lightroom - why the previews / large databases?

Other programs dont need to make this enormous database with previews.

Picasa, for example, is lightning fast and does not need such things. yet it remmebers which pictures were ediited, etc, and does not need to change the original file or make a database of previews.

Seems to me that picasa should teach lightroom a few things.

Picasa doesn't have near the amount of possibilites of Lightroom. It has also been out for quite some time. The idea behind the previews and database is to store large quatities of data. If Picasa did half of what Lightroom does it would require the same treatment. BTW, other programs do use previews, just in Cache.

In2Photos wrote in post #3139458
Picasa doesn't have near the amount of possibilites of Lightroom. It has also been out for quite some time. The idea behind the previews and database is to store large quatities of data. If Picasa did half of what Lightroom does it would require the same treatment. BTW, other programs do use previews, just in Cache.

Yeah, I realize Picasa is a much simpler program doesnt get the job done, but I can't see why the better, more complex aspects of lightroom require the data-heavy preview storage.

I guess I can't figure out what the critical part of lightroom is, which differs from a simpler program, that requires this approach to storing previews.

bowlesbe wrote in post #3139799
Yeah, I realize Picasa is a much simpler program doesnt get the job done, but I can't see why the better, more complex aspects of lightroom require the data-heavy preview storage.

I guess I can't figure out what the critical part of lightroom is, which differs from a simpler program, that requires this approach to storing previews.

I believe the difference is that Lightroom has way more information to store, since it is capable of raw adjustments, and has significantly more metadata capabilities. There is, I'm sure, a lot more data that Lightroom needs to have available for preview.

However, I'm not a big fan of Lightroom, unlike others that just seemed wowed by its capabilities. It is in fact, a very capable program, it's just not for me, in its current iteration.

And yes, I agree with you that Picasa does a great job. A lot of people don't give it credit because its free, and therefore the perception is that it is not capable enough. Those of us that use it, and it suffices our needs, will just have to find something else to spend the $200 to $300 that Adobe covets from us.

arg245 wrote in post #3139885
I believe the difference is that Lightroom has way more information to store, since it is capable of raw adjustments, and has significantly more metadata capabilities. There is, I'm sure, a lot more data that Lightroom needs to have available for preview.

However, I'm not a big fan of Lightroom, unlike others that just seemed wowed by its capabilities. It is in fact, a very capable program, it's just not for me, in its current iteration.

And yes, I agree with you that Picasa does a great job. A lot of people don't give it credit because its free, and therefore the perception is that it is not capable enough. Those of us that use it, and it suffices our needs, will just have to find something else to spend the $200 to $300 that Adobe covets from us.

A lot of people here do give it credit. IT is often mentioned when someone is looking for a cheap program with a simple interface with some cataloging capabilites. But, it is not capable enough for someone wanting to get the most out of their photos. You don't have enough control over the edits. that is where people turn to GIMP for a free yet moer powerful program. I agree Lightroom is not for everyone, though.

LR handles about 95% of the PP work. GIMP fills in the remaining work for me. There is no perfect software for every person cuz everybody does something different.