The Case for LR over Classic?

[NorthernFocus]

@NorthernFocus what's interesting to me is that two critical things in LRc are not as "precise" as PS, or maybe I haven't figured them out.
One is using a grey mid point to set white balance combined with the Auto settings in PS Curves (snap neutral mid point and find dark and light colors), and the second is sharpening (compare say using Vivid Light Sharpening or Smart Sharpening on a Smart Layer.

I am using both and most of my images don't go to PS. But if they do, I have a process I follow.

I don't use curves so have no idea.

I've always wondered at the sharpening in LR/ACR. Maybe it has something to do with the technology of what can be done without altering pixels.

 

[Replytoken]

I'm curious if that is most people's main issue - I'm not saying you are wrong I'm merely saying I don't know. We need a survey .

Since I do useful stuff on import, the import step is a feature, not a bug, to me. I *want* to rename the RAW file, put it in a collection, do basic development (things like bump contrast and vibrant a bit, etc to make it more or less look like a jpg out of the camera would look).

It pretty much is. Folks are not used to the concept of DAM or a database where the files need to be imported. Most software programs do not require any import process; you just find the file and open it.

--Ken

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

Note: thoughout this post the term LR refers to the legacy version of LR and/or what is currently called LRC. No discussion here about the web-based version.

LR is in no way a dumbed down version of PS nor has it ever been such. The original LR was intended as a pro DAM tool/RAW converter with bare minimum ability to adjust overall WB, lighting, color, etc. It was integrated with PS for heavy duty editing. They were completely separate products both intended for pros, LR for DAM and PS for editing. Also keep in mind the PS is not and has never been focused primarily at photographers. It is focused at the much broader user group of graphic arts which includes photography. That's one reason it is so complicated. Arguably LR has always been specifically focused more on the pro photographer than PS. If anything more and more so as they've added clone tools, masking, NR, etc, etc. Adobe has invested a lot to make LR a comprehensive photo editing tool without all of the additional complexity needed by the rest of the graphic arts community.


I'd be surprised if there aren't as many/more pro photographers who use LR as PS. For one thing there's the whole DAM thing. Plus consider all of those photojournalists or others with client bases that don't allow cloning etc which are the real advantages of PS. If all you need to do with a photo is adjust lighting, WB, or color, there's really no need to go beyond LR. Certainly in its current form. So for pros with thousands of images in their portfolios who are already using it for DAM and no need for extensive pixel editing LR now offers a single solution.

For my own needs that is the route that I've gone. A few years ago I was using Nikon's software as my RAW converter/basic editor and various other products(including PSE) for pixel editing. I grudgingly started using LR for the DAM features and once in the door figured might as well use it for RAW editing. Over time as LR's features improved I've done more and more of my editing in it. When the masking and content aware repair tool finally came of age I pretty much stopped using pixel editors for anything other than those times when I try to make a purse from a sow's ear. That's a job that certainly needs PS or something similar.

You are correct about LRc being a DAM product. Which more and more includes basic editing and even more than basic lately (as does ACR) which makes the editing part so much better for those who only uses LR of any hue.

I agree that the chances are very good that most people who takes photos don't do anything beyond what LRc and Lr offers in terms of editing.
Again, I agree that initially Graphic designers were the ones primarily using PS (initially the Photoshop courses available at institutions were 90% aimed at Graphic Designers - and courses for photography came later.

I will grant you that if you use LRc for DAM and PS for the editing, you probably use the programs exactly as they were initially intended to be used, and have the best of both worlds.

I would argue that MOST people don't use LRc for it's DAM capabilities. They use it for basic editing.

People avoid Photoshop because it is a very complex program. People are scared of Photoshop and simply don't understand what it can do. I have been at it for 20 years and every second week I find something I didn't know before. And I spend more time in PS than probably 99.325% of people on this forum.

Photojournalists are but a handful of the users. And photoshop is used by them as well. Heck I teach 2 at the moment - each with at least 30 years experience as photographers. The days of doing only "WB , lighting and color" is long gone. Working in Photoshop does not mean you alter contents of images (eg cloning) They could drop the clone tool out of photoshop and I wouldn't even notice. Yes I am being facetious as so many other features and tools can achieve the same results.
But my point is people mostly have the wrong idea about what you do in photoshop. That's a fact. "Is that Photoshopped" means did you change the photo. No one ever says - "is that Lightroomed"

 

[BarkingBeans Coffee]

They could drop the clone tool out of photoshop and I wouldn't even notice. Yes I am being facetious as so many other features and tools can achieve the same results.
But my point is people mostly have the wrong idea about what you do in photoshop. That's a fact. "Is that Photoshopped" means did you change the photo. No one ever says - "is that Lightroomed"

Now if they could only improve the AI so that one can replace a teenager's attitude; that's when people will switch to PS.

 

[PhotoLover]

You are correct about LRc being a DAM product. Which more and more includes basic editing and even more than basic lately (as does ACR) which makes the editing part so much better for those who only uses LR of any hue.

I agree that the chances are very good that most people who takes photos don't do anything beyond what LRc and Lr offers in terms of editing.
Again, I agree that initially Graphic designers were the ones primarily using PS (initially the Photoshop courses available at institutions were 90% aimed at Graphic Designers - and courses for photography came later.

I will grant you that if you use LRc for DAM and PS for the editing, you probably use the programs exactly as they were initially intended to be used, and have the best of both worlds.

I would argue that MOST people don't use LRc for it's DAM capabilities. They use it for basic editing.

People avoid Photoshop because it is a very complex program. People are scared of Photoshop and simply don't understand what it can do. I have been at it for 20 years and every second week I find something I didn't know before. And I spend more time in PS than probably 99.325% of people on this forum.

Photojournalists are but a handful of the users. And photoshop is used by them as well. Heck I teach 2 at the moment - each with at least 30 years experience as photographers. The days of doing only "WB , lighting and color" is long gone. Working in Photoshop does not mean you alter contents of images (eg cloning) They could drop the clone tool out of photoshop and I wouldn't even notice. Yes I am being facetious as so many other features and tools can achieve the same results.
But my point is people mostly have the wrong idea about what you do in photoshop. That's a fact. "Is that Photoshopped" means did you change the photo. No one ever says - "is that Lightroomed"

First let me state that while I'm not afraid of PS, I definitely have not been interested in learning it -- it's more complicated than LR and I haven't felt the need. I also find the LR DAM capabilities enormously helpful, and cannot imagine being without such a tool.

I do think that now with LR making it easy to do local adjustments and such, it seems like *most* photographic needs can be met by that program. My workflow is import -> edit in LR -> very occasionally go into PS.

But my real question is if I'm not doing things like cloning away large objects, etc what things do you feel will result in clearly better images if I use PS rather than LR only? I genuinely am unclear on how most of the pictures I take would be much better if I was a PS whiz. What ARE you doing in PS?? Better sharpening? What all cool things are happening in your photos via using PS?

 

[PhotoLover]

It pretty much is. Folks are not used to the concept of DAM or a database where the files need to be imported. Most software programs do not require any import process; you just find the file and open it.

--Ken

Okay. So people don't care about the catalog as such, they simply don't want to import? And maybe get confused later if they move files outside LR and things go awry?

 

[BarkingBeans Coffee]

First let me state that while I'm not afraid of PS, I definitely have not been interested in learning it -- it's more complicated than LR and I haven't felt the need. I also find the LR DAM capabilities enormously helpful, and cannot imagine being without such a tool.

I do think that now with LR making it easy to do local adjustments and such, it seems like *most* photographic needs can be met by that program. My workflow is import -> edit in LR -> very occasionally go into PS.

But my real question is if I'm not doing things like cloning away large objects, etc what things do you feel will result in clearly better images if I use PS rather than LR only? I genuinely am unclear on how most of the pictures I take would be much better if I was a PS whiz. What ARE you doing in PS?? Better sharpening? What all cool things are happening in your photos via using PS?

Some of the things that aren't that difficult.

Best color correction - 50% grey layer set to Difference blending mode. Auto curve with correct settings. Black pixels ( Lab color mode - an and b are 0) are natural. Run via Action
Outstanding sharpening - method taught by PetaPixel and f.64 - vivid light sharpening. Run via Action, or stamp layers, convert to Smart Object, run Smart Sharpen. Don't need Topaz)
Remove Tool - incredible results to fix blown highlights and other image problems. On images I take into PS I now do a layer group devoted to distractions.
Multiple Curve Layers - subject, distractions, sky, you name it. Once you understand that you can direct the area you want such as a distracting highlight they are easy to use.
New LIVE Gradients - easy to adjust and add colors (blue hues) with blending modes and Blend IF make them look natural and focus eye on subject.


These are some of the things if one chooses that aren't as easy or can't be done in LR.

Color grading with luminosity masks and other features are very advanced, but the ones above I consider intermediate. I am guessing people have others.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

First let me state that while I'm not afraid of PS, I definitely have not been interested in learning it -- it's more complicated than LR and I haven't felt the need. I also find the LR DAM capabilities enormously helpful, and cannot imagine being without such a tool.

I do think that now with LR making it easy to do local adjustments and such, it seems like *most* photographic needs can be met by that program. My workflow is import -> edit in LR -> very occasionally go into PS.

But my real question is if I'm not doing things like cloning away large objects, etc what things do you feel will result in clearly better images if I use PS rather than LR only? I genuinely am unclear on how most of the pictures I take would be much better if I was a PS whiz. What ARE you doing in PS?? Better sharpening? What all cool things are happening in your photos via using PS?

You made me laugh at myself. I sometimes wonder myself what I do in Photoshop. But then I start working an image - and it comes together - I know why I shoot. The days of a quick here and there fixer upper simply can't compete. I can tell you about it for days - and still not be finished.

Let's be honest - competition out there is fierce - and you can only do so much when shooting an image.I understand not everyone likes spending time on the computer - but when you see the results of a well edited image - you will understand the enjoyment of editing.

In my opinion, there is no equal to proper B&W images created in Photoshop. It needs to stand the test at printing level. It's all in the editing. And bringing it all together as one. Especially for print. Social media images are small and very forgiving. (not that I havent seen some really lovely images on FB etc.)

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

Okay. So people don't care about the catalog as such, they simply don't want to import? And maybe get confused later if they move files outside LR and things go awry?

exactly that. nothing else. (I think)

 

[PhotoLover]

Some of the things that aren't that difficult.

Best color correction - 50% grey layer set to Difference blending mode. Black pixels ( Lab color mode - an and b are 0) are natural. Run via Action
Outstanding sharpening - method taught by PetaPixel and f.64 - vivid light sharpening. Run via Action, or stamp layers, convert to Smart Object, run Smart Sharpen. Don't need Topaz)
Remove Tool - incredible results to fix blown highlights and other image problems. On images I take into PS I now do a layer group devoted to distractions.
Multiple Curve Layers - subject, distractions, sky, you name it. Once you understand that you can direct the area you want such as a distracting highlight they are easy to use.
New LIVE Gradients - easy to adjust and add colors (blue hues) with blending modes and Blend IF make them look natural and focus eye on subject.


These are some of the things if one chooses that aren't as easy or can't be done in LR.

Color grading with luminosity masks and other features are very advanced, but the ones above I consider intermediate. I am guessing people have others.

Okay, that's a helpful response. Aside from the remove tool stuff (removing objects, etc I already understood) about what percent of your photos really benefit from things like better color correction, better sharpening, etc. 50%? 75%?

I mean, right now I have a bunch of 20+ Mb images that I can edit with LR and get reasonable results (I think). When I take it into PS, I suddenly have a very big Tiff file and it takes more time. I guess I'm trying to get a feel for what percent of photos move from good to great using PS, in your experience.

Also, I"m curious how many of the working pros on this forum routinely us PS on their photos. I mean, I use PS sometimes. But not often.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

Some of the things that aren't that difficult.

Best color correction - 50% grey layer set to Difference blending mode. Auto curve with correct settings. Black pixels ( Lab color mode - an and b are 0) are natural. Run via Action
Outstanding sharpening - method taught by PetaPixel and f.64 - vivid light sharpening. Run via Action, or stamp layers, convert to Smart Object, run Smart Sharpen. Don't need Topaz)
Remove Tool - incredible results to fix blown highlights and other image problems. On images I take into PS I now do a layer group devoted to distractions.
Multiple Curve Layers - subject, distractions, sky, you name it. Once you understand that you can direct the area you want such as a distracting highlight they are easy to use.
New LIVE Gradients - easy to adjust and add colors (blue hues) with blending modes and Blend IF make them look natural and focus eye on subject.


