Albums replace collections I think.
The Case for LR over Classic?
- Thread starter RecalcitrantRon
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Ok, that answers my question about what replaces the catalog. What (if any) are the pros and cons of leaving import as RAW or import as DNG? Sounds to me like the eventual Adobe plan is to merge LrC and LR with both local and cloud storage but they’re taking their time about it. My guess is that eventually plugins and Edit in will be coming eventually but maybe only for local images possibly. And an easy option to make files or folders local or cloud, and the ability to publish local folders to cloud with 2 way future edits synced rather than publishing a copy to the cloud and any changes there only exist in the cloud version. If all of that is correct…Adobe should tell users the plan IMo.
You don't have to use sidecar files in LRC. If you don't click the box to store edits in XMP then the edits are stored in the catalog.
ACR doesn't "bake edits into the RAW file". I'm not positive but pretty sure that the only software that does that is NX Studio. And even then the change are still editable. If you're not using LR/LRC then where are the XMP files coming from?
There is a backup function for catalogs. And the only way they go missing is the same reason people's photos go missing. They move/delete them.
It is not necessary for anyone to learn what catalogs are and how they work. Preferable but not necessary. There is only ONE thing you need to know to work with the LRC catalog system. ONLY move photos around on your computer with LRC. That's it. Like they say it ain't rocket science. And if someone can't remember/follow that one rule then all that's needed is to re-link the photos after they've moved them. Surely if they're competent enough to know how to move them with the OS then they can remember where they moved them to. No?
Certainly more options are a good thing. Although Adobe being who they are they didn't anticipate such a move so of course the UI in LR and LRC are just different enough to be annoying. And ACR different yet. How do you produce three tools that run on the same basic engine and are so closely associated but make the UI different for all three? It's goofy.
Ok…after some consideration…I’m thinking about trying LR again albeit with mostly local storage as it seems the wave of the future. Of I do…I will start on Jan 1 as that seems like a decent start point and use/process in LR until I make a decision…I can always open in PS and use plugins from there.
One question I have and will research unless somebody already knows the answer. I know that export from LrC to LR is a once per catalog thing but can get around that if necessary with a copy of the catalog. But ass7ming the experiment fails and I go back to LrC..can one export all the PP work there back to LrC so as not to lose the work in PP?
Ok, 2 questions actually. Still need to figure out if there is any inherent advantage or disadvantage in importing as DNG vs RAW.
One question I have and will research unless somebody already knows the answer. I know that export from LrC to LR is a once per catalog thing but can get around that if necessary with a copy of the catalog. But ass7ming the experiment fails and I go back to LrC..can one export all the PP work there back to LrC so as not to lose the work in PP?
Ok, 2 questions actually. Still need to figure out if there is any inherent advantage or disadvantage in importing as DNG vs RAW.
I don't get the excitement about using sidecar files. You can do that now in LRc if you really want them. Also with this 'improved' LR, instead of backing up my photos and one catalog, I have to back up the photos plus thousands and thousands of sidecar files. More chances for bits and bytes to get corrupted and ruin images somewhere down the road.
It also seems that Adobe keeps trying to drive us to using their cloud servers (the latest AI features work their magic in the cloud), so I imagine after every update it would be a good idea to verify that Adobe hasn't reset the defaults in your program to cloud storage or at least cloud backup.
I just see no reason to use a less capable program with a slightly different UI that disrupts my current work flow and potentially adds many thousands of files to keep track of.
It also seems that Adobe keeps trying to drive us to using their cloud servers (the latest AI features work their magic in the cloud), so I imagine after every update it would be a good idea to verify that Adobe hasn't reset the defaults in your program to cloud storage or at least cloud backup.
I just see no reason to use a less capable program with a slightly different UI that disrupts my current work flow and potentially adds many thousands of files to keep track of.
I wouldn't if I were you. I don't think it is ready to fully replace classic yet. And a big no to the dng. There was a big discussion about that here recently. Why throw away the raw generated by the camera. No advantage in image quality and now you are stuck mostly with Adobe apps, Nikon NX Studio nor Canon DPP4 nor any of the camera brand software can read it.
