Do You Wish Lightroom Was Quicker? Adobe Does Too

[mahdi_mak2000]

I hope they make a better raw converter for new canon bodies.
I have to use rubbish DPP for conversion

 

[Orangutan]

The catalog system is bloated and a resource hog.

exactly! that database stuff needs to go. OS could take care of metadata and keywords directly.

The filesystem of the OS is a database. If the LR database is slow then it's a defect in their particular implementation of a database, not in the concept of a database. Personally, I think database for metadata is the correct way to do it. I detest the fact that DPP wants to embed changes in the original file: every time a file is opened for writing there is a chance of corruption. Raw files should be marked as read-only by the OS, and all edits/metadata stored in a database.

 

[Talys]

The catalog system is bloated and a resource hog.

exactly! that database stuff needs to go. OS could take care of metadata and keywords directly.

The filesystem of the OS is a database. If the LR database is slow then it's a defect in their particular implementation of a database, not in the concept of a database. Personally, I think database for metadata is the correct way to do it. I detest the fact that DPP wants to embed changes in the original file: every time a file is opened for writing there is a chance of corruption. Raw files should be marked as read-only by the OS, and all edits/metadata stored in a database.

I couldn't agree more. There is nothing flawed with the concept of a database at all. You're trading space (which is almost never a constraint) for speed, especially for indexed search. If a database is slow, it's a crappy database system, or more likely, a fine database system with a crappy implementation.

 

[rwvaughn]

The catalog system is bloated and a resource hog.

exactly! that database stuff needs to go. OS could take care of metadata and keywords directly.

If PhotoMechanic had white balance and basic editing ability (tone/contrast/sharpening) I'd have no need for Lightroom at all.

 

[Talys]

Serious question, why not just use Bridge and Photoshop? Its fast and I would assume has almost all the features of Lightroom.

Bridge and ACR combined are more powerful, have more features and are faster than LR.

Like my typical shoot I'm doing some ~100 pic crop in a row, how you do that on Bridge/ACR? Aside from the slow-down, LR is perfect for my use. I wonder if I complained often enough about that so they invited me to the public beta couple weeks ago

My preference is ACR as well. However, I never need to do a hundred pic crops in a row. If I did have to do hundreds in a batch, damn straight I'd use Lightroom Not to mention, if you are doing X-Rite color correction on a hundred photos, Lightroom would be much easier.

 

[niels123]

I have no issues at all as to speed, but some users seem to have issues, often with home built computers using high end components. I learned the hard way that building my own pc is not only expensive, because I used high end components, but more importantly, the components did not always give good performance with some software where as plain components worked well. ACDSEE is a different story, it struggles to run nearly as fast as lightroom or photoshop using my common Dell XPS PC.

Software can always be improved.

Which components in a home-built computer would be conflicting? Graphics cards are usually compatible with the motherboard and windows etc. If there's issues there, then it's just the card which is not properly supported. Motherboard/ CPU/ RAM are such "basic" components that I can't believe they cause compatibility issues

 

[Mikehit]

For me, metadata belongs right into the header of the respective image file, not into a big fat database. Writing/Reading/Searching metadata in file headers is something every reasonable OS can do .. natively. Quite well and very fast as a matter of fact. I never understood, why Adobe felt the need to duplicate file organization with its weirdo database/catalogue, rather than letting the OS do that job.

I would really love a new, SLIM version of LR ... like DPP in terms of raw converter plus all the local adjustment and editing possibilities of LR. Plus included editor for EXIF/ITPC/keyword data. But without that bloated big fat database. No "importing", no catalogue, no exporting". Simply "open", "edit" and "save / save as [e.g. jpg] ..." - as with any other program/App I care to use.

If Canon DPP had perspective/keystone correction (as in LR) and *local adjustments*, not only global ones - I would say goodbye to Adobe today.

LR was originally designed as a digital rights management prgraom to which the catalog was instrumental. Everything you say is 'I don't need lightroom'. So don't use it.

Many professionals use Photomechanic or Breezebrowser as their culling tool and LR as their primary editing tool. It sounds here like your approach to program is like your approach to cameras - any one that cannot do everything you want it to do is crap. Live with it.