These are some of the things if one chooses that aren't as easy or can't be done in LR.

Color grading with luminosity masks and other features are very advanced, but the ones above I consider intermediate. I am guessing people have others.

The learning curve in Photoshop is modular. You can learn as much or as little as you are comfortable with. And even basic stuff is more advanced than LR x2

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

Okay, that's a helpful response. Aside from the remove tool stuff (removing objects, etc I already understood) about what percent of your photos really benefit from things like better color correction, better sharpening, etc. 50%? 75%?

I mean, right now I have a bunch of 20+ Mb images that I can edit with LR and get reasonable results (I think). When I take it into PS, I suddenly have a very big Tiff file and it takes more time. I guess I'm trying to get a feel for what percent of photos move from good to great using PS, in your experience.

Also, I"m curious how many of the working pros on this forum routinely us PS on their photos. I mean, I use PS sometimes. But not often.

100% benefit in my case. You do not have to take a .tiff file over to Photoshop.

It does not mean that one can't do rally good editing in LR. It just means you have limitations. There's an old saying - you don't know what you don't know.

I know I am a photoshop addict. Yes, that doesn't mean everyone else has to be one too. I am sure other people have a life outside of photography

 

[bleirer]

Though if Photoshop encounters a raw file it opens ACR to make a tiff or psd before it can work on the image. If sending from lightroom, Lightroom makes the tiff or psd. Either way Photoshop can't edit raws directly without ACR or Lightroom or another raw converter creating a file type it is capable of reading.

 

[bleirer]

To me once one starts thinking in layers and realizing the power of layers and layer masks, then Photoshop becomes very attractive. With modern masking, Lightroom classic can now do a lot of the same basic stuff. Lightroom classic doesn't do layers, but it sort of does the same idea for basic things with the ability to mask. But in Photoshop it is multiplied because one can still essentially open as many Lightroom versions of the same image as desired, and reveal as much of each as desired. Plus all the many other things Photoshop does which I'll never learn all of.

 

[BarkingBeans Coffee]

Okay, that's a helpful response. Aside from the remove tool stuff (removing objects, etc I already understood) about what percent of your photos really benefit from things like better color correction, better sharpening, etc. 50%? 75%?

I mean, right now I have a bunch of 20+ Mb images that I can edit with LR and get reasonable results (I think). When I take it into PS, I suddenly have a very big Tiff file and it takes more time. I guess I'm trying to get a feel for what percent of photos move from good to great using PS, in your experience.

Also, I"m curious how many of the working pros on this forum routinely us PS on their photos. I mean, I use PS sometimes. But not often.

Honestly from a given effort - maybe 2-4 from a shoot. So a recent experiences of 2500-3000 images from Auto Capture. 10 -15 min to download and review with Fast Raw Viewer. Maybe 20 left. I will import all those to LRc and take advantage of keywording and apply a flat linear profile with Auto adjustments. In the case of a recent shoot, I had Gila Woodpeck, Flicker and Canyon Towhee so I think I took the best of each bird.

Certainly not every image. Not even the majority.

 

[Replytoken]

First let me state that while I'm not afraid of PS, I definitely have not been interested in learning it -- it's more complicated than LR and I haven't felt the need. I also find the LR DAM capabilities enormously helpful, and cannot imagine being without such a tool.

I do think that now with LR making it easy to do local adjustments and such, it seems like *most* photographic needs can be met by that program. My workflow is import -> edit in LR -> very occasionally go into PS.

But my real question is if I'm not doing things like cloning away large objects, etc what things do you feel will result in clearly better images if I use PS rather than LR only? I genuinely am unclear on how most of the pictures I take would be much better if I was a PS whiz. What ARE you doing in PS?? Better sharpening? What all cool things are happening in your photos via using PS?

Like you I entered the Adobe world through LRC and I do not use PS. But having watched folks who are skilled at PS work on an image could best answer your question. The gap has certainly narrowed over the years, but there are tools in PS that just do not exist in LRC. Then again, knowing how to use those tools is probably the most important factor. You cannot muscle around in PS and get good results without knowing what you are doing.

--Ken

 

[Replytoken]

Okay. So people don't care about the catalog as such, they simply don't want to import? And maybe get confused later if they move files outside LR and things go awry?

