Adobe Processing software - high level view

[darkslide]

I'm sorry but I don't really think you can base a choice of program on whether or not people choose (or not) to backup their data. LR has an automatic backup which can be activated which saves a lot of hassle.

Many people don't backup - until their first fatal crash. As it happens I do backup, to the point where I even backup the backups (?!) but then disk space is VERY cheap compared to loss of unique photographic images, IMHO.

Perhaps we need to start another thread regarding backing-up data?

[Macmahon]

I'm sorry but I don't really think you can base a choice of program on whether or not people choose (or not) to backup their data. LR has an automatic backup which can be activated which saves a lot of hassle.

Many people don't backup - until their first fatal crash. As it happens I do backup, to the point where I even backup the backups (?!) but then disk space is VERY cheap compared to loss of unique photographic images, IMHO.

Perhaps we need to start another thread regarding backing-up data?

I also use the catalog autobackup (actually, I think its on by default - but users should check whether or not it automatically backs up to the same disk: that introduces a risk that can be minimised.)

I too backup the backups! Paranoid? Me? All this in spite of the fact that I've never lost data through disk corruption ever since I've used LR - well, actually, ever since I switched computer systems 20-odd years ago.

Tim (aka belt AND braces)

[Colin Southern]

I'm sorry but I don't really think you can base a choice of program on whether or not people choose (or not) to backup their data. LR has an automatic backup which can be activated which saves a lot of hassle.

Many people don't backup - until their first fatal crash. As it happens I do backup, to the point where I even backup the backups (?!) but then disk space is VERY cheap compared to loss of unique photographic images, IMHO.

Perhaps we need to start another thread regarding backing-up data?

Hi Ian,

I've spent my entire working life in the IT industry (some 35+ years), and if there's one thing I've learned (and have been bitten by) it's "Murphy follows you everywhere".

- I've seen numerous examples where people THOUGHT they were backing something up, when in fact they weren't (One was a travel agency who only got their work back because a (risky) controller board swap on a hard drive worked)

- I've seen examples where people didn't realise that their backups were corrupt (how many people do trial restores on a regular basis?) (this one bit me big time - I backed up a disk prior to destroying a RAID set as part of a motherboard change - when I did a restore I discovered that the USB controller on the old motherboard was faulty and as a result, EVERY large file (read "*.PSD") was corrupt).

- I've seen examples where a database was corrupt, but the corruption wasn't immediately obvious -- by the time it was discovered, the corrupted database had been written over all the backup sets. One was a retail shop that lost a years worth of accounting data -- the corruption only showed up when they tried to do an end of year roll over.

- I've seen databases pass integrity checks -- and still have problems (passing an integrity check only means that it's passed all of the checks the programmers have decided to check it for; often this means that the structure of the database is intact ... it DOESN'T mean that the image data WITHIN those structures is intact).

- I've seen a whole punched in the ceiling of an office and a safe that would have taken at least 3 men to move it - stolen. What was in the safe? All of their backups. In the same raid, their PC (ONLY other remaining copy of the data) was pulled forward on a waist high bench (criminals were looking for the key to the safe).

- I've seen clients with a data problem accidentally do another backup over the ONLY good copy of their data (because when under stress (as in oh "heck", my data is corrupt) people panic and revert to familiar behaviour -- and they're one heck of a lot more familiar with doing backups than they are with doing restores.

- I had a big dental surgery lose 10 days worth of work because the receptionist thought the senior dentist was rotating the backup tapes ... and the dentist thought the receptionist was rotating the backup tapes (what saved their butts was a trial backup done on another tape after I replaced a faulty tape drive 10 days before).

So for me, keeping edits in the LR database is a bit like repeatedly driving a car without wearing a seatbelt -- just because one has been doing it for 30 years and is still alive DOESN'T mean that it's not going to kill them tomorrow. In my mind, having edits that are physically kept seperate from the images that they pertain to is crazy crazy crazy - and I predict that some people will lose all of their edits because of it.

But as it turns out though, this isn't the reason I don't use LR, as LR can be configured to save edits directly into my DNG files (which I think is a zillion times safer). Personally I don't use LR because I'm a Bridge/ACR power-user and I find the Bridge + ACR far quicker and efficient. To me, LR is like having a car with a 400HP engine that devotes 390HP to the air conditioning - I find having to constantly collapse and/or scroll control panels extremely annoying -- much rather get to where I need to go with a single keystroke; example: I need to apply a digital GND filter - in ACR I hit the "G" key - drag the mouse over the start and stop points - job done. I can also replicate that across several hundred images in about 4 mouse clicks. I'm willing to bet that if I threw 600 images from a studio shoot at a LR user, I'd be finished making the same edits long before they would.