 

[AvTvM]

i am fully aware of lr history. do not need or use it as an image inventoey management system. windows and my carefully chosen image naming scheme takes perfectly care of that. i started with raw shooter as raw converter and when it was bought by adobe only to take it from the market i went with the free license of lr 1.0 ...

i actually do like lightroom ... but solely *as a raw processor and photo editing software*. it is still the only app that does all i want and need and has an acceptable user interface (as opposed to ps).

if canon dpp was just a bit enhanced in its "editing capabilities" - especially perspective correction and local adjustments/edits - not evenbto dream of things like "content aware fill" - i would prefer and use it. but unfortunately canon does not seem interesting or willing/able to offer this. btw: yes i would be willing to pay for it - eternal license, 100 € every 3 years, no problem.

acr + photoshop is no solution for ne, since ps is even more bloated than lr and ps user interface gives me the creeps. i bought cs5 only to wipe it from my pc after about an hour. totally un-usable. no, i will never buy books or watch nerd videos on youtube in order to "learn" how to operate software. apps that want a chance with me, need to come with a self-explanatory user interface = decent menus, no "alt-shift-ctrl" keyboard "shortcuts", pure and straightforward workflow oriented, mouse + click. the closer it is to ms office UI, the better.

all other software i have tried so far that "in principal offers what i need" - excellent raw conversion plus some light editing without explicit levels - suffers either from being "too dumbed down" (looking at PS Elements) and/or being "too much/too expensive/too user-unfriendly". unfortunately.

currently i am on lr 5.7 and dont have major performance issues, despite a catalogue with 200.000 images in it. but it is very bloated and all the files that lr creates - catalogues, backups, previews, xmps and a whole slew of other stuff - some of it in obschtrly hidden folders - have grown in total to almost the same size as the image data (raws and jpgs) themselves. which i consider ludicrous.

as soon as i buy a new camera, lr 5.7 will no longer support it. i will not trbt adobe cc. i will not buy lr 6 since it is old already and does not contain full functionality. there will probably be no lr 7 as permanent license. if so, adobe will soon lose me as a customer. even when it means i will lose my "edit recipes" and capability to go back and change something ... for 200.000 images. unfortunately there is still no satisfactory app in sight as a replacement. they all are either "raw converter" only (but for canon raws nothing beats canon dpp) or they are too "ps-like / pixel manipulation" centric (affinity etc) ... which is not what i want/need either.

major dilemma. and really hate adobe for it. why no "lr lite" without database/catalogue and without "cc rental / force-bubdled with useless for me ps"?

 

[LDS]

For me, metadata belongs right into the header of the respective image file, not into a big fat database. Writing/Reading/Searching metadata in file headers is something every reasonable OS can do .. natively. Quite well and very fast as a matter of fact.

No, actually it can't, unless it "indexes" the files, which means it uses a database as well to store files metadata so it can search for them quickly. The difference is that the LR database is optimized for image files (unlike an OS one, which has to cope with many more types), and it is exportable so you can move it to a different/newer machine. It's also fairly easy to add the required data to a database, but it could be impossible to modify an OS to handle data it doesn't support natively - using sidecar files would just slow things down.

BTW, there are increasing concerns about how actual file systems can cope with the increasing sizes of disks, and one of the solutions attempted is to make them more database-like.

I never understood, why Adobe felt the need to duplicate file organization with its weirdo database/catalogue, rather than letting the OS do that job.

LR doesn't duplicate the file organization - and that's a big plus. My file organization is by date, because it simplify backups and archiving - but a database lets me access files under several different "organizations" as needed.

 

[AvTvM]

No, actually it can't, unless it "indexes" the files, which means it uses a database as well to store files metadata so it can search for them quickly. The difference is that the LR database is optimized for image files (unlike an OS one, which has to cope with many more types), and it is exportable so you can move it to a different/newer machine. It's also fairly easy to add the required data to a database, but it could be impossible to modify an OS to handle data it doesn't support natively - using sidecar files would just slow things down.

LR doesn't duplicate the file organization - and that's a big plus. My file organization is by date, because it simplify backups and archiving - but a database lets me access files under several different "organizations" as needed.
[/quote]

not needed in 2017. Windows takes care of it all. I use only 2 apps with a database that duplicates, what windows could do on its own: MS Outlook and Adobe LR. Both suck .. because of their big, fat, clumsy database.

Image tagging is not needed any longer. Enough apps that do automatic tagging by image content and face recognition. Rest: metadata into file header, everything handled by OS (and its index database).

 

[LDS]

Bridge and ACR combined are more powerful, have more features and are faster than LR.

Actually, ACR and LR, AFAIK, share the same RAWand image editing engine, just with slightly different UIs built on top of it. Thereby, performance are the same.

Just to get ACR you need Photoshop - and you'll need the latter (or another application) also for output sharpening and printing, because you can't do it from ACR.

I find LR print proofing and printing far easier than in Photoshop, although the latter may yield better results, but the effort required is higher.

 

[AvTvM]

Bridge and ACR combined are more powerful, have more features and are faster than LR.

Actually, ACR and LR, AFAIK, share the same RAWand image editing engine, just with slightly different UIs built on top of it. Thereby, performance are the same.

the UI is not "slightly different", but "night and day" different.
PS = absolutely unusable for people like me [unwilling to "learn" software] .
LR = quite fine for people like me [people wanting a intuitive UI]

I have not many issues with Adobe RAW engine per se. Problem is elsewhere: I want a *limited, but still powerful set of "simple photo editing" options, to be applied directly on RAW.

meaning:
* good perspective correction [like LR]
* plus simple, "no-levels-needed" local edits/adjustments [like LR]
* things like "intelligent content aware fill" etc. also welcome
* big bloated database = not needed, not wanted

Current options:
* Bridge+PS = way too complex for what i need.
* PS Elements = too dumb, does not offer what I need
* LR has editing functionality, but only in rental/CC version - not in LR 6 ... ... and only with that bloated database
* DPP = only Canon Raws, good raw converter, only global adjustments, no reasonable perspective correction
* other RAW converters: suffer from exactly the same
* other photo editing software: either dumb as Elements and/or "instagram/art filter orgy" or overly complex

THAT's the problem

PS: of course that's only me. I know that many others mileage will vary. But i also know, there are many "photo enthusiasts" looking for exactly the same thing I am after: something like *Lightroom lite* ... sans database.

 

[LDS]

not needed in 2017. Windows takes care of it all. I use only 2 apps with a database that duplicates, what windows could do on its own: MS Outlook and Adobe LR. Both suck .. because of their big, fat, clumsy database.

Frankly, I find the Windows indexer quite heavy, and for examples Samsung advises to disable it on SSDs because it just wears the disk more because of the heavy rewrite cycles at every file modification. It also doesn't handle a lot of EXIF data, only a subset of them, and the search UI is quite ugly.

Nor you can transport catalogs, which is something I do quite often when I work on my Surface while traveling, and then move everything into the main catalog upon my return - without losing any data.

Outlook does use the Windows OS file indexer to search for mailbox contents locally - it doesn't use its own database (it doesn't work if it is disabled). Thereby you just asserted the Windows search function sucks.

Image tagging is not needed any longer. Enough apps that do automatic tagging by image content and face recognition. Rest: metadata into file header, everything handled by OS (and its index database).

A "file header" could not contain all the metadata you may want to add, when the file format is outside your control. Unless you encapsulate the original one inside another one, and you get another proprietary format to manage (like DNGs). Or you have to use sidecar files.

File systems that stores data in some kind of "external attributes" may easily lose them when file are copied to file systems which don't understand them. It is a quite common issue when you copy data from NTFS or HFS/APFS to FAT disks or backup systems. With LR you can move a catalog from a Windows system to a Mac one through a FAT disk, or restore from a backup, and you don't lose anything.

The OS database will be a big mess because it won't contain only the image files, but all the indexed files on disk - with broadly different requirements. OS developers won't care about specific needs, they will fill the most common needs, they won't index all those IPTC fields.

I tag images the way I like, not the way some apps believe I have to tag them - and they won't of course know specific personal tags I wish to add. Face recognition is quite useless when you have a lot of unknown people probably photographed only once.

 

[AvTvM]

The OS database will be a big mess because it won't contain only the image files, but all the indexed files on disk - with broadly different requirements. OS developers won't care about specific needs, they will fill the most common needs, they won't index all those IPTC fields.

Well, my experience is different. Windows search works like a charm now. Automatic tagging is coming right along now.

I want my image files handled exactly like my Excel worksheets, my Word documents, my Powerpoint presentatuions. One file, contains all necessary information. Good naming scheme, orderly folder structure.

I hate MS Outlook. I would like to have 1 folder each with files in it - 1x contacs, 1x calender events/tasks. Every appointment a separate file. Every contact a separate file. App just needs to link them. .pst database is a big PITA. Exactly the same as LR databse. Not needed for what I do.

That's why I want a LR lite. Regular LR can continue, no problem. But for me: "Lite, without database", please.

Pixmantec RAW Shooter was pretty perfect for me [at its time].

 

[Mikehit]

One file, contains all necessary information. Good naming scheme, orderly folder structure.

