Adobe Releases Lightroom Classic CC v7.5

LDS

EOR R
Sep 14, 2012
1,580
152
Seriously?
I think you are confusing the combination of the image files and the database as opposed to the database, the images are not stored in the SQLite database that Lightroom uses.
No. It looks that depends on, besides how many images you have - which aren't in the database, nor the previews-, which data are recorded and stored inside the daabase - i.e. the change history, keywords, collections, etc. etc. If you perform a lot of editing in LR you'll have more data per image then someone who performs minimal edits only.

I just checked one of my catalogue and with about 7.500 images is already over 1GB, and it doesn't shrink after maintenance.

The fact is with artificially limited database engines some heavy users could hit the limits - and you can't really ask them to buy an expensive database engine if they wish to keep on working., so I can't really blame Adobe choice of SQLite, lightweight and powerful enough for single user needs.
 

oss

I'm New Here
Dec 27, 2015
9
0
No. It looks that depends on, besides how many images you have - which aren't in the database, nor the previews-, which data are recorded and stored inside the daabase - i.e. the change history, keywords, collections, etc. etc. If you perform a lot of editing in LR you'll have more data per image then someone who performs minimal edits only.

I just checked one of my catalogue and with about 7.500 images is already over 1GB, and it doesn't shrink after maintenance.

The fact is with artificially limited database engines some heavy users could hit the limits - and you can't really ask them to buy an expensive database engine if they wish to keep on working., so I can't really blame Adobe choice of SQLite, lightweight and powerful enough for single user needs.
Fair enough but I won't be storing edits in the database, just locations, metadata, collections and tags, edits will have to be stored in the manner chosen by the developers of each editor.

I'm just a solo developer I'm writing a catalogue manager for organising and finding my images, I'm not writing an editor, it is extremely likely that Adobe employed and employ a fair sized team to build and maintain Lightroom. I am a professional software developer and currently work on and maintain a large ERP system designed for a specific vertical market, database sizing is part of the job and in my opinion SQL Server Express will be perfect for what I want to achieve, plus this will be non commercial I'm not asking anyone to buy it. And yes SQLite is really good it is a great wee database.

For info I just checked my main photo drive and the largest .lrcat file I have is 215 MB that's out of about 96 lrcat files most of which are the lrcat files for earlier Lightroom versions.
 

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
823
273
59
Blyth, NE England
If your internet provider goes out of business, hopefully you can still buy internet access from another one.
And you can always move to another raw converter - nobody is inextricably locked in to Lr, and most of the competition provide Lr database import tools.

I did it myself - and I'm fine with the idea of "renting" Lr. I just wasn't using it, because frankly there are far better converters out there. So I cancelled.

I didn't feel the need to make a Cause célèbre out of it, though.

But that's not the point. If people are OK in principle with internet (or phone) access as a service - or household water, gas and electricity provision (and we are) - it baffles me why paying for Lr on a subscription basis is seen as such a sin against God. We "rent" tons of stuff. Why should being presented with only the option of renting Lr, be taken so personally?

If people don't like it, don't do it - but for pity's sake I wish they would stop yammering on about it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

oss

I'm New Here
Dec 27, 2015
9
0
And you can always move to another raw converter - nobody is inextricably locked in to Lr, and most of the competition provide Lr database import tools.

I did it myself - and I'm fine with the idea of "renting" Lr. I just wasn't using it, because frankly there are far better converters out there. So I cancelled.

I didn't feel the need to make a Cause célèbre out of it, though.

But that's not the point. If people are OK in principle with internet (or phone) access as a service - or household water, gas and electricity provision (and we are) - it baffles me why paying for Lr on a subscription basis is seen as such a sin against God. We "rent" tons of stuff. Why should being presented with only the option of renting Lr, be taken so personally?

If people don't like it, don't do it - but for pity's sake I wish they would stop yammering on about it...
It's price vs usage, you said it yourself, I rent a flat, and a house in another country, the internet in two countries and loads of other things but most of these I use all the time so I get something for my money, for me Lightroom gets used a few times a year and I love Lightroom but the rent is too steep for what I get from it.

Not the end of the world but I would like some more control over the price.
 

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
823
273
59
Blyth, NE England
It's price vs usage,.
And many people think that LightRoom and PhotoShop for the price of a bottle of wine a month is the bargain of the century - but it's almost a heresy, it would appear, for anyone's personal cost/benefit analysis to favour that outcome.

The hatred some people have for Adobe over their pricing/licencing decisions is utterly irrational, not least because (typical of fundamentalists and zealots everywhere), only a "price vs usage" decision that comes down firmly against the rental model, is apparently acceptable.

And they do their ranting while happily paying for their internet access in exactly the same way...
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee