Cameralark Loc: Torrington, CT

Lightroom, as opposed to Lightroom Classic, now has a "Local" option that allows you to browse through your local drives rather than have everything go up to the Cloud. Lightroom is included as part of your monthly Adobe subscription. It is a non-destructive workflow, as Classic, but does not use the Catalog. It seems like the answer to the prayers of those who hate the Lightroom Catalog.

My question is, when searching from it, it seems as if you have to know exactly what folder your old photos are in. It is supposed to recognize keywords and other search parameters but for me it only does so within what you point it to. Can anyone explain how you can do complete searches if you do not know what folder your image is in?

Hip Coyote

I just tested it. LR (the cloudy one) allows keywording on local photos. It also has sorting capabilities by date, etc. I had a back and forth with Matt Koslowski, Lr and Ps teacher - blogger, and we strongly disagreed on Lr vs. LRC. He thinks it is great. Me...not so much. The local side of LR does not allow albums to be local (collections in LRC). I just read that Lr allows facial recognition, but I havn't figured it out just yet. LR does not have the LRC features of mapping or photobook publishing. Any album created, even if it involves an off-line local photo, is stored to the cloud. Albums can be made avail off line but to do so, it appears that the photos are downloaded (obviously) somewhere onto the hard drive. That could balloon up hard drive usage where as local collections are simply "pointers" to where the photo is and documents/stores the collection.

I opined to Matt that this was for two reasons: 1- A catalog is needed to keep all this data together, such as collections. Without a catalog holding this data, I cannot see how LRc could accomplish collections. And more importantly, 2- Adobe stands to make more $$ from their cloud service. Amazon makes more money on its cloud storage and computing than on retail sales...something like $20 Billions per quarter. Matt poo-pood the notion of the local feature pushing people to the cloud...but I think it is obvious. Anyone who thinks there is not a profit motive for an action like this is mistaken, IMO.

I use LRC, LR mobile and LR for different purposes...mainly when I am traveling. I roughly edit pics on my iPad in LR mobile, it gets synced to the cloud (organized in an album), when I get home, I drag all the pics into my file structure on my local drive and delete the cloud pics. If I want to use some pics in Adobe Portfolio, I simply make a collection, sync it and upload to the cloud to put into Portfolio. It takes longer to type than to do.

To me, LRC is a much more robust way of handling photos. I've come to rely on collections, searching and filtering by meta data, the mapping feature, for so many projects. The plug-ins for LRC are also quite handy. I did not see a way to use plugins on the LR. In LRC, I have a plug in that allows me to query and make a report on what camera I used, focal lengths, etc. for a particular population of photos...say someone says they are going to Egypt and asks what gear to take. I can look and tell them what I used. Again, it is a 2 minute thing that takes longer to type than do.

My two cents worth...

LouieP Loc: Sebring/Avon Park, FL area

I made some of the same points Witt MATTK. I hike and take nature photos ibirds, wildflowers (hierarchical )etc, geotagging them all in the Map tool. I like to go through my total catalog, to see in which months, and where, I have seen what. Not possible in LR. I just have different needs for my photos than Matt does, so LRClassic for me most of the time. Digital Asset Managment is important to me

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

I'm on YouTube a lot for Photoshop tips and techniques, and I have a whole bunch of favorites, but Kloskowski has never been one of them for just the reason you mentioned above—he will "pooh-pooh" any opinion that disagrees with what he thinks is his vast knowledge base. Some others will engage with you like your questions and opinions are worth their time to either discuss, inform, or correct you, while Kloskowski will usually just dismiss you with a put-down. No thanks, There are lots better places to go for advice.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

I cannot answer your question, but I will say that for many of us, Bridge has forever been the answer to the hated Lightroom catalog.

scubadoc Loc: Sarasota, FL

I imagine that the local version of LR is being marketed to those new to the LR apps. It is hard to believe that the millions of people using LRC will all of a sudden switch to LR local. You will end up with two different workflows and they don’t sound too compatible, one with the other. Once one has put in the effort to reach a reasonable degree of familiarity with LRC, it is hard to think of a reason to switch.

Vanderpix Loc: New Jersey

Interesting idea about the profit motive since Adobe certainly has been doing that for quite some time starting with the subscription only model. I do wonder if they will eventually merge the two Lightrooms. Matt and his colleague, Brian Matiash, seem to think so though they differ on when this will occur, the former saying in 5 to 10 years, the latter in 5 years. I do wonder why they are pushing this agenda. Both claim not to be Adobe fan boys, but when push came to shove on a recent podcast, they dissed all the competitors. Are they fed info we are not? It was really annoying to me that their take things was not objective but there solely to push their agenda.