The whole point of LR is you don't need a file structure. It greatly simplifies searching and cross-referencing.

That's why I want a LR lite. Regular LR can continue, no problem. But for me: "Lite, without database", please.

And if they did that it wouldn't be LR would it!! it would be a different system with a different name...something like...Photomechanic maybe. That would be a good name for it.

 

[zim]

And if they did that it wouldn't be LR would it!! it would be a different system with a different name...something like...Photomechanic maybe. That would be a good name for it.

His problems are deeper than that, no-one will make the camera of his dreams, no-one makes the software of his dreams... what a nightmare, I'd take up a new hobby!

 

[Orangutan]

I hate MS Outlook. I would like to have 1 folder each with files in it - 1x contacs, 1x calender events/tasks. Every appointment a separate file. Every contact a separate file.

Welcome to 1997! Outlook to me is unusable without good indexing/search features -- I have over a 100k items in my Outlook, and still need access to the oldest.

That's why I want a LR lite. Regular LR can continue, no problem. But for me: "Lite, without database", please.

Again, you're just asking for a more effective database, rather than no database at all.

The problem is that Adobe's lead "engineers" are clueless about what people actually want in product behavior. They've stumbled along the path to a product with a lot of power, but also a lot of thorns, and they're hoping no one catches up. They need to take some of that new subscription cash that's burning holes in their pockets and put it into fixing these types of problems.

 

[AvTvM]

I hate MS Outlook. I would like to have 1 folder each with files in it - 1x contacs, 1x calender events/tasks. Every appointment a separate file. Every contact a separate file.

Welcome to 1997! Outlook to me is unusable without good indexing/search features -- I have over a 100k items in my Outlook, and still need access to the oldest.

That's why I want a LR lite. Regular LR can continue, no problem. But for me: "Lite, without database", please.

Again, you're just asking for a more effective database, rather than no database at all.

The problem is that Adobe's lead "engineers" are clueless about what people actually want in product behavior. They've stumbled along the path to a product with a lot of power, but also a lot of thorns, and they're hoping no one catches up. They need to take some of that new subscription cash that's burning holes in their pockets and put it into fixing these types of problems.

i have 100.000+ text files/documents from 25 years and 200.000+ images back to 2000. i have no problem finding any of them. windows even can search into content of text documents. it is indexed already by the os. windows (or other os) "file management database" is all that's needed. thats why any file format has a header with space for metadata. applications should not "double up" with an extra layer of database on top of it.

 

[privatebydesign]

Bridge and ACR combined are more powerful, have more features and are faster than LR.

Actually, ACR and LR, AFAIK, share the same RAWand image editing engine, just with slightly different UIs built on top of it. Thereby, performance are the same.

Just to get ACR you need Photoshop - and you'll need the latter (or another application) also for output sharpening and printing, because you can't do it from ACR.

I find LR print proofing and printing far easier than in Photoshop, although the latter may yield better results, but the effort required is higher.

Performance is not the same as speed. Bridge+ACR can open pretty much any image file so for an imaging professional it is a much more efficient tool, efficiency ends up equating to time.

How many .PSB files do you have? LR can't see them, it is primarily a 'simple' photo program that can't open a lot of 'photo' files.

 

[LDS]

thats why any file format has a header with space for metadata.

Actually, it's far more complex than you think. Some file formats have no headers at all, other store metadata in far more complex structures than simple headers. It may be impossible to add new metadata without breaking the format - especially with formats like RAW files, which are designed for camera write speed, not versatility, and may not be fully documented.

It may also create issues the one LR creates when storing changes inside DNGs - which means incremental backups need to backup the new DNG (possibly several MBs) too.

applications should not "double up" with an extra layer of database on top of it.

LR features like collections, virtual and proof copies would be much harder to implement using only files. You may think links and a file containing a list of files would do - but think what happens when you delete/move an image: you would need to check what links becomes orphaned (very few file systems do it automatically), and look in every collection to delete/move any reference. A (relational) database will do that automatically (it's called "referential integrity").

You may be surprised that a lot of applications, even on smartphones, put a database layer over the data they manage. Where do you believe, for example, WhatsApp stores its chats? Thunderbird stores mail in files, but just like LR it uses a SQLite database to index them.

Moreover applications that need to run on different platforms prefer to avoid to have to cope with the nuisances of the underlying OS when they can. There are differences in how the Apple and Windows file systems work, and how an application can interact with them. Using a common database on each platform, ensures the application is not subject to the whims of the platform - and its functionalities are the same.