What version of LightRoom to get for my particular needs?

nathancarter wrote in post #17735441
Allow Lightroom to help you at the things it does best (importing, organizing, and publishing your files) - don't fight against it when it comes to these things.

To each their own.

When I started with Lr a few years ago, I was aware that cataloging and organizing was Lr's strength, and soon was experimenting with this... but found it to be a struggle, and mostly unnecessary for how I do photography. Finally I gave up and now don't do any organizing in Lr. I do sometimes use metadata, for instance to find pics taken with a particular lens.

For me, Lr is a powerful raw converter and picture editor. It does almost everything I need.

When working in Lr, I rename folders and individual picture files to give them meaning. Later, if I need to find (say) my picture of a clover blossom, I go into Windows Explorer and search my Photo folder on "clover". So I am independent of Lr for pic searches. Now if Adobe disappears in the future or does something that I don't like, I can abandon Lr and continue with any other pic editor.

Archibald wrote in post #17735466
To each their own.

When I started with Lr a few years ago, I was aware that cataloging and organizing was Lr's strength, and soon was experimenting with this... but found it to be a struggle, and mostly unnecessary for how I do photography. Finally I gave up and now don't do any organizing in Lr. I do sometimes use metadata, for instance to find pics taken with a particular lens.

For me, Lr is a powerful raw converter and picture editor. It does almost everything I need.

When working in Lr, I rename folders and individual picture files to give them meaning. Later, if I need to find (say) my picture of a clover blossom, I go into Windows Explorer and search my Photo folder on "clover". So I am independent of Lr for pic searches. Now if Adobe disappears in the future or does something that I don't like, I can abandon Lr and continue with any other pic editor.

Good points. That's a reasonable way to do it. I also give my files and folders meaningful names, for approximately the same reasons - though, I rename by set and not by individual photo. I don't make the best use of keywording and collections.

You can accomplish a similar search by using the filter bar in Lightroom's library module: Searching filename (or any/all text fields) for a word or string.

Have you experimented with other raw editors? I've considered Capture One, but I'm already mostly satisfied with my workflow in Lightroom. Capture One might even be a better raw editor for my most-common needs (pleasing skin tones), but I don't think that tiny improvement would be worth the learning curve and workflow change.

I'll readily admit that I don't have a fallback plan if Adobe and Lightroom were to vanish tomorrow. I don't expect that to happen, at least not without enough warning that I could migrate to something different. If it happened without warning, I would likely take a short break from photography until someone else came up with a way to get back into my Lightroom catalog.

Archibald wrote in post #17735466
To each their own.

When I started with Lr a few years ago, I was aware that cataloging and organizing was Lr's strength, and soon was experimenting with this... but found it to be a struggle, and mostly unnecessary for how I do photography. Finally I gave up and now don't do any organizing in Lr. I do sometimes use metadata, for instance to find pics taken with a particular lens.

For me, Lr is a powerful raw converter and picture editor. It does almost everything I need.

When working in Lr, I rename folders and individual picture files to give them meaning. Later, if I need to find (say) my picture of a clover blossom, I go into Windows Explorer and search my Photo folder on "clover". So I am independent of Lr for pic searches. Now if Adobe disappears in the future or does something that I don't like, I can abandon Lr and continue with any other pic editor.

You do realize that this can be done in Lr as well right? Maybe you do. I only point it out because I've seen a lot of people complain about how Lr organizes folders and how they prefer to use their own file structure, yet you can use your own file structure in Lr. It's true that Lr has a default file structure, but it's just as easy to use whatever folder organization you choose as it is to do it in Windows.

Works fine on 6.2 also. I was holding my breath until I tried it, afraid that they might counter the hack. I guess they don't care. Dehaze is now in the local tools also and the hack can't do that, just like it can't do white~black points.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17735511
You do realize that this can be done in Lr as well right? Maybe you do. I only point it out because I've seen a lot of people complain about how Lr organizes folders and how they prefer to use their own file structure, yet you can use your own file structure in Lr. It's true that Lr has a default file structure, but it's just as easy to use whatever folder organization you choose as it is to do it in Windows.

Yes, sort of...

Before importing into Lr, I find it easier to manually copy files from the card(s) to the folder(s) that I created on the HD. That has fewer hassles for me than trying to get Lr to understand what I want. The issue is that sometimes I have files from 2 or 3 cameras that need to go into the same folder, or sometimes I want files from one card to go into two or more folders. One camera has files that need to be batch-renamed, a task that Lr can't do or screws up (Lr can't do search & replace renaming). Too much for Lr in my experience.

Tom, I don't think you want LR. I think you want PS Elements. It is not rental, it has three levels - Basic, Guided and Expert, so its like having a builtin tut when you get stuck, and it has the most basic and important parts of LR-ACR without the fancy extras. The extra stuff - the local edits - you can usually do better in PSE.

It's a bit of trust thing to let LR do it. You can move photos around easily but you must do it in LR for the catalogue to update automatically. Batch rename can easily be done on import as well. When I import I also import to two different hard drives in case of hardware failure. Once I've worked on them, I'm happy, and I've moved on, I drag the folder within LR to the mapped drive on my NAS then delete the additional import copy.

flowrider wrote in post #17735688
Batch rename can easily be done on import as well.

It's all so easy when you know how. Even nuclear physics is easy when you know how.

I've played with the Lr renamer quite a few times and still can't figure it out.

Lol

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17735310
I finally got a computer that should be fast enough to run LightRoom! Most of you here on POTN seem to be quite familiar with LightRoom, so I thought I would call on your knowledge for help. I need to know what version would best suit my particular needs........which are:

1: Lightroom 6 stand alone version - Adobe may require you to sign up for a free CC account in order to get updates but there is no monthly fee.

2: No connection issues with LR6 stand alone.

3: LR6 has the (local) adjustment brush, the radial filter, the graduated filter and the spot removal tool. All of these make local adjustments to just the targeted area of the image. You may find them a bit basic at first but with a little practice using the size, feather, flow and density settings (and auto-mask) you will find you can do a hell of a lot with them.

4: Not possible in Lightroom (or any other RAW editor). That would have to be done after converting the RAW file to a TIFF/PSD/other RGB image file.

5: Adobe will continue to support new cameras in LR6 until LR7 launches. Both the cameras you mentioned are supported in LR6. Most new cameras that launch prior to LR7 will have supported added. If a camera launches after Adobe launch LR7 then LR6 will most likely NOT get support added. However they do provide a free DNG conversion tool which will convert the new camera's RAW files to a DNG file that LR6 will be able to work with.

Archibald wrote in post #17735466
When working in Lr, I rename folders and individual picture files to give them meaning. Later, if I need to find (say) my picture of a clover blossom, I go into Windows Explorer and search my Photo folder on "clover". So I am independent of Lr for pic searches.

nathancarter wrote in post #17735503
You can accomplish a similar search by using the filter bar in Lightroom's library module: Searching filename (or any/all text fields) for a word or string.

Cool. I've been using Lr now for quite a few years, and am still learning tricks it can do. I just tried it, and yes, you can do searches on text in file names within Lr. Thanks for the tip.

Boy, Lr really is a complicated program. Very useful of course, and quick to use, but takes much time to learn effectively. I've been using it maybe 7 years now and I'm sure still have lots to learn.

While I'm here, a question... say I have found a pic in Lr and then want to locate the file on the HD. What is the most efficient way of learning its path? Hovering the cursor over the pic doesn't display the info. I know I can right-click the pic in Lr and do "Show in Explorer" or "Go to Folder." Is that the best way?

Archibald, you have me worrying. I am extremely illiterate with anything computer-oriented. And I really don't learn well via tutorials, reading instructions, playing around with programs, etc. If I am to learn something, it pretty much needs to be done with someone right there with me in person showing me how to do something. And this I don't have access to (very small town I live in with no other serious photographers).

I have no idea what you are talking about with a "path", with regards to a photo being on the hard drive and on LR simultaneously. Can't a photo just be in LR, the way photos are just in iPhoto? With iPhoto I have not had to learn how to navigate my way around my computer.....i just click on the iPhoto icon, and that opens up the iPhoto program. Then I can get to work doing what I need to do with my photos. I don't need to go to any other part of my computer; I can just do all I need to do in iPhoto. I was hoping that LR would work the same way, but just give me more editing options. Is this so, or does LR depend on the user also using other parts of the computer (such as the hard drive you mentioned) in conjunction with LR?

The reason I liked iPhoto was because of its extreme ease of use. I mean, I didn't have to figure anything out, or learn anything......it was all so obvious that it was self-explanatory. I have been told by many that LR is "so easy to use" and "so easy to learn". Yet if you have had such a difficult time with it, I suspect that I would, also.

Can anyone else share their learning experiences with LR? Did you just pick it up "automatically", like I did with iPhoto, or did you have to study, concentrate, focus, etc in order to figure out how to use it?

Tom,

LR is a fantastic program, but is hard to learn (my experience). It took me months, and I took breaks from it for long stretches, going to other editors, before going back to learn more of LR. After a while (quite a while) I overcame the difficulties and LR became very easy to use. Now I'm tempted to say to people that LR is "easy". But I do remember my earlier experiences with it.

LR is like anything else with computers. Just learn what you need to know, and when you need to learn it. You have to be selective in what you tackle. Otherwise there is too much. Take it a step at a time.

"Path" means the location of a file on the computer. (I use Windows.) I have Windows Explorer open all the time, and explore around to find the files I need. It is a good way to manage the files on a computer.

All these things are hard if you don't know them, and easy if you do. And they can all be learned (making them easy), but it takes time and effort and sometimes courage. The only way to learn them is to actually do them on the computer, and then to do them again the next day and the day after that (otherwise you forget). Only you can decide how to approach this, but I suggest being a bit daring and trying things, selectively.

There is lots of help online and of course here at POTN.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17736427
Can't a photo just be in LR, the way photos are just in iPhoto? With iPhoto I have not had to learn how to navigate my way around my computer.....i just click on the iPhoto icon, and that opens up the iPhoto program. Then I can get to work doing what I need to do with my photos. I don't need to go to any other part of my computer; I can just do all I need to do in iPhoto. I was hoping that LR would work the same way, but just give me more editing options.

In iPhoto, you had the option of your library being Managed (where all images are stored within the iPhoto library) or Referenced (where the photos physically reside on your hard drive and iPhoto just points to them). Lightroom only offers the Referenced option. You're free to store your images in whatever folder structure you prefer (date, location, all in one folder, etc). The main thing to remember is to only make changes to the image files (locations, names, etc) within Lightroom. If you move the files or rename them outside of Lightroom, Lightroom won't know where they are and you'll have to tell Lightroom where you moved the images to.

DGStinner wrote in post #17736449
The main thing to remember is to only make changes to the image files (locations, names, etc) within Lightroom. If you move the files or rename them outside of Lightroom, Lightroom won't know where they are and you'll have to tell Lightroom where you moved the images to.

Agreed, except that Lightroom is balky about renaming folders and often reports it can't do it. This bug has persisted over many LR versions. Well, I suppose it is a LR bug, because when it happens, I can go into Win Explorer and always change it there. Then I go back into LR and use LR to find the renamed folder, which is not a hard procedure.

So your advice is valid, but it is not a big deal if you don't heed it or can't heed it and then have to get LR find the folders.