" tab and select "Previews -> Build 1:1 previews" for those images you want to view, that bit of hesitation before a sharp image pops on the screen can be reduced or eliminated.
 
justa1972 said:
In Library mode, if you go to the "Library" tab and select "Previews -> Build 1:1 previews" for those images you want to view, that bit of hesitation before a sharp image pops on the screen can be reduced or eliminated.
Click to expand...
Solving one problem may create another! If you do this you will force LR to build 1:1 previews for all images selected. This is fine if you unconcerned about the Previews.Irdata file getting too big. However it is also best to free-up RAM as much as possible for overall machine speed efficiency. The size of the individual preview cache files is dependent on how you set the Preview Cache settings in the Catalogue Settings/File Handling. If you are working on a laptop, 1024 pixels is sufficient. There is no point in making the previews unnecessarily large since this will consume more HD space than is needed. Also the quality setting determines how much compression is applied, making the preview cache files more compact at the expense of image quality.
You have an option here to automatically discard after a certain designated time. You might be surprised if you check on how much space you are using for the Previews.Irdata file.
However, as per your first post, I prefer to export images as small jpgs for iPad, which is very portable and more than good enough for most people.
 
BrynBoru said:
Solving one problem may create another! If you do this you will force LR to build 1:1 previews for all images selected. This is fine if you unconcerned about the Previews.Irdata file getting too big. However it is also best to free-up RAM as much as possible for overall machine speed efficiency. The size of the individual preview cache files is dependent on how you set the Preview Cache settings in the Catalogue Settings/File Handling. If you are working on a laptop, 1024 pixels is sufficient. There is no point in making the previews unnecessarily large since this will consume more HD space than is needed. Also the quality setting determines how much compression is applied, making the preview cache files more compact at the expense of image quality.
You have an option here to automatically discard after a certain designated time. You might be surprised if you check on how much space you are using for the Previews.Irdata file.
However, as per your first post, I prefer to export images as small jpgs for iPad, which is very portable and more than good enough for most people.
Click to expand...

oh....

thanks for the reply - I have looked at the size - it says total size is 1GB, Standard Preview size is 1440 pixels, preview quality is Medium and it will discard them after 30 days.

I use a 27" iMac with a 1TB HD and 8gb of RAM - by photos take up 67 gb....

Do these settings seem right ?
 
justa1972 said:
oh....

thanks for the reply - I have looked at the size - it says total size is 1GB, Standard Preview size is 1440 pixels, preview quality is Medium and it will discard them after 30 days.

I use a 27" iMac with a 1TB HD and 8gb of RAM - by photos take up 67 gb....

Do these settings seem right ?
Click to expand...
As you are using almost up to almost a 30-inch display, I suggest you use the largest available (2048) and high quality. This is what I use, but I have 32GB of RAM. Good to dump them after 30 days also. Try it and see!
 
blimey 32gb of RAM ?!!

Does LR really need that much ?
 
I use Lightroom, turn the background dark, hide the toolbars and it's a great viewer. I don't find speed issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top