It s a mixture of all of the above in various amounts depending on the user. People do not understand what does, and does not, take place in the import process. So, with incorrect assumptions, it is easy to find yourself either lost or down a rabbit hole that will require a lot of effort to get out of. Spend some time at the LR Queen forums and you will better understand many of the problems that people write in asking for assistance to fix.

--Ken

 

[BarkingBeans Coffee]

It s a mixture of all of the above in various amounts depending on the user. People do not understand what does, and does not, take place in the import process. So, with incorrect assumptions, it is easy to find yourself either lost or down a rabbit hole that will require a lot of effort to get out of. Spend some time at the LR Queen forums and you will better understand many of the problems that people write in asking for assistance to fix.

--Ken

Honestly just like @Steve guides, the LQ book should be read, or skimmed in parts, to get a full idea of what LRc can do and how it does it.

 

[Replytoken]

Honestly just like @Steve guides, the LQ book should be read, or skimmed in parts, to get a full idea of what LRc can do and how it does it.

And there are tons of helpful videos out there as well. Julieanne Kost has a number of great videos.

--Ken

 

[Anjin San]

There is no way on gods green earth I keep 15k out of 20k of photos. I might end up with as much as 1k, and half that will be documentary shots (the once-in-a-life-time-but-crap shot)
Holiday snaps don't count for the purpose if this conversation. And if you get 15k brilliant images out of 20k, we wouldn't be having this conversation - you would be rich and sitting on your own island with someone else doing your editing.

As for storing all your photos in the cloud - better make sure you have connection then. Unless I am on a paid shoot that demands immediate delivery of photos, I don't edit while on a trip. I am on a trip to take photos - not sit in front of my laptop.

Besides documentary photos, I ONLY process and keep portfolio photos. Maybe some alternatives get saved but the rest goes. I am sitting with several HD of images I will most probably never look at again. In all honesty - what are the chances I will sell a photo taken on a D70? Slim. Very slim. Caveat - journalism is not in this category.

Interesting that you find LR (local) aimed at the smartphone shooter and not really at the pro - May I remind you that actually LR is the dumbed down version of Photoshop, so some might say a real Professional photographer will not even bother with LR. Photoshop is paired firstly with Bridge and ACR and does not use catalogs. Never has and never will. Even Abode understands this.

While LR of any hue is enough for many many photographers - Photoshop is the ACTUAL professional editing and retouching program. LR is simply not on the same professional level as Photoshop. So many have said that ppl just don't understand the catalogs properly. I would say people who use LR do so because they don't understand how to use Photoshop.
Stone-throwing may commence

I’m not saying I get 15K keepers out of 20K…far from it. What I am saying is that disk space prices being what they are…there’s no way I’m deleting 75 o4 80 percent of the images I took on a $20k trip…because I might do something with them later and drive space is cheap and limitless at this point. It’s not me saying LR is aimed at smartphone shooters…that’s Matiash’s statement and he‘s not completely out to lunch there. I’m fine with other people only keeping photos they deem worthy of processing...but that’s not me. And while agree that PS is a better overall image processor than either LR or LrC…that’s not relevant to most people since the latter is easier and does what they need. In reality you’re totally correct…the likelihood I will ever use 90% of the photos 8 took is low…but disk space is cheap and plentiful, so I see no reason to delete them. I’m not a pro though…and others mileage (including yours) obviously varies...but for me and a lot of others…going to say Africa for that cost and trashing 90% of the 8mages you took seems shortsighted…but YMMV and I’m not saying either approach is wrong. But given the price of drive space…I believe that arbitrarily deleting every photo you don’t immediately decide to process is wrong…and that’s what he’s suggesting…and then he admits he’s got 5 TB or whatever of images in the cloud…so he’s not eating his own dog food, he’s shilling for his course and saying that his way is the only possible good solution. I think that cloud based LR will end up being the only Lightroom eventually…but switching now and forgoing the features that LR lacks is foolish at this point IMO. Like you…I mostly don’t edit on a trip…but then I pay for all of my trips and it seems like you are a pro so maybe trips are a business expense…but spending 20Kmon a trip to Africa and tossing 90% of the images because I’m too cheap to put them on m6 RAID seems…not me.

