:-)

Mark a good point, though extreme. I've been working the way you have but others only need something scaled down and easier. Though I still would like to learn Lr but it would not replace Ps for me.

Bobby, your pic, is that Nik or Topaz? Can't just be Ps! :-)

Seriously I get your event / vs other work comment. Most of the shots I take are intended as fine art and each one varies and get individually "processed". So Camera Raw, Bridge and Ps work fine for me. Though I do plan to at least learn Lightroom.

Thank you both Terry44 & Searcher. I agree, I'm a bit long winded too and have been a teacher. Yes, I was showing what I'd like Lr to do by bucking it. My instructor explained that right off, anything you do, and that is a lot, has to be done from with in Lr for it to keep track of everything. I understood it I just don't want that limitation. Hard to think that way. Like I said or implied, too bad I was not using Lr when I first went digital with my photography. So because I have not yet figured out a game plan and been able to stick with it I have not gone any further with Lr or taken another Lr class (dropped the first as I was driving my instructor nuts). A friend had been helping me with Lr and I do hope she and I can get me going on it. But like I said, I'm not bad with Ps CS6 and always learning more. I now understand what you meant, some people out there seem to think that Lr, or any other program will move their files around on its own. That is not likely, certainly Lr, Ps, Pse, Windows, MAC, etc. will not do that with out either prompting or a person actively doing something. I've heard a few horror stories about free web programs or beta what ever's acting very virus like and making a mess. But in the sense that you later explain, no the computer user lost or misplaced their own files. Been there, done that many times. Especially in the pre-Windows 98 days. Wow, found a file sometimes years later. I know many people who do not use their mouse for copying or moving files but use the keyboard or menu commands so as not to dropping something in the wrong place. Oh, Photoshop does not just do a few more things, it can do practically anything. Us as photographers we only touch the surface, I've seen graphic artists do the impossible with Photoshop. Pse does not come close even for photography. I've used both. Thanks again.

Terry44, I too have a DVD-disk of Ps CS6. Got it about a month or two before they went all CC crazy. I also have a disk of Lr 4 (upgraded to Lr 4.4), but still have not figured out how to properly use it. I know how to use Ps for most of my usual work flow and the fancy stuff I might do, can only be done on Ps. Though I have seen people do some editing and retouching with Lr that looks easier than Ps. That is what prompted me to try Lr at all. I'm stuck on trying to work through the database. So foreign to me.

Searcher I don't get that

"The reason people keep on saying this is an attempt to put the rumour to bed that LR moves things around. The same rumour is popular with anti-Picasa non-users."

Even I know that Lr does not actually edit or change or move anything. It just creates a database of what you want the image to look like and only applies anything to the image when exported (or whatever term is used. I have not gotten that far with Lr yet, if ever.) and only to the exported copy. That is one good point about Lr. Since I was not even aware of Lr until about a year ago and then with version 4, I was not there to hear about any strange confusions or ideas about it moving anything. People were probably confused about creating a database catalog of all their images. From what I know it is probably best to keep everything in one big folder. But I know Lr can and will "look" for image files in many places or where ever you point it. My problem with it so far is I can't move or manipulate image files from outside of Lr or it goes nuts. I'll rename and re-organize folders all the time with Windows and Bridge. Few problems there. Being from the Windows 3.1 & DOS 6.21 days of 1993 I'm am fairly stuck in the Explorer browser based indexing system file management mode of things. I can't figure out Windows 8 /8.1 at all, seems like a SmartPhone to me. Where are the files? I'm still using Windows XP / Vista / 7. I do use MS-Access as a database for various lists on my PC with out much trouble once I set up a database. But with it I'm not moving or re-organizing files (though I am sure it can). I only add or delete items from lists. Just have to watch for duplicate entries that it will not allow for obvious reasons. I've never used any Photo editor or organizer other than Pse 7, Ps CS5 / CS6, and a tiny bit of Lr 4 / Lr 4.4. So all the other prejudices are beyond me.

