mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Nothing you have described can not be done in LR. I'm not sure you understand that the files are not actually downloaded "in to" LR. You manage the files any way you want, any folder system you desire. The catalog keeps record of where those files are and the edits performed. They still sit on your hard drive, wherever you designated. But to not use the catalog is to walk away from the most powerful tool it contains.

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

Without the bundle you don't have Photoshop. Maybe you just don't need ALL OF the Adobe Photography bundle.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

The best part about Lr is it handles the cataloging for you AND YOU can specify where both the catalog AND backup reside. After import, I'm finished with all that stuff. My active catalogue AND my recent images reside on an attached (TB3) RAID 1 drive system and my backups reside on a RAID 1 NAS system. Things are lightning fast for me. Lr works best when used as designed, and it saves gobs of time. Best of luck.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

As others have said, there's no way to use LR without a catalog, and that isn't going to change. If the issue is that your workflow involves renaming and moving folders, that's easy if you're a LR user - simply rename and drag and drop within Lightroom.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

That's not correct. If you turn on "write metadata changes to xmp" in Lightroom's Menu->Edit->Catalog Settings->Metadata tab, the sidecar file is populated with your edits, just like On1.

I suggest you keep an open mind. Your current take on Lightroom's catalog seems to be based on a lack of familiarity with how it works, and a possible hesitancy to learning a new, better way to do what you've been doing since forever.

I experienced this initially with LR 2. I installed it on my computer. Looked at it, scratch my head, and went back to using Capture One. It wasn't until LR 3 that I decided to commit to understanding the catalog, and as a result I've been using it ever since. For what I do LR 11 is WAY better and much more efficient than trying to do it with File Explorer or Finder, or even Adobe Bridge. I manage over 150,000 images in my current catalog and thanks to Adobe's excellent DB design, there is no slowing down, despite the large number images. I am well-disciplined as far as copying, deleting or moving things, so I have no worries, and have never lost a file, even after I have accidentally deleted an entire year of folders and image files by mistake. There they were in the Recycle Bin and within a few seconds they were restored to their original locations.

Also, No issues like the ones you fear when doing file management. I am equally comfortable moving files around inside of LR as well as outside. In fact, I recently moved my entire catalog from a desktop system with an internal RAID 1+0 in one volume to a laptop, with only the past 3 yrs of files on the internal SSD, and the rest of the catalog on an external drive. Other than the time required to copy stuff from drives over USB C, it went smoothly, and it was much faster to do it at the File Explorer level than inside of Lightroom. Once the transfers were complete, I opened LR. It expected to find my images where they were in the old desktop, and showed me question marks for every file and folder. It took 3 secs to right click on the top level folder and type in the new location for the images on the local drive, and another 3 seconds to show LR where the rest of the images are on the external drive.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the catalog scheme. But don't expect it to work like a file browser, or both - like On1. I also use On1, but I stick with LR for the catalog functionality, I also still use Capture One (for images I take with my Sony cameras), and DXO PhotoLab, which has an export to LR feature that creates a LR/PS readable dng file.

In particular, I use the virtual collections to create one-to-many/many-to-one relationships, and versioning with virtual copies, without ever needing to duplicate an image file. And I rarely save jpeg final images. I submit images to social media, each of which has unique settings for submission, my website (when I maintained one), email, Flickr, print lab, my own in-house printers, client images, etc - instead of saving multiple files, I save the export presets, named for each destination, with the unique settings I need for each. So for the majority of my images, I have a raw file, a "final" psd file, and a variety of export presets. In some cases I have black and white, high key, low key and artistic variants of images.

It is certainly worth your while to reconsider using LR. It is extremely well-thought out and unlike any non-DAM solution - it ticks all the boxes.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Bridge is not a replacement for a catalog, and it does lack the simplified-yet-powerful user interface. It can neither create nor read virtual copies. Even though it can create and manage virtual collections (virtual folders, or albums in PSE), it is clunky and not close to being as manageable as in the LR catalog. Also, syncing image settings between images is easier in LR, as is importing into the catalog with an import preset, name changing/adding a sequence number, applying image filters, develop settings - automatically according to the rules you set.

Any time I use Bridge to do things that are easily done in LR I often feel like I am taking a number of steps backwards. There is nothing I can do in Bridge that I can do in LR, and there are clearly things beyond Bridge's capability.

BTW, ACR 14 is the first ACR that is no longer backwards compatible with previous versions of either PS or LR - something to keep in mind.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

You can organize the way you want and import that structure into lightroom. That's what I do.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Lightroom (Classic) is a much more sophisticated program than you give it credit.

You can let Lightroom ingest from a camera memory card to a folder it creates, and "import" your images, and it will put them "where it wants to." BUT, you may also put your images where YOU want them and have Lightroom import them from there. Just don't move any files, except from within Lightroom, or you will have the minor annoyance of finding and relinking them.

A lot of folks don't understand how Lightroom works. The Lightroom Classic Catalog is a database! It only stores metadata, or "data about data." It can also write this data to .xml formatted files with the extension, .xmp, so Photoshop can read them. Lightroom never touches your originals. It works on a copy of the data that it holds in RAM, and writes a small thumbnail file to disc. To USE files from Lightroom, they must be EXPORTED, SENT TO PHOTOSHOP CLASSIC (or another application), PRINTED, "BOOKED," PRESENTED as a SLIDESHOW, or posted to the WEB. Only at that time does Lightroom apply the changes to a copy of your original and put that "out there" somewhere.