For the vast majority of non pro users (well, maybe not but at least for me and I don’t think I’m alone)…the additional capabilities of PS over LR of either variety are overrated…because we don’t need them. And I’m not going to throw stones at anyone…I was just commenting on the video…Brian has clearly decided that LR is for him and I’m good with that…but then he advocates tossing 90% of the one comes home with…and I disagree with that approach…it works for him and maybe for you…but it doesn’t work…for a lot of people.

 

[Anjin San]

Download RAW to a folder on your computer
Open Bridge - view, cull rate (RAW ready for back up)
Open in ACR to do RAW edits. Either open each individually in PS or save the lot out to your Jpeg/PSD/whatever folder where you keep your edits. (one step to do this)
Also view that file straight from Bridge (you can have several tabs open in Bridge - and this makes for easy viewing and access)
Should you wish to continue your edits in Photoshop - open straight from your Jpg/Psd tab in Bridge. Edit in PS. From PS you can also use ACR as a filter on a layer - no switching between programs. If you work on a smart object in PS, the ACR filter is also editable - which is extremely powerful and means you don't have to re-do a whole filter layer if you want to make changes anywhere along the way or even delete that layer.
Save. (it immediately updates your photos and thumbnails in Bridge and your photo in your traditional folder.
No catalogs, not backwards and forwards. All integrated.
You might have noticed I dislike LR immensely.

Edited because the original got deleted although it didn’t seem out of forum rules to me.

I don’t get the dislike of LR or LrC or the hatred of catalogs. Like icon files or registry entries for windows folk or SQLlite databases…that’s just internal computer management. Yes, moving files outside of LrC confuses it…but we all understand that and the solution is just…don’t do that. I pay no more attention to the catalog (or not) than to the zillion .xmp files that get created by either version of Lightroom…but I just put the dislike down on the list of many things I don’t understand and that’s just fine.

 

[Anjin San]

Good example of how complexity is in the eye of the beholder. This sounds terribly complicated to me. Sounds like due to a dislike of the catalog function you've thrown out the baby with the bath water.

One question, with the Bridge/ACR combination can you edit one RAW photo and apply those edits to a whole series?

Dan…I agree, too many people have this inherent hatred of the catalog in LrC…and for the life of me I don’t get it. It’s just like icon files or SQLLite databases or frameworks or whatever…it’s just stuff in the vowels of the computer for me. Yes, there are things you don’t do like move files in Finder because it confuses a LrC…but so what, just don’t do that. All the hullabaloo about damaged catalogs goes away if you have backup turned on…and the catalog or a zillion xmp files is prett6 much the same to me.

 

[PhotoLover]

Though if Photoshop encounters a raw file it opens ACR to make a tiff or psd before it can work on the image. If sending from lightroom, Lightroom makes the tiff or psd. Either way Photoshop can't edit raws directly without ACR or Lightroom or another raw converter creating a file type it is capable of reading.

That's what I was getting at. I thought if I went LR -> PS there was no way to avoid creating something like a Tiff file to go with the original RAW file.

 

[PhotoLover]

To me once one starts thinking in layers and realizing the power of layers and layer masks, then Photoshop becomes very attractive. With modern masking, Lightroom classic can now do a lot of the same basic stuff. Lightroom classic doesn't do layers, but it sort of does the same idea for basic things with the ability to mask. But in Photoshop it is multiplied because one can still essentially open as many Lightroom versions of the same image as desired, and reveal as much of each as desired. Plus all the many other things Photoshop does which I'll never learn all of.

And I don't think in layers, certainly one reason I don't reach for PS very quickly. But even if I don't aspire to PS gurudom, I should probably more time to fully understand how to use them.

And I really need to try out the PS sharpening capabilities.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Dan…I agree, too many people have this inherent hatred of the catalog in LrC…Yes, there are things you don’t do like move files in Finder because it confuses a LrC…but so what, just don’t do that...

It's funny no one has a problem with downloading their photos. But say the word "import" and their eyes roll back in their heads. If they'd just use LRC as their tool for downloading many of the issues would go away. And honestly I have zero sympathy for people who "can't find my photos" in LRC. If they were there and now they're gone then you moved them. So where did you move them to? If you know where you moved them you simply tell LRC where they are. If you don't know where you moved them.... well.... LRC isn't the problem.

Honestly IMO the hatred of the catalog is displaced self-hatred. You screwed up. You know you did. But the catalog is a convenient scape goat to deflect the blame