Lightroom seems too intrusive, suggestions?

[GBarrington]

<p>"Try something else" really means you know what you want in addition to what it is you don't want. I moved from Lr 3.6 to ACDSee Pro 7 about 7 months ago. I wanted to get away from what I considered an intrusive database centric organizer WITHOUT losing excellent photo management capabilities or losing excellent raw conversion. I think I found it in ACDSee Pro 7.<br /><br /> I have also tried CaptureOne , DXO Optics Pro, and Corel Aftershot Pro. Each of them had some nice features, but none of them really met my needs and expectations the way ACDSee Pro does. Below, is my recollection of my impression of the other products. Subsequent versions haven't been examined so things might have changed and my impressions and recollections could be just plain wrong.<br /><br /> CaptureOne and ASP both try to span the space between a photo browser based organizer and a database oriented by creating a smaller database in each folder in which you store photos. So, folder level operations are quite good and sophisticated. Both seem to allow you to simulate the management freedom of a browser based system by being able to move records between folder level databases reasonably quickly and fix database orphaned photos relatively quickly. I thought the simpler flat file database of ACDSee was faster, and the simpler to deal with, and the "behind the scenes" database manipulation that was hidden from the user was a potential problem. It might be the problem in practice that the database administrator in me fears, but I do see the potential for failure in this area. I particularly liked CO's raw conversion, and ASP's noise control, but I disliked the user interface of either.<br /><br /> DXO Optics Pro uses a different model from an earlier era. I thought the raw conversion was very good, but It has no organizational capabilities at all. Instead, it allows you to open a folder, view a thumbnail image of a photos and select it for raw conversion. DXO's goal is to create the best raw conversion it can so you can then pass it back to the organizer or editor of your choice. It is NOT a workflow tool, just a very good raw conversion tool. The user interface is better than CO or ASP, but then it does less and can afford to be simpler and "cleaner". The tools it has are quite innovative and easy to use, but I didn't see any significance between it and ACDSee Pro.<br /><br /> My goal isn't to promote any one piece of software, but to promote the idea that making sure you know what you want and that you have tried to match what the software can do with what it is you want. (Not everyone does that, it seems)</p>

[EricM]

<p>Try Photoshop which will allow you to have Bridge + ACR. Check out a vid on <a href="http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-photoshop-cs6/bridge-101/">Adobe Bridge</a> at Adobe Tv</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Haven't tried it but just curious how long it takes for LR to catalog/import? in OS X an entire Picture folder having over 3000 images within named subfolders some having jpegs but most Raws.</p>

<p>Since I haven't found a good explanation to the benefits or reasons of LR's cataloging system over how Bridge generates thumbnails on an as needed basis just clicking on each image subfolder within Picture folder and double clicking to have it open immediately in ACR, I've given LR its own folder (within Picture folder) of images.</p>

<p>The whole process of just wanting to view and then select specific images to work on quickly seems to require importing but not quite sure if that's the same as opening or whatever is going on when I want to get to and edit images and don't want to wait for an entire folder of image thumbnails to appear or require an importing command with a nest of preference options to get through.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Haven't tried it but just curious how long it takes for LR to catalog/import? in OS X an entire Picture folder having over 3000 images within named subfolders some having jpegs but most Raws.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Depends on speed of the computer and speed of the disk. </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Also, speed of import isn't necessarily important, you can begin working on photos as soon as they are imported, i.e., you don't have to wait for them all to be imported.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Thanks for the feedback, Jeff.</p>

<p>Mainly trying to get a handle on how LR caches thumbnails in Library mode.</p>

<p>LR's simple save command in Develop mode is real handy and takes getting used to the quick convenience compared to ACR's requiring "Export Settings To XMP" which doesn't have a keyboard command. LR just doesn't give any indication the same function is happening just hitting (Command-S). The XMP symbol will show up much like in Bridge except you have to switch back to Library mode to see it.</p>