And

"In fact I don't know of any program that stores or moves images around."

What does that mean? Windows and MAC O/S's sure can. Click (or Alt+Click or Ctrl+Click or Cmnd+Click), Drag, and Drop, all day long. So does Bridge.

Having jumped from FORTRAN to DOS+WINDOWS to Ps CS6 my computer vocabulary and knowledge is concentrated in clumps, a bit different from many UHH members, so I tend to need more explanations. I'm more astute with Photography it self if not still a bit opinionated there with a traditional sense of formal composition and "proper" photo techniques. I've looked long and hard at the masters, Adams, E. Weston, Bullock, White, Cunningham, B. Weston, Steichen, Stieglitz, and Cartier-Bresson. Though, true I sometimes try something experimental, from left-field, or out-of-the-box. Actually Wynn Bullock can go way-out! And a few of my favorite non-photographic artists are M.C. Escher, Salvador Dali, Claude Monet, Andy Warhol, and Vincent van Gogh.

My feelings or fears too. What little I've used Lr the Tags or Labels seem useful. But I believe you still have to create a plan for where everything is. I will probably have a lot of images that do not easily get a title, tag, useful date or whatever. Like now I tend to change things as I go. Perhaps Lr is just not for me. And yikes, tagging tens of thousands of images! Lr would be fantastic for a Newbie Digital photographer. But with my already mixed bag of shots and file formats.

I just started working 16-bit. We have to use 8-bit at school for color printing. I should started saving my Raw as 16-bit DNG. In fact, can I re-save an unaltered DL'd 8-bit DNG as a 16-bit and gain anything? Files are all removed my camera's cards.

I've processed a few images as 32-bit, wow you get 20 stops of tones, but the files can be so big my PC and CS6 protest, I'll get files over 2GB!

I don't know why people keep saying this: "One great thing about Lightroom is that it never changes your original saved images."

Neither does Photoshop unless you do so with great difficulty intentionally. Keep your original Raw files Raw or convert them to Tif immediately. For those not using Lightroom at all, might be best to keep your master Tif or Jpg or even Raw files in a separate folder from your edited files. My cameras (Pentax) shoot Raw natively as DNG files. Only the Camera Raw Editor can save to that or Canon, Nikon, or whatever Raw format. As far as I know Ps, Pse, and Lr do not save to any Raw file directly so you can't really "over write" your original Raws with out doing so intentionally with the Camera Raw Editor. Didn't I just say that? Yes, you can accidentally over write jpg, tif, and other Ps specific file types that may be your working files. I would imagine it is easier to repair a mistake in Lightroom. So you do have to think a bit, nothing is completely idiot proof, not even Lightroom (the little I've used it).

One can organize one's images on their own. I am sure Author's just create file structures and trees on their own to organize things. Word or WordPerfect can get a bit confused if you move something around but you can find it with Windows or MAC O/S or with the search functions within a word-processor.

Actually since you have to have a plan upfront with Lightroom I'm not sure where to begin. By Date, By Topic, By Project, Assignment. Right now using Windows and Photoshop I just keep most of my photos in folders by date, but true I have to have some guess as to when they were taken.

That raises a question, what is the native or default order for images in Lr? I would not want even initially a random set of 10,000 thumbnails!

Yes, there are. And I would say EXPENSIVE. Almost makes me want to go out and buy a used 500C/M. They are relatively inexpensive used by todays standards. But I think the lenses are still pricey. I know photographers that still swear (film-wise) to their Leica M3.

I agree, Ansel would have gone digital and used photoshop (in my further opinion). I'd heard it rumored that Ansel used a Hasselblad later in life but I can't remember seeing an image shot that way. I've seen his rather odd Polaroids. Edward (Weston) would still be contact printing 11x14" 'ers. I love his work but he was much more traditional than Adams in the equipment dept. Minor White and Wynn Bullock would be at a computer on Neptune.

