I hate Lightroom!!!!
Aug 8, 2021 16:48:12 #
Im at photo workshop in Maine. Im learning to use PS. One of the participants, very accomplished, feels the same way about LR catalog system as I do. My workflow is very simple and I have a good organizational system on my external drive. I want to ditch LR and use Bridge (browser capability) and Adobe Camera Raw. I understand It can do most of what LR can do. I don't batch edit. I also use Luminar 4 and am learning PS. Also I won't have to worry about LR losing photos or not recognizing a drive. Your thoughts? In an earlier post I thought my master photo disk was corrupted. It was an LR issue. I don't want this ajada.
Aug 8, 2021 17:32:52 #
If you are looking for people to agree with you, count me in. Use what works for you and what you enjoy working with.
---
---
Aug 8, 2021 17:47:31 #
My thoughts -
I don't use catalogers like in LR or PS. More trouble than they are worth, to me.
I use File Explorer and my photo directory structure as my "catalog".
I either double-click on an image in Explorer, having a default editor assigned to that extension, or right-mouse click and "Open With" to select an editor.
I normally don't open an editor then go looking for something to edit. I peruse the images in Explorer.
Floats my boat.....
I don't use catalogers like in LR or PS. More trouble than they are worth, to me.
I use File Explorer and my photo directory structure as my "catalog".
I either double-click on an image in Explorer, having a default editor assigned to that extension, or right-mouse click and "Open With" to select an editor.
I normally don't open an editor then go looking for something to edit. I peruse the images in Explorer.
Floats my boat.....
Aug 8, 2021 17:54:22 #
Nigel7
Loc: Worcestershire. UK.
Raptor wrote:
Im at photo workshop in Maine. Im learning to use... (show quote)
I agree wholeheartedly. The catalogue system drives me nuts.
In fairness I did learn PS back in 1998. If I were starting now maybe I'd think differently. But why start learning new software when you know PS/ACR pretty well.
Incidentally you can batch edit with Bridge and PS Actions.
Aug 8, 2021 17:59:57 #
I started with the first version of Photoshop, well before Lightroom came along. I had already developed my own photo organization system with folders. I now have the PS/LR subscription, but I've never used Lightroom. I process the RAW files with Adobe Camera Raw, and then work on them in Photoshop. I use Photoshop non-destructively by doing everything in layers.
Aug 8, 2021 18:30:49 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
I started with the first version of Photoshop, well before Lightroom came along. I had already developed my own photo organization system with folders. I now have the PS/LR subscription, but I've never used Lightroom. I process the RAW files with Adobe Camera Raw, and then work on them in Photoshop. I use Photoshop non-destructively by doing everything in layers.
Curious, do you use a cataloger or not.
Aug 8, 2021 18:58:33 #
I have no problem with Lightroom as a catalog. I don't edit in it because I'm much more comfortable with Photoshop.
Aug 8, 2021 19:53:30 #
Aug 8, 2021 19:59:00 #
I've used Bridge for many years and love it. I've tried LR and literally hate it.
Aug 8, 2021 20:02:38 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
I started with the first version of Photoshop, well before Lightroom came along. I had already developed my own photo organization system with folders. I now have the PS/LR subscription, but I've never used Lightroom. I process the RAW files with Adobe Camera Raw, and then work on them in Photoshop. I use Photoshop non-destructively by doing everything in layers.
I totally agree. Ive downloaded my free LR twice, then ulimately uninstalled it, each time wondering why anyone uses it.
Aug 8, 2021 20:36:57 #
If it makes more sense to you to waste your limited time creating complex and information-laden folders and file names instead of embedding all that same data and the time doing it inside the LR catalog, software you pay to use, well it's your time and money to use (not use) as you please.
LR lets you use the simplest folders and file names such as "YYYYMMDD <Description>" for your folders and retain the original 12345678.xxx file names, The files don't mean anything until the LR edit data is merged with the original image and "export" to a target file. Worry about renaming the files, if needed, when you export the edited version.
The effort spent trying to 'describe' the images via complex folders and / or file names just needs to instead be performed inside LR so you can find those images instantaneously via the catalog search / filtering. You don't have to remember your shooting dates, just put that descriptive data into the keywords.
The reality of using a database to access your images is you just have to behave differently. You access your images via LR, not the computer OS / file system. Use a simple file system that uniquely organizes the images and don't spend time trying to move the images around afterward. LR is much more efficient and capable. Yes, it's different. It's modern-ish. Just like LR is superior to ACR. If you don't want to use the most popular software in the industry to work smarter and faster, it's your choice and your loss (and your money).
The point is: yes, it's critical to organize and identify your images. The LR catalog is the way to do this entirely inside a searchable database, again with much more robust tools and capabilities vs the OS file system. Yes, penmanship was important. But today, your typing speed and accuracy is the relevant skill. Both are communication skills, but one doesn't really matter anymore. That's the same as the unimportance of folders and filenames in the modern LR environment.