<p>Is it wise to just import the entire Picture folder (160 folders) into Library mode or will it choke the computer? I'm on a 2010 MacMini with 8GB of Ram. I want a way to back out if it does make LR UI come to a crawl.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p> I've always heard that Lightroom actually has the most powerful raw conversion processing of the Adobe products, even having a couple of features that the version of ACR that comes with Photoshop CS does not...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really. In terms of the raw processing engine, if the two are on version parity, they are identical. You can move from LR to ACR and back, render from either etc. There are some small differences (for example, more sample points in ACR). If you don't like the DAM portion of LR and want it's raw processing functionality, use Photoshop which has ACR. Going to cost you more, going to provide a pretty powerful pixel editor too (Photoshop <g>). </p>

[lex_jenkins]

Incidentally, since my whining about the keyword/tagging inconsistency

between LR, Windows Explorer, Picasa, etc., I finally found an article

that clarified the problem. I'd mistakenly assumed all could read the

same sidecar data, but 't'ain't so. I'm willing to revise my expectations

and workflow to suit Lightroom. But I sure wish there was a better way to

use Windows Explorer to search raw files that I'd keyworded in Lightroom.

 

I'm going to add some RAM, faster HD, and a video card to my desktop PC,

and hope that'll boost the speed of sorting through files and handling

video through Lightroom. Overall I like LR and reeeaaally don't want to

go back to Nikon software.

[Carl Stone]

<p>I pretty much agree with what Brad offered below.</p>

<p>"No. Makes no difference to me. Just wondering why you insist on using a product you've put through its paces, are not happy with, and in the end does not meet your requirements."<br>

<br>

All I would add to that is since I like LR I want to see enough satisfied users to ensure that it isn't canceled due to lack of interest. As for the odd peron that doesn't like it, move on, that doesn't bother my nerves at all. All of the so called organization of your images that LR does is for LR's use internally to make it easier for the user to navigate his library. LR has no effect on your image organization outside of the app. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd mistakenly assumed all could read the same sidecar data, but 't'ain't so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Plus there's lots of proprietary stuff only the host raw converter that wrote the metadata understands. Keywords should be pretty cross app savvy. You may want to look at DNG for embedding all this stuff. On Mac OS X, I can access from the finder a good deal of embedded metadata. I can open the DNG in Apple's free Preview and see my keywords for example. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I can open the DNG in Apple's free Preview and see my keywords for example.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you use Apple's Finder Search (Command-F) on the desktop to find an image using keywords? Or is this specific to how all this metadata is written in the DNG format that Macs seem able to read. If all this attempt to manage image databases through keywording metadata entries is hobbled by proprietary encoding, what's the point of being so fastidious.</p>

<p>Heck I can't even do keyword/tagged image searches in a PN and Google Image search and I certainly can't do the same on my own Mac hard drive. It's why I gave up keywording in Bridge and I'm not going to bother with it in LR either.</p>

<p>To heck with standards if everyone's going to do their own thing.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Can you use Apple's Finder Search (Command-F) on the desktop to find an image using keywords?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope, at least I haven’t figured that out even though there IS a token for Keyword in the search. It does find the keywords in rendered images but not DNG. Yet Preview does show the keyword within the Inspector from a DNG. More Apple inconsistencies among app's. So the Keyword is accessible outside LR.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"You may want to look at DNG for embedding all this stuff."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hey, that worked. Thanks. Windows Explorer can find keywords in Lightroom-created DNGs.</p>

<p>That does lend some value to the process of archiving original camera raw files, while using LR to create DNGs for the keepers.</p>

<p>One reason I hesitate to do that is because photo viewers outside LR don't automagically pull up the edited JPG embedded in the LR-created DNG. Instead I'm seeing the camera's default JPG. But there may be some solution I'm overlooking. I'd like to see the embedded edited JPEG when I view the DNG in Windows Explorer or other non-Adobe viewers/browsers.</p>