Cameralark Loc: Torrington, CT

Thanks for your quick responses. I am looking hard for a good reason to switch over since I understand the catalog but am frequently annoyed by it. Especially trying to consolidate and clean up folders within folders. What I would miss the most would be collections and search capabilities. Since none of you answered re a comparable way to search, I guess I am correct that it cannot do what I want it to.

For the time being I will stay with Classic and suffer the catalog.

User ID

To search your local drives use the search function of the OS. Then you will know just where to point your Lightroom editor. You might want to rename folders in a way that sorts them logically using only the OS.

I have always refused to use proprietary Catalogs, Libraries, etc cuz they are a trap. Using the OS for every need of sorting and searching liberates you from being trapped into dependenxce and entanglements with proprietary "conveniences". Such libraries, catalogs, etc disconnect the user from the basics of their computer, leaving the user adrift when trying to function outside the proprietary features of their editing apps.

Usually youll hafta diligently dig into a few menus to rediect all file saving functions to preferred local drives independent of the editors default protocol of using its own proprietary catalog, library or whatever.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

I also saw Matt’s discussion and even bought his “course” and am disappointed in him. I have always enjoyed his teaching style and learned much from him. It is true that the “local” browser interface is an alternative to Bridge plus ACR. But he gleefully predicts the elimination of the database capabilities of Lightroom Classic because he hasn’t appreciated a use for it. He joins the community of naysayers who couldn’t or wouldn’t understand a use for it even the the reason for it’s existence is to add the missing management functionally to Lightroom hence the name Photoshop Lightroom used through at least Lr 4.0. I originally bought Lr because of the database. I suspect he would dismiss my opinions as an insignificant minority of Lrs users no worthy of consideration and eventually eliminate support of Classic.

I see what Adobe is doing and don’t believe we have anything to worry about. Matt’s view of a workflow is that a shot is ephemeral and you download and either cull it immediately or post process it and either cull or prepare for viewing. Done. My photography is to record life births, family celebrations, people, places and events. And, yes, vacations (including the equivalent of the dreaded vacation slides). Subjects of interest to me not intending to inflict them on strangers. I do want to create well composed, well exposed and in focus photos without distractions. Yes, I do cull duplicates and out of focus shots but I do keep shots for which I have no immediate need. For example, photos of Loch Ness which were not photogenic just in case I were find a monster in there. Generative fill? At any rate I use the catalog and collections and I don’t find it complex at all. He like others feel that you must keep images in folders and look for them there which in not a rational requirement. You can browse collection just as you browse folders. You can have any photo appear in multiple collections where if you edit from anywhere you edit all. If you want multiple versions you can make a virtual copy without copying the large original. All features I use extensively. I would have to go through some mental gymnastics to conclude it does’t matter and at 82 I don’t do gymnastics of any kind. I used to approach Lightroom (No Class) like I approach a rattlesnake because I can’t imagine editing w/o a Wacom tablet. I do 3x1 to 5x1 panos for wide angle without motion. And I don’t see if that is included. So… I’m out.

I can’t see Adobe dropping Classic. Since the Library hasn't changed much since at least 3.0 that I know so that is zero cost to maintain. And if as claimed the develop is identical to ACR The Lightrooms should easily sync. Adobe should how many customers they would tick off that would have lawyers.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

The OS is not used to implement the data base which is SQLite a free open source compiled in under a GPL license. You can only tell who is uses SQLite if they apply for an export license but the published list is long and includes Apple, Microsoft, many Linux systems, TurboTax… the major limitation is it is single user which of course eliminates needing an IT function to manage permissions. So don’t worry about that.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

Matt also harps on the known useless web, slideshow… modules but I don’t think many use those anyway.

He also states that if you keep older functions as you update you will wind up with bloated confusing software. He shouldn’t talk about Ps that way.

If one is unable to use the catalog perhaps he shouldn’t advertise that.

Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

I also was unable to get the cloudy version of Lightroom to search my local photos. I tried using the OS, as someone suggested, and that didn't work either (it will search the name of an image but not any metadata such as keywords). Thus far, the only way I have found to search keywords is to point cloudy Lightroom to the folder the image is in. I will follow to see if anyone has a solution to your inquiry. Currently, the way Lightroom Cloud is set up, keywords are virtually useless.

Cameralark Loc: Torrington, CT

I found a very small search symbol all the way to the right of Browse. It opens a dialog box that will allow searching by keyword and it even seems to use AI to find images that are not keyworded. I did not yet try other metadata searches. I am trying to find a way to use it but it still leaves some gaps like collections and printing. I know I can print from Photoshop and use outside editors from there but it is another step in my workflow.

User ID

Correct, the OS is independent of the dB. That is why the OS is an excellent storage, sorting, and organizing engine for all our files.