SausalitoDog
Well-known
I couldn't agree more. That is why I never use LR.
At least aperture lets you sort of ignore the catalog, but it still makes me crazy. Both would probably be really nice with no catalog. Same for catalog one.
These apps are not really aimed at serious photogs. None of them work well with really large catalogs.
Besides, I still don't see any advantage in any of them over photoshop except price.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
With all due respect, Tom, the fact that a piece of software doesn't fit your particular workflow does not mean that it is not suitable for "serious use."
I know several photographers who shot large volumes of work and use LR as the core of their digital asset management workflow.
I know several photographers who shot large volumes of work and use LR as the core of their digital asset management workflow.
SausalitoDog
Well-known
Semilog-
I phrased that poorly.
It is my understanding that LR does not perform well if you add more than 35000 files to a catalog. I think that many "serious" (or just very active) photogs have many more images than that in their archives. If so, the catalog "feature" becomes a drawback...a very unwelcome one. And a frustrating one since the other capabilities of the app are very intriguing.
I phrased that poorly.
It is my understanding that LR does not perform well if you add more than 35000 files to a catalog. I think that many "serious" (or just very active) photogs have many more images than that in their archives. If so, the catalog "feature" becomes a drawback...a very unwelcome one. And a frustrating one since the other capabilities of the app are very intriguing.
icaro2007
Member
I have by far more than 35000 files in my LR catalog and I di not have any problem. I know many others with catalogs largely size exceeding 100000 picture and never heard of any issue.
willie_901
Veteran
I have no idea where you got that idea.
It is fair to assume that limited processing power, memory capacity and disk access speed of could make LR 4/5 frustrating to use. At the same time, the newest and quickest computers are not required for speed.
SausalitoDog
Well-known
I asked adobe when it first was released and was told that more than 35,000 files in a catalog would affect performance and definitely it would handle more than 50,000 files.
Since I have a lot more than that, it pretty much stopped my research on LR. I got a free copy with a Leica X and played with it but pretty much just went back to Photoshop and forgot about it. The only reason I'm looking at it again is that I don't like the idea of renting PS by the month (yes, I know it actually will cost the same...but it that is so, why can't adobe just continue to sell it the way they always have
How many photos do your have in your LR catalog? I presently have about 140,000 in Media Pro and would want to be able to manage the same amount in any other app.
Cheers,
Tom
Since I have a lot more than that, it pretty much stopped my research on LR. I got a free copy with a Leica X and played with it but pretty much just went back to Photoshop and forgot about it. The only reason I'm looking at it again is that I don't like the idea of renting PS by the month (yes, I know it actually will cost the same...but it that is so, why can't adobe just continue to sell it the way they always have
How many photos do your have in your LR catalog? I presently have about 140,000 in Media Pro and would want to be able to manage the same amount in any other app.
Cheers,
Tom
lcpr
Well-known
Tom, the large catalog issue isn't a problem in recent Lightroom releases, I believe they fixed that by LR2.
willie_901
Veteran
Well I certainly don't have 140k of keeper originals in LR. I may have over 60k if you count virtual copies.
He many of your 140K are processed versions from a single original?
He many of your 140K are processed versions from a single original?