DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I believe I heard that C1 will read the LR catalog and can also use the xmp sidecar files but you can’t count on getting the same results as LR if you do.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

While the native computer file system will work for photo organization (I use it as a secondary system) it is less flexible than a database system such as LR uses. Collections allow one image to be in several different collections without duplicating the file, which you can’t do in the native system. Different edit versions of one image are virtual so you’re not increasing disk usage significantly.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I don't think that's an accurate statement. However, it is probably easier for the non-technical person to use that feature in a catalog system.

I just tried it and found that the "comments" text box in "get info" on the Mac is searchable. In addition, you can add what Mac calls tags which are both color coded and can be added by the user. It worked on raw and jpg.

In windows I recall some very nice features that could be used directly from the Windows file manager.

In fact, adding searchable words to a file in the native file system is probably less rigorous, allows a lot of user flexibility. Collections is a common concept in computer interfaces, even email systems. In effect, it's just a way of searching on non-key attributes.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

You are correct that modern folder based organization (finder, explorer) allows you to add keywords/tags, which are a big help in searching. I personally find adding keywords via explorer to be cumbersome compared to LR, although searching is a simple process. I have limited experience with Mac.

Collections are a separate way to organize images.

Not sure what part of my previous post you find inaccurate.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

You said: Collections allow one image to be in several different collections without duplicating the file, which you can’t do in the native system. (my emphasis added).

I offered evidence that says you can do it in the native file system but especially in the Mac. I don't usually do it but it's not hard to do. When I taught intro photography on a volunteer basis for "elders" like myself, I included a mini-lesson on that. I did find I could add searchable words to the file (or what the system associates with the file - which is not exactly the same thing) on a multi-file/single operation. That worked better in Windows at least for me (and I'm a Mac fanboy, self confessed).

We may not agree, but my understanding of "collections" is that it's just another name for a customized, saved search. That is something Mac and Windows do and I'd be surprised if you couldn't find a similar function in Linux/Unix/BSD. If a collection allows you to display a set of files in a single view which are factually stored in multiple paths then it is reasonable to understand that as a saved custom search even though the concept of a collection may be easier to grasp for the non technical user.

Searches on the Mac, in addition to being savable (as they are on Windows) can be refined with additional criteria and the usual operators such as equals, contains and so on.

LR uses an internal database. When I worked with databases for a living, the key(s) determined the location of a record - actually a set of locations in various tables usually defined a single "record" which in this case would be the metadata about the image file.. But that record could have many attributes and those attributes could be used in a query. My reading suggests LR uses SQLite, the very name of which connotes a SQL relational DB. https://www.sqlite.org/index.html

It may be important for the uninitiated to understand that at least for raw files, none of these store that additional data in the original file. Not the OS's and not LR and probably not any other catalog system in common use. As a result, when copying a file or set of files to another computer the additional attributes may not transfer with the files. This shows up easily when copying files to OneDrive from a Windows computer or vice-versa. I am willing to be corrected on this but it's how I understand that situation today.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Paul, I respectfully disagree, although it may depend on the camera being used. The learning curve is more gradual than LR but not as gradual as PS.

I made the switch last year and have no regrets although it was daunting at first. I believe my Sony images are better now than they ever were with Adobe.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

OK, I see what you mean. I don't generally use saved searches so I had not thought of a collection in that way. I think there are some subtle differences between a saved search and a collection in a database but your concept is probably pragmatic.



In general it's true but some people consider dng to be a raw file and the edit parameters (and an updated preview) are saved in a dng file. That means that the dng file has to be backed up after every edit, whereas the (other) raw files need only be backed up once.