burkphoto wrote:
To each his own. Lightroom Classic was designed by and for a group of professional photographers. It morphed to an app for the general photo industry from there. Not once have I lost a file due to anything other than my own momentary lapse of attention, and in all cases, retrieval took seconds.
It should speak volumes that the most powerful photo lab systems work in a manner quite similar to Lightroom Classic, using a database to track images and orders, color correct files, render files to printers, etc. Apple Photos also works in a manner similar to LrC, except it DOES grab your files and store them in an enclave where you can't really get to them without voodoo. (That said, it works well if you play by Apple's rules!)
To each his own. Lightroom Classic was designed by... (
show quote)
There are a couple of people here who seem to feel that the only opinion that matters is their own, and the only software or methodology of any import is that of which they approve and use, and that is unfortunate, because there are actually many knowledgeable people who simply do things another way.
I have told people here I don't need Lightroom, and they tell me that's because I'm not smart enough to do it right, like the "professionals." Let me give me you a clue: I worked for several years with "professionals," correcting their mistakes, trying to educate them about how film, exposure, processing, printing, etc. and later, software works.
A "professional" who I know who loves to talk down to me about my amateur status, once said to me: "Is it shutter speed or aperture that makes depth of field, I can never remember that." I must remember to ask that man to design some software to help me streamline my photography workflow. He also uses Lightroom exclusively, because he is a professional fine art photographer, and professionals use Lightroom. Oh, yeah, and he doesn't use Photoshop because he DOESN"T KNOW HOW TO.
When you tell me I'm doing it wrong, don't cite as proof the fact that "professionals" do it your way, because I have literally forgotten more about photography than at least half the professionals that I have had the misfortune to come in contact with.
I am a student of photography. I started late, in my early 40s and I am still learning now into my 80s. Tell me something I don't know and I will thank you, because I am always trying to learn something new. One thing I have learned is to try everything myself and not take the word of someone whose only proof is his own opinion.
I don't tell people they're stupid and non-productive if they don't use Bridge and ACR, I tell them I use those tools and they tell me I am stupid, old and behind the times. I can of course, still Photoshop circles around them, but what does matter if I don't use a database, right? You may not know that I once had a DOS database with which I catalogued all my film as I digitized it. DOS, on 5" floppies and it worked better than Lightroom's. It was the 1980s.
I have ACR, and without ACR there is no Lightroom. I know how it works. I use it. I use it to open and initiate editing on raw files and use as it as a filter inside Photoshop. I have Bridge and I have all the organizational power that I need, and the actual files are in the same place on disk as they would be if Lightroom added a pointer to it, which can get lost or corrupted and did so many times that it wasn't worth it to me to keep fighting with it. Bridge can find any picture on my computer without a database.