<p>If I only used Lightroom for every photo oriented task it might be easier. But routine web tasks make that impractical. For example, if I want to upload a photo to photo.net, Flickr, email, etc., Windows Explorer handles that by default. No problem if I only want to see the JPEGs. But occasionally I want to see the raw file associated with the JPEG. Windows Explorer doesn't recognize the keywords I've associated with the raw files in LR, or with my Nikon NEFs in Nikon's own software (which is still too cumbersome for my taste, although I keep it handy for viewing some specific data such as AF sensor markers, flash and image mode settings).</p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>That does lend some value to the process of archiving original camera raw files, while using LR to create DNGs for the keepers.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />But it's still not enough to sell me on converting my native camera raws to another non-standard proprietary format</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>One reason I hesitate to do that is because photo viewers outside LR don't automagically pull up the edited JPG embedded in the LR-created DNG. Instead I'm seeing the camera's default JPG. But there may be some solution I'm overlooking. I'd like to see the embedded edited JPEG when I view the DNG in Windows Explorer or other non-Adobe viewers/browsers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you looked into the DNG conversion dialog box where it gives options to embed full rez thumbnails? Not sure if LR gives the same dialog box as ACR's save to DNG. Not sure if that would override the default incamera jpeg either, just throwing it out there.</p>

<p>It's odd the way OS's deal with reading and generating thumbnails for files that have been altered by third party image editing apps. I get the same weird thumbnail previews in OS X saving out of Photoshop to tiff or jpeg but it might be that they're not color managed. They're too small to tell.</p>

<p>All this stuff sounds more and more complicated the more we talk about these workflow gotchas between apps and OS's.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>FWIW, <a href="http://dpbestflow.org/metadata/metadata-handling#where"><strong>this article about metadata handling</strong></a> on dpbestflow.org helped answer some of my questions, more efficiently than anything else I'd read recently. Gives me a better handle on how I need to approach metadata more effectively without going daffy with frustration.</p>

[digitaldog]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>But it's still not enough to sell me on converting my native camera raws to another non-standard proprietary format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>DNG is <strong>not</strong> a non standard proprietary format! It's fully documented, has a free SDK for anyone who wishes to read or write that format cost free. It's fully <em>standard</em> in LR and other Adobe products and more. It's based on TIFF, another open, non proprietary file format. Nothing proprietary about it, unlike the native camera files (NEF, CR2) that are proprietary until someone takes time and effort to hack the few new tiny proprietary metdata tages that serve no purpose being proprietary in the first place! Proprietary for a few months while frustrating anyone hoping to access <strong>their</strong> raw data in their converter of <strong>their choice</strong> while Adobe and everyone else waste time & money making those few proprietary tags understood (and thus not proprietary). </p>

 

 

 

 

 

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Have you looked into the DNG conversion dialog box where it gives options to embed full rez thumbnails? Not sure if LR gives the same dialog box as ACR's save to DNG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The question becomes, what do you want to do with the thumbnail, where was it generated? Raw files have to provide some preview as it's raw unrendered data. The initial preview is from the camera, based on the camera's ability to create a JPEG. It's useful so you can see something on the back of the camera or later, on your computer such you see you are viewing an image of a car, not the side of a barn. Unless you intend to use the manufacturer's raw converter, what you see here may not have any actual basis on the color and tone you can and want to create in your raw converter. <br>

<br>

As soon as you bring the raw into LR or most other raw converters, that JPEG from the camera is tossed away, it's useless and the converter builds it's representation of the raw data. So at least at this point, color and tone is based on the initial rendering instructions of the converter although that may be a far cry from what the photographer will end up by rendering the image as they prefer. <br>

<br>

As for DNG, well where it's useful is one can embed a rendered representation into it. And it's not a tiny JPEG preview, depending on the preferences, you can end up with a decent sized rendered version within the DNG. Make a big print if you have to. Overkill for viewing thumbs, great if for some reason, you've done a lot of work in LR/ACR, you've saved the rendered JPEG and you need to suck it out.</p>

<p>Pertty sure OS X is color managing the thumbs, they look correct to me but again, where did the thumbs come from? On Windows, if that part of the OS doesn't understand color management, the thumbs will be off. But you can still see the image is a car, not the side of a barn. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Andrew, you glazed over the main point both Lex and myself were concerned over regarding seeing consistent thumbnail representation of <strong>edits applied to the DNG file</strong> to show both in ACR/LR/Bridge AND the OS desktop.</p>

<p>How do you address Lex's point quoted here?...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>One reason I hesitate to do that is because photo viewers outside LR don't automagically pull up the edited JPG embedded in the LR-created DNG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm assuming Lex is referring to jpeg representing the edits applied in LR. Can converting to DNG and editing it override the incamera jpeg from showing up in the OS UI? </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew, you glazed over the main point both Lex and myself were concerned over regarding seeing consistent thumbnail representation of <strong>edits applied to the DNG file</strong> to show both in ACR/LR/Bridge AND the OS desktop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ACR, Bridge, no problem, use the <em>Update DNG preview </em>command. Finder doesn't seem to be so smart, at least under 10.9. I need to ask Adobe if this command <strong>should</strong> update a Finder icon (as Photoshop can do). Doesn't seem to.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm assuming Lex is referring to jpeg representing the edits applied in LR. Can converting to DNG and editing it override the incamera jpeg from showing up in the OS UI?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It always does I believe. That is, you can actually see as you import the images into LR, once they appear, you see them show up, then they change their color and tone appearance. LR is '<em>removing</em>' the camera JPEG and creating it's own, based on whatever settings are applied within Import. (outside the Finder). It sure would be nice if the update affected the finder thumbnails. Maybe there's a way to force this.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Tim, got it (but it's WEIRD)! <br /> I CAN see the updated edited thumbnails in the Finder but only if I use Cover Flow. Command I, other Finder views don't update unless I move to Cover Flow and (?) back. There can also be a delay with the Finder updating the new preview. Give it a few seconds and it should update in Cover Flow. <br /> Seems like a bug that other previews outside of Cover Flow don't update. I was certain that I did see an update after awhile. IOW, I had to go to Cover Flow, then to another 'icon view' and there was an update. But it seems a bit inconsistent.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php?topic=4935.5;wap2<br>

Guess it's been a 'bug' for awhile. So, Cover Flow seems to be the answer. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Thanks, Andrew. This thumbnail preview inconsistency within Mac OS X may not just be relegated to DNG's. I don't use DNG's so I don't have any to test.</p>

<p>However, I opened a folder of some color managed sRGB images I upload to the web and Get Info (Command-I) shows the CM preview but Cover Flow in OS 10.6.8 shows a compressed low rez version that doesn't have the same tonality and color but can't recognize what space it's rendering from. See the screengrab below. </p><div></div>

[digitaldog]

<p>The DNG's update and show the edits with Cover Flow, that's the good news. <br>

I did examine some JPEGs with embedded profiles and even an image in Lab and the Finder preview (Command I) and the images themselves in Photoshop appear to match, best I can tell. <br>

Pretty sure lots have changed in video path's and such since 10.6.8, not necessarily for the better. </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>The OP has brought up so many issues from being sluggish and cumbersome to not being able to use it in a way that was not intended in the design of the program. Really, I think he'd be happier using something else.<br>

For myself, I cannot imagine using anything else. It's a delight every time I use it...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 for everything that Brad said above.</p>

<p>Lightroom has its own way or working, and it's not Open, Tweak, Save. If you want to Open, Tweak, Save, try Photoshop Elements.</p>

<p>There's a reason why LR forces you to import files into a catalog. Processing in LR is non-destructive. It never writes changes to your original file. Why is this useful? So you can review and redo (or cancel) changes. So you can process multiple versions of a file and compare them, or process different versions for different uses (print, web, blog, etc.).</p>

<p>You can set up presets with your importing and exporting preferences, and you can save an unlimited amount of presets. So, if you want to remember how you exported a file for your website last March, you can go back to the preset that you saved. Don't try that with Open, Tweak, Save programs.</p>

<p>I can understand if LR isn't right for you. But once you get used to the fact that you need to import images into catalogs before processing, LR offers an amazingly powerful toolkit for processing and organizing image files. You could even create a catalog called Quick Tweaks if you want to. Put everything into one catalog, or have a different catalog for every project, or anything in between.</p>

<p>I would HATE to go back to any other workflow, and I use PS only when absolutely necessary.</p>