From my own experiences and what I have heard from instructors you are correct. Personally, I have Lr 4.4 on my PC but I have not learned to use it yet, only toyed wit it a little. I'm one of those Windows users who tends to rename files, make copies, and move them around all the time. This raises havoc with Lr 's Database. I have not yet been able to get my head around it or Lr yet. I use Ps CS6 daily. I am still learning it but am fairly comfortable with it. Yes, I hear and have seen Lightroom being easier, but I already know Photoshop (some of it anyway, no one knows everything in it). As the other fellow says above. Specifically as far as I've heard you can not stitch, stack, composite, or layer images with Lightroom. So for HDR, Panoramas, Star Trails, Changing Backgrounds for a few application, you have to use Photoshop or at least a third editor with Lightroom to do those things (and other complex stuff), i.e., toggle between Lr and whatever. I used Photoshop Elements 7 a long time ago but don't know what "tricky" stuff it can or can't do.

I use Bridge all the time. Windows does not view or open photoshop files, such as DNG, RAW, PSD, etc. files. Windows can only view JPG, GIF, TIF, and such files. So to find my correct image files I use Bridge. Yes, I know I would not need to do that with Lr. But what about when I am looking for images that I have not placed in my Lr Database.

I am not sure about this so perhaps some feed back might be appreciated: from what I can tell the MAC O/S seems to be better at viewing and opening "non-standard" image files and that there are more MAC users using Lightroom. My guess again, because MAC users are not usually "playing" around with their file structures like PC users. Ever try to get to a MAC system file or anything else Apple does not want you to see?

Ansel Adams commonly used both 4x5" and 8x10" view cameras. Use varied through the years. In the photos I've seen of this darkroom and reading in his books he commonly used a 4x5" Enlarger.

Edward Weston generally contact printed 11x14" negatives, no enlarger. (per Brett Weston, Edward's eldest son).

Personally when I have the time or interest I'll shoot film, 35mm or 4x5", but 99% of the time I shoot digital now. I theoretically prefer film for B&W so I can have real silver prints. But for color, I'm all digital now.

Comparing "small or medium" format digital to large format (4x5", 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20" ) film is like an Apples to Oranges comparison.

From I conversation I once had over the phone with a Kodak technician we estimated that 35mm film (say Kodacolor) would be equivalent to about 11 to 12 MP (1/1.7 sensor) camera. But it is not clear how to compare dpi (or ppi) to lpi. If a full frame 35mm is 24x36=864 mm^2, and 4x5" is 101.6x127.0=12,903 mm^2. A ratio of 1:14.9. So a full frame Canon or Nikon (24MP) sensor camera would instead have to be 358MP to equal the resolution of 4x5" film. I've heard of 40 to 80 MP medium format (4.5x6 cm to 6x7 cm) digital cameras. Care to compare to Edward's 11x14" negatives?

Now of course digital has other advantages, one reason I use it overwhelmingly. And I am not saying film is 15 time better than digital or even twice, they are different tools and media. "What is the resolution or oil or acrylic paint?" A meaningless question.

I have no comment on the issue of grips other than to say I rarely use mine that I have for one of my DSLR's (so I would not get one for the other two). For me with arthritis the added weight to an already heavy DSLR is too much most days. In fact all my DSLR's weigh a lot more than any of my film SLRs.

As for Mirrorless Cameras. I second that the main reason for a mirrorless is not just weight. Think of all the moving and shaking parts "missing" -- a penta-prism is a precision piece of optical glass. And eventual lower cost for higher quality. I've been watching the market and talking to my classmates who have them. Most seem very happy with them. Personally from being an old school film shooter I'd want a Mirrorless that also has a viewfinder with LiveView in addition to a LiveView screen. My old point-n-shoot Kodak has both so why not a pro camera with changeable lenses and the works. Also I'm probably waiting for a Full Frame Mirrorless.

"I purchased LR 11, but never installed it."

Did you mean LR = LightRoom? If so no wonder you did not install it, it is only up to version Lr 5.6 currently (or something like that). It's so new it's from the future. :-)