Therefore, Lightroom cannot really exist without the catalog. The catalog is the core of the entire application and the reason it is completely non-destructive.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

The cataloging feature only imports the structure as you've already done it on your laptop or on your computer. Organize the photos the way you want on your computer then import into Lightroom. It is an indestructible editor does not make any change permanent except on the file that you have exported. So your file is never changed and stays on your computer untouched as the original.

lreisner Loc: Union,NJ

To address your question directly, as noted by others, either do not download LR to start with or download it and just leave it on your computer for future use if your mind changes. Before LR, Bridge and Photoshop were the only two photographic programs offered and they were bundled together. Bridge is basically a browser especially made for photographers with lots of extra tools built in. Adobe has been expanding Bridges capabilities for use with its other software offerings. Using these two programs you can continue your current workflow using Photoshop. Just make sure that you work non-destructively in Photoshop via layers, using smart objects, and masks. If you double click in bridge on any picture, it will automatically open your picture first in camera raw then into Photoshop.

You did not explain why you want to move over to Photoshop from where you are. It doesn't seem to make sense unless you are unhappy with what you are using. Adobe has created it's own ecosystem of photography centered around LR, that encompasses literally every aspect of photography in the digital world. You can take this program literally to the ends of the Universe or just stay in your corner of your backyard. It is totally up to the user. When I first moved over to LR, I wasn't crazy about using Catalogs and I am still not crazy about it. For me the benefits far out way the downsides. Like with everything else in the digital world, I make sure I continually back up my catalogs, just in case the unexpected happens, and it does happen.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

To compare workflows I'll describe mine.

1. Import images from card to a folder I designate, created on the fly from within the LR import screen. The names of the images are changed to include camera model and serial number, date taken, and a new sequence number. This removes the chance that a file number from one camera ends up being used a second time by a file from another camera. (it's happened to me).

2. If I want, I can make a duplicate copy somewhere else, but I use a backup utility to do that during the night. I only delete the files on the card the following day after checking the backup.

3. Because LR "works on" tiny previews of a raw file, it is just as fast when the files are on a fast internal SSD or a slower mechanical external drive. System has 32 gb ram, so even Photoshop is equally fast most of the time.

4. I edit the files. Done.

Things I don't need to do.

1. Make a copy of a folder on a storage drive. I don't need triplicate, duplicate is fine.
2. I don't need a "fast" drive to quickly review images. As the image previews are built, they reside on an m.2 NVMe drive. The only way I can make it faster is to replace my m.2 drives with faster m.2 drives.
3. I don't need to rename the folder after the editing has been done. Each image will indicate if they have been edited, and I can filter for unedited files with 2 clicks of the mouse, to show me only those that are left.
4. I don't delete the images in the source folder - I keep all raw files and their psd derivatives (working, finished images).


LR catalogs things exactly where I want it to. It's like having a car with an automatic transmission but being able to shift it manually for more "control". I can manage file location using LR or using File Explorer. The backup program manages redundant storage.

What I don't have to worry about - losing files by deletion/overwriting/misnaming, etc., slow performance, renaming folders (or forgetting to rename them) after editing is complete, partially editing images in a folder and forgetting where I left off - It's easier to stay in LR and just look at the "edited" icon or filter for unedited images, though that functionality was added 3 yrs ago to bridge. But being able to browse and edit files in the same screen, and not have to view in a browser and switch to an editor, then back again to a browser is tedious and unproductive.

The difference it made in my workflow when I was working was profound. I could go to an event, come back with thousands of images, often from multiple cameras (especially when using second shooters), and by the following morning being able to present a client with a curated set of really good proofs - something that would take me a couple of days in the past - was most definitely worth the investment of time to learn how to leverage the potential productivity gains in LR, while at the same time making short work of the actual editing with LR's optimized user interface, and coming up with a product that was superior to the Bridge/PS way.

I can only clarify any misconceptions you have about LR. The rest is up to you.

RatGMAN Loc: SE Pennsylvania

Agree wholeheartedly.

lreisner Loc: Union,NJ

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

I assume by now you have learned that photoshop does not have a catalog and it shares ACR with Lightroom for processing. So the answer to your question is just don’t use Lightroom. LrC was introduced not as an alternative to PS but to add the much needed database to the suite.

I have tried ACR in PS only and found it to look different and missing functions that the catalog adds to the work flow that are more than cosmetic such as synchronizing setting over similar shots.

I respect your desire to avoid a database. To each his own. However, your belief that the database slows things down is way off the mark. The database does not run except when it is used to select files in the library module. It does not slow down noticeably except for very large data set say over 100,000 images. No not confuse delay in loading the display with previews that delay is a display generation issue. And since it cashes a number if images you are working in the develop module so that it has no effect on performance.

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

In my experience, the only time the LR database slows things down is when you have a lot of images in it and you back the catalog up at shutdown. The backup process has to go through the entire catalog and check for errors so it takes longer to complete the verification and backup. However, you can just walk away and let the backup proceed. You don't need to do anything while it's happening and you can go on to other tasks on your computer so it really doesn't impact you.

While using LR, the database is just as fast as your computer can manage. Computers do tend to slow down with age since they accumulate more background processes that steal CPU time.