[darkslide]

Colin

I appreciate your comments - however, please don't get mad when someone questions what you've written

My outlook on this is from the point of view of an amateur photographer - which of course changes nothing in terms of the pain endured when data is lost, but certainly not as vital as a professionals work. To me it's the same as the (never ending) PC/Mac discussion - whatever you feel comfortable with is what I go for, every time.

From a purely personal standpoint I like using a Mac, and I am comfortable with LR - I've never implied that it's better (or worse) than anything else - I'm happy with it.

Finally, as it happens, I do regularly check my backups - some stored off-site - and yes I'd agree, there aren't many of us who do it! (And yes I've also had corrupted backups...!)

[Colin Southern]

Colin

I appreciate your comments - however, please don't get mad when someone questions what you've written

My outlook on this is from the point of view of an amateur photographer - which of course changes nothing in terms of the pain endured when data is lost, but certainly not as vital as a professionals work. To me it's the same as the (never ending) PC/Mac discussion - whatever you feel comfortable with is what I go for, every time.

From a purely personal standpoint I like using a Mac, and I am comfortable with LR - I've never implied that it's better (or worse) than anything else - I'm happy with it.

Finally, as it happens, I do regularly check my backups - some stored off-site - and yes I'd agree, there aren't many of us who do it! (And yes I've also had corrupted backups...!)

Hi Ian,

Not mad at all (Not sure why that came across) - I'm just making the time to articulate to folks the experiences I've had in these areas.

If folks want to use LR then that of course is entirely up to them -- I just hope that what I've written (based on real-world experiences) will give them a little food for thought, and perhaps bring some of the (seldom discussed) risks that they wouldn't have heard otherwise, to their attention.

[herbert]

Personally I don't use LR because I'm a Bridge/ACR power-user and I find the Bridge + ACR far quicker and efficient. example: I need to apply a digital GND filter - in ACR I hit the "G" key - drag the mouse over the start and stop points - job done. I can also replicate that across several hundred images in about 4 mouse clicks. I'm willing to bet that if I threw 600 images from a studio shoot at a LR user, I'd be finished making the same edits long before they would.

I think the keystrokes will be the same (although I will have to check when I get back to my PC). This is ACR after all, even if it is within Lightroom. The synchronize functionality for multiple photos is identical.

As for speed then I can only guess which will be faster. Somewhere on the filesystem Bridge has a set of files containing ACR edits for all your images and previews. These will not be accessed much faster than LR. Assuming Bridge first renders previews when an image is selected (unless previously cached) then it will be faster. You will be able to select one image in a folder, open it for edits and then sync. If it renders previews for all photos in a folder then the speed should be the same because you wait for Bridge to render images you are not currently interested in (this is what Lightroom does). Note that I cannot see how Bridge will be slower.

Anyway I'm not staunchly defending Lightroom's existence. I've noted in a previous thread that I wish I would have just bought Photoshop from the start and learned Bridge. That would have saved me money. Now I find myself stuck with Lightroom and Photoshop and very little desire to retrain my workflow while I'm more interested in learning new PP skills. So I do raw development in Lightroom and curse Adobe for their marketing genius.

Q. Colin, do you use the dark theme or the light theme for this forum?

I raise this point because I like the dark theme. The light theme is too bright and a bit boring. They both do the same thing. A bit like Lightroom = Dark Theme. ACR = Light theme.

Maybe I should start a survey thread to find this out for a representative sample of users.

Alex

[Colin Southern]

I think the keystrokes will be the same (although I will have to check when I get back to my PC). This is ACR after all, even if it is within Lightroom.

Hi Alex,

No - they're completely different.

For example, the GND tool is "G" in ACR, but it's "M" in LR.

Somewhere on the filesystem Bridge has a set of files containing ACR edits for all your images and previews.

No - by default, edits are written directly to DNG files, or to XMP "sidecar" files. It is possible to store them in an ACR database, but it's not the default behaviour, and it's pretty risky too IMO. ACR also caches recently edited photos in another database, but that's by-the-by.

