![]() ![]() However, the real power of Retrobatch is the huge choice of nodes you have to put between the read and write nodes. The Write images node lets you pick a destination folder, file naming rule, image type (e.g. The scale node lets you define fixed dimensions or a longest or shortest side dimension either in pixels or a percentage of the original. A simple use case might include the nodes “Read images,” “Scale,” and “Write images.” To read images Retrobatch can use a named folder, ask at run time, or you can even save the workflow as a droplet and just drop your images on the icon whenever you need to. The application window is quite similar to Rogue Amoeba’s Audio Hijack, in that you place nodes on a canvas, then join them up to create a workflow. Retrobatch is a batch image processing tool - its job is to take a bunch of images as input, do stuff to them, and output something… usually new image files. ![]() ![]() The company with the crazy name may be familiar to you as publishers of the Acorn graphics application. This is a job for automation.Įnter Retrobatch, from Flying Meat. The last batch I processed included over 200 images. ![]() I can absolutely do all of that in Affinity Photo, but doing it consistently and repeatedly is a chore. And sometimes I want a much smaller version, which needs a slightly larger watermark, that I can put on social media platforms. I also want to put the finished image into my Apple Photos library at a smaller size optimised for a retina iPad screen. On Flickr I want a 3200 pixel wide JPEG that has my standard watermarks on it. In Luminar, I have a giant, 14 bit RAW file up to 6000 pixels wide that looks beautiful. Luminar’s immaturity leaves me with a few gaps and the one I am going to (finally) talk about now is the penultimate step of my process - getting a processed photo ready to upload to Flickr. I’ve reviewed Luminar 3 over on the Essential Apple blog. But I have fallen in love with the processing engine which allows me to get better results, quicker, than with Lightroom. Luminar’s photo library management is, let’s say, nascent. I say promised… there’s still a significant chunk of that promise to be delivered. Cost was a significant factor, but its “Adobeness,” the threat of price increases, and a “reinvention” of the software as Lightroom CC - a cloud-focused, cut-down experience that l expect will become to Lightroom Classic what Apple Photos became to Aperture - also combined to make me throw in the towel on Adobe.įortunately, at about the right time, Skylum Software launched Luminar 3 which promised to be a Lightroom competitor. Yes, I had my entire workflow built into a single tool - that’s what a professional photo management application can do.īut I decided I no longer wanted to use Adobe Lightroom. For a long time, my process was to import these into Adobe Lightroom for keywording, selection, processing, and publishing. Most of the photos I publish online these days start off as 30 megabyte RAW files. I decided recently that I had a problem which needed to be solved more effectively. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t better tools for some jobs - better ways of solving some problems. In my repertoire I have everything from simple image browsers to full-featured professional editors like Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer. That doesn’t include a few command line tools I have installed. I just had a look at the Applications folder on my Mac and over 10% of the applications - 17 of them - are what I would classify as graphics applications. It also means I have a lot of tools in my graphics toolbox. I’ve grown my knowledge of how to work with graphics as the technology itself has grown and, as a result of this, there aren’t many graphical tasks I don’t at least have some idea of how to tackle. I’ve been playing around with computer graphics since before you could reasonably display a photo on a computer screen. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |