Re: Lightroom (was Re: Adobe Photoshop CS3 update)

[Peter Marshall <petermarshall@cix.co.uk>]

Thanks for making that clear Gawain  - it made no sense at all before.

I think it is a fairly unusual problem, and asking LR to do something 
for which it was really not designed.  I do have a few very large files 
for printing to A1 which probably wouldn't fit, but as they didn't come 
directly from RAW files, it has never ocurred to me to try to load them 
into LR, I just work with them in PS.

Regards,

Peter


Peter Marshall - Photographer, Writer: NUJ

petermarshall@cix.co.uk      
_________________________________________________________________
> Re:PHOTO                     http://re-photo.co.uk
My London Diary                  http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere...... 


Gawain Weaver wrote:
> This size limitation seems to be the main point of conflict here, so just to
> clarify: LR only supports a maximum of 10,000 pixels in the long dimension,
> i.e. 100,000,000 pixels total. Some people (myself included) often have
> files larger than this, and the LR size limitation is VERY annoying. Of
> course, for camera raw users (who aren't stitching together panoramas) this
> size limitation is not a problem and LR is quite satisfactory.
>
> Gawain Weaver
>
>
> Peter Marshall wrote:
>
>  >NOT meant to be used by Fine Artist withfile that exceed 100000 pixel.
>
> I don't understand this at all. Most of my files in LR are 10,000,000 
> pixels or larger, no problems. The largest I use regularly are for 
> printing at 24x16", but larger files are not a problem. Your experiences 
> just don't seem to match up with mine or with others who are using the 
> software. 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1142 - Release Date: 11/20/2007
> 5:44 PM
>  
>
>