Pros & Cons of using Lightroom to convert to DNG:
For years I have converted my camera RAW files to DNG upon import into Lightroom. Mistakenly I copied them on import and was curious to see what info NX Studio would provide as far as where I was focused when the image was taken. I have not played with the program much yet, but it definitely has...
bcgforums.com
Converting NEF to DNG
I have always shot JPG and now I am willing to try RAW, or as Nikon likes to call it NEF. I have bought some larger cards and am all set ... except that I cannot find a decent program to convert NEF to DNG. I do not use Photoshop or LR. I have tried several programs including Adobe conversion...
bcgforums.com
Last edited:
If the computer crashes…is loss of the xmp files any more likely than loss of the image files? I wouldn’t think so. And if one has adequate backups, the xmp get backed up as well…so potential loss of xmp files doesn’t seem like much of an issue.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
I haven't used (terrible naming ...) LR "non-Classic" . If the article below is correct in its comparison, there is no way I'd switch from Classic to LR:
Photography life comparison
A few items that would kill LR for me:
I don't want my photos on Adobe cloud. I want them on my local machine, backed up to a local hard drive(s) and also backed up to the cloud by a good cloud backup service.
Catalogs don't bother me at all. The catalog is just a database containing per photo edits and the organizational structure (collections, folders etc). As a software guy, I'm good with databases! The catalog gets backed up when I exit lightroom, plus being frequently backed up to a second drive and cloud by backup software.
Photography life comparison
A few items that would kill LR for me:
- Limited options on import (on import, I always rename the file, apply a few basic edits, and place into a collection).
- I do use smart collections (not a whole lot, but I use them)
- I often merge panoramas (really LR can't do this?)
- I use plugins like Topaz
- I use sync settings and virtual copies all the time
I don't want my photos on Adobe cloud. I want them on my local machine, backed up to a local hard drive(s) and also backed up to the cloud by a good cloud backup service.
Catalogs don't bother me at all. The catalog is just a database containing per photo edits and the organizational structure (collections, folders etc). As a software guy, I'm good with databases! The catalog gets backed up when I exit lightroom, plus being frequently backed up to a second drive and cloud by backup software.
tcrick
New member
With over 150,000 photos, I use just a simple year/month folder structure and rely heavily on collections to organize and search for photos. The lack of collections in LR is a deal breaker for me. I know I could use keywords and I do, but collections, especially smart collections, are so convenient that I would miss them too much to switch.
alecdann
Member
The XMP sidecar files are just a copy of what's in the Lightroom database. You wouldn't lose anything if you deleted them.
alecdann
Member
You can sync all your photos to the cloud from LRC and the overhead is minimal. LRC just syncs smart previews.
alecdann
Member
Here's what Matt had to say the next day:So I just watched Matt's video (see below) and I am intrigued. I like the idea of ditching the catalogs and everything that goes with them. This should also allow me to easily use a NAS for my photo storage and access the photos from either my desktop or laptop. Has anyone switched over? One question I have is if there is no catalog, how does Lightroom non-destructively edit photos? Are we back to using sidecar files (which I have never been a fan of)?
The cloud version of Lightroom is fine as long as you don't want to print and don't need to organize your photos with keywords, and don't mind the awful UI.
Matt only has 500 photos and for that maybe the cloud version makes sense.
I have 3+ TB of photos -- the cloud option doesn't make sense for that.
I bought Matt's course on the evolution of Lightroom. The first episode I watched was on backing up. I wanted to find out where all of the edits are stored. They are stored in a file called Lightroomlibrary.lrlibrary. Matt backs up his entire computer so does not worry where this file is actually stored. I still do not know whether you can specify where this library file is stored.
So not stored in .xmp sidecars?
I just took another look at LR and realized there is no Print Module and no equivalent features for printing. Unless I am missing something. That alone is enough for me to reject LR in favor of LRc. I really like the print module and it's capabilities; I wish PS printing was the same. As we speak I am printing my 2024 calendars for friends and family which were put together using the print module. Yes, I can do the same thing in PS, but that requires a bit more work. Why would Adobe build a LR version with no ability to print? It can only produce an image file that then must be printed in some other app. For me, the loss of the excellent print module capabilities makes LR dead on arrival.
That is correct. No sidecars.
ccirelli
Well-known member
Personally I love Lr Classic catalogs and how image files are stored / organized. I have more than enough to do without manually organizing my image files in standard directories. Lr (non-Classic) made a big step forward by allowing non-Cloud file access and more syncing options - but it's not the same (for me) and not quite there.