LR lets you use the simplest folders and file names such as "YYYYMMDD <Description>" for your folders and retain the original 12345678.xxx file names, The files don't mean anything until the LR edit data is merged with the original image and "export" to a target file. Worry about renaming the files, if needed, when you export the edited version.
The effort spent trying to 'describe' the images via complex folders and / or file names just needs to instead be performed inside LR so you can find those images instantaneously via the catalog search / filtering. You don't have to remember your shooting dates, just put that descriptive data into the keywords.
The reality of using a database to access your images is you just have to behave differently. You access your images via LR, not the computer OS / file system. Use a simple file system that uniquely organizes the images and don't spend time trying to move the images around afterward. LR is much more efficient and capable. Yes, it's different. It's modern-ish. Just like LR is superior to ACR. If you don't want to use the most popular software in the industry to work smarter and faster, it's your choice and your loss (and your money).
The point is: yes, it's critical to organize and identify your images. The LR catalog is the way to do this entirely inside a searchable database, again with much more robust tools and capabilities vs the OS file system. Yes, penmanship was important. But today, your typing speed and accuracy is the relevant skill. Both are communication skills, but one doesn't really matter anymore. That's the same as the unimportance of folders and filenames in the modern LR environment.
Aug 8, 2021 21:22:09 #
I don't rename my files. Too much work. I view thumbnails in File Explorer which shows tags, comments, title, ...
I use the tags, title, keywords, comments, ... fields in the metadata, which are searchable in File Explorer.
Next trip to Acadia will be stored in
c:\Photos\Places\Acadia\2021-10
( c:\Photos\<PrimaryCategory>\<SecondaryCategory>\<optionalYYYY-MM> )
Don't need no stinkin' "searchable database".
Easy to backup also.
But, y'all do know that everyone has their own storage system/method.
I use the tags, title, keywords, comments, ... fields in the metadata, which are searchable in File Explorer.
Next trip to Acadia will be stored in
c:\Photos\Places\Acadia\2021-10
( c:\Photos\<PrimaryCategory>\<SecondaryCategory>\<optionalYYYY-MM> )
Don't need no stinkin' "searchable database".
Easy to backup also.
But, y'all do know that everyone has their own storage system/method.
Aug 9, 2021 05:53:41 #
Longshadow wrote:
My thoughts -
I don't use catalogers like in LR or PS. More trouble than they are worth, to me.
I use File Explorer and my photo directory structure as my "catalog".
I either double-click on an image in Explorer, having a default editor assigned to that extension, or right-mouse click and "Open With" to select an editor.
I normally don't open an editor then go looking for something to edit. I peruse the images in Explorer.
Floats my boat.....
I don't use catalogers like in LR or PS. More trouble than they are worth, to me.
I use File Explorer and my photo directory structure as my "catalog".
I either double-click on an image in Explorer, having a default editor assigned to that extension, or right-mouse click and "Open With" to select an editor.
I normally don't open an editor then go looking for something to edit. I peruse the images in Explorer.
Floats my boat.....
Aug 9, 2021 06:09:55 #
Lost in the back-and-forth here is the issue of how many images one is dealing with - hundreds? thousands? Tens of thousands?
As one with 50K images (so far), the points @CHG_CANON made are spot on - when I take, literally, thousands of shots at a rodeo or roller derby game, the ability to a) rename and review them and b ) find them at some future point in time without resorting to an overly complex (and impossible to maintain) "system" of file folder names etc. I'll use PS on rare occasion, but for my purposes LR has the functions I need. Feel free to view my website to see if my results are decent.
Meanwhile, none of the "PS/crazy folder naming" "systems" can allow you to pull up all the photos in the system that show Uncle Bill's face (or whoever's), something I in fact have used on occasion.
But again, that's me. For those who insist cataloging software is too clumsy or complicated, I can only ask how you handle myriads of images (remember, LR, like Aperture before it, was built for event photographers who take hundreds of shots at a wedding, etc.) Unless you don't deal with myriads of images, in which case it's mot, I suppose.
As one with 50K images (so far), the points @CHG_CANON made are spot on - when I take, literally, thousands of shots at a rodeo or roller derby game, the ability to a) rename and review them and b ) find them at some future point in time without resorting to an overly complex (and impossible to maintain) "system" of file folder names etc. I'll use PS on rare occasion, but for my purposes LR has the functions I need. Feel free to view my website to see if my results are decent.
Meanwhile, none of the "PS/crazy folder naming" "systems" can allow you to pull up all the photos in the system that show Uncle Bill's face (or whoever's), something I in fact have used on occasion.
But again, that's me. For those who insist cataloging software is too clumsy or complicated, I can only ask how you handle myriads of images (remember, LR, like Aperture before it, was built for event photographers who take hundreds of shots at a wedding, etc.) Unless you don't deal with myriads of images, in which case it's mot, I suppose.
Aug 9, 2021 06:15:09 #
Lightroom's searchable data base has saves my bacon many many times. Have been using Lightroom for years and love every aspect of it.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.