Also, I have a such a great and easy workflow set up in Classic now. Including a very easy way to sync whatever I want so easily, for access on the Lr mobile app and non-Classic desktop version. Plus my muscle memory for keyboard shortcuts (someone please explain to me why they're almost entirely differently between Classic and Mobile...).
And for what it's worth, this is from someone that reluctantly switched from Lr non-Classic, to Lr Classic a few years ago. Within a month I knew it was the right move (again, for me).
Also, I have a such a great and easy workflow set up in Classic now. Including a very easy way to sync whatever I want so easily, for access on the Lr mobile app and non-Classic desktop version. Plus my muscle memory for keyboard shortcuts (someone please explain to me why they're almost entirely differently between Classic and Mobile...).
And for what it's worth, this is from someone that reluctantly switched from Lr non-Classic, to Lr Classic a few years ago. Within a month I knew it was the right move (again, for me).
I have been inspired to look again at LR with the ability to save locally. So as a tests, I used LR to get a photo from my downloads which I didn't have in Classic. I put it into a folder that I use with Classic (I don't have any of my photos inside Classic). However when I looked at that folder in Classic the photo wasn't there. I went back to LR and there it is in that folder. What gives? Can anyone explain why it doesn't show up in the folder in Classic?
The reason I am interested in this is because a couple of years ago I thought on a trip to Brazil I'd download my photos to LR, edit them and when home transfer them to Classic. What a hassle. I had to call Adobe to find out how to do it (with a special program). Then when I imported them, all the edits were gone. The problem I outlined about may be an indictor that the two programs are not really compatible. Bottom line, I would like to be able to edit in LR when away from home and them move the photos with edits to Classic in a simple way.
The reason I am interested in this is because a couple of years ago I thought on a trip to Brazil I'd download my photos to LR, edit them and when home transfer them to Classic. What a hassle. I had to call Adobe to find out how to do it (with a special program). Then when I imported them, all the edits were gone. The problem I outlined about may be an indictor that the two programs are not really compatible. Bottom line, I would like to be able to edit in LR when away from home and them move the photos with edits to Classic in a simple way.
In classic after your first step (moving the image file to the same folder as the some of other images in your lightroom catalog) you would go to that folder on the left panel of Lightroom and click sync folder. It will then import it into the Lightroom catalog and you will see it in your lightroom library. When you clock sync folder You get a dialogue asking if you want to use the full import module or just import the image automatically into the catalog. In classic import just means linking the image file to the catalog, wherever the image file is. The catalog in lightroom is just a database of where the image files are located and what edits were done to them in the lightroom develop module. The catalog doesn't actually contain the image files, just links to them.
Last edited:
Replytoken
Well-known member
Different target audience. I take comfort that Adobe at least kept Classic and all of its features when they launched LR. I suspect that the two are somewhat on a path of convergence, but that could still be some ways out.
--Ken
The only advantage I see to the "new" LR is it replaces Bridge. My photos live in catalogs, but there are occasions where LR would be useful to quickly edit a photo for a specific purpose.
nealabello
New member
Try it before you write it off. If you have Photoshop, you already have LR. Matt uses PS for plug-ins and only sends his favorite photos to the cloud. Most of the features that you love are there; keywords, metadata, etc. You just have to poke around. It seems more smooth than LRC which I have used for a long time. I am going to give LR a go. It will read your card just like Bridge so you see your photos almost instantly and the do the edits just as done in LRC. The bonuses that you do send photos to the cloud, you can see and edit them on all of your devices. 20 GB (your adobe cloud storage) holds about 400 photos. A TB of storage costs another $10/month on top of the $10 you pay for the PS and LRC subscription. If you upload only you best to the cloud, you'll have a lot of storage. I doubt that anyone has a TB of keepers, no offense.
1. I'm curious. Some folks have mentioned that they don't like catalogs. May I ask why?
2. Has anyone watched https://www.youtube.com/@TerryLeeWhite videos? He's a Lightroom teacher for Adobe. I've learned a lot from him.
2. Has anyone watched https://www.youtube.com/@TerryLeeWhite videos? He's a Lightroom teacher for Adobe. I've learned a lot from him.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
Hmm, so what I do is have LR Classic running on a laptop when traveling, and then do "import from another catalog" in LR Classic back home on the desktop, which preserves any edits I made. I find in practice I don't make a lot of edits when traveling ... mostly some culling, a bit of editing on the better shots. But my laptop is slow and my desktop is fast. If I really *needed* to do more serious editing when traveling, I'd have a fast laptop.