Anyway I'm not staunchly defending Lightroom's existence. I've noted in a previous thread that I wish I would have just bought Photoshop from the start and learned Bridge. That would have saved me money. Now I find myself stuck with Lightroom and Photoshop and very little desire to retrain my workflow while I'm more interested in learning new PP skills. So I do raw development in Lightroom and curse Adobe for their marketing genius.

In my mind, I see ACR as being like a Ferrari and LR as being like a Rolls Royce - the Rolls Royce is all about comfort whereas the Ferrari has no carpet and a wire to open the door - so no comforts, it's just built for ruthless efficiency. Not knocking LR either (I'd rather have a Rolls Royce than a Ferrari) - but for my editing workflow LR just didn't even come close.

Q. Colin, do you use the dark theme or the light theme for this forum?

I use the Light Fluid theme. I don't like reading white text on a black background (my brain is hard wired the other way around)

[herbert]

I use the Light Fluid theme. I don't like reading white text on a black background (my brain is hard wired the other way around)

Seems like your white is my black.

I spend all day looking at my monitor at work and prefer not to have the white burn my eyes out (even with my brightness turned down to luminance of about 80 Cd/M2). I'm still a bit partial to green screen terminals too (although it could just be nostalgia). Anything to avoid white backgrounds.

I'd like to have a Rolls Royce and a Ferrari. I could then sell them both, buy an 800mm f5.6 and go on a safari world tour.

Alex

[Neelly]

Can I just throw my tuppence worth in, I spent nearly all my working life involved in IT in various ways and I am with Colin on the absolute importance of doing test restores of backed up data to test its integrity and also to familiarise yourself with the actual procedure.
As with Colin I have seen loads of backups being unrestorable, for all sorts of reasons, when the time came to use them.
I am sure everyone on the forum backs up diligently but I would love to know how many people have either checked or actually restored a backup.
Gets off Soap Box and retires gracefully

[Donald]

Can I just throw my tuppence worth in, I spent nearly all my working life involved in IT in various ways and I am with Colin on the absolute importance of doing test restores of backed up data to test its integrity and also to familiarise yourself with the actual procedure.

Okay, you guys have convinced me.

Now talk us through this.

Just before I make a mess of anything. When I do the test restore, do I put the information into a separate folder; i.e. what I've got already on the hard disk isn't over written at this stage, is it?

[herbert]

Hi Donald,

The idea of a backup is that it can completely recover the state of your working system. The way to test this is to start with a vanilla (out-of-the box) system and see if you can recreate your system with a back-up. The recreated system should be fully functional. This validity can be tested against the original by comparison or against a set of tests that you know it should pass. So one way to test it is to restore the system to a new location and test that the restored system and the original are the same.

In practice there are a whole bunch of pitfalls for back-up restoration integrity checking. You have mentioned one. You don't want to restore over your live system. So you need a test bed for the restore. This could be a new folder, a new computer or a virtual computer.

The process depends on what you are testing. In your case I will assume it is a restore of data files for images. You should not have to restore your image processing software. In this case it should be OK to just recreate all your image files and metadata in a new location on your computer from your back-up. You then have a look and see if you can edit them as for the originals.

The key part of back-up integrity checking is having a good set of tests that you can perform on the restored data to ensure it is correct. In the case of image files you need to ensure you can open them and all the work you did previously is still there. Checking all your images will be practically impossible. So the compromise is to check a few and hope the rest are OK as well.

In the real world you could be more rigorous and write automated tests to ensure everything is working as expected. Writing good tests takes a long time. It is also practically impossible to cover all cases. So in the software engineering world we tend to look for edge cases, i.e. cases of extreme behaviour where you would expect the system might make an error.

The point that Colin is making regarding the Lightroom database is that all the image edits for every image are in the same file (the Lightroom catalogue). So if this file gets broken and cannot be fixed then potentially you will lose all your edits to all your files. The preferred back-up option is to have each edit recorded in a separate file (or within the image file itself using DNG). So if one file gets broken then at least all the other thousands will be OK.

For your back-up system:

1. Ensure your back-up will be able to restore all non-repeatable work
2. Ensure that the reason for failure of your main system and back-up are not dependant (e.g. same disk, same computer, same house, etc)
3. Ensure you regularly back-up
4. Ensure you regularly test your back-ups can restore the system (else there is no point having them)

For your back-up tests:

1. Restore some images to a new folder
2. Open the images
3. Compare them to the originals
4. Repeat until satisfied that you can restore anything you want

No back-up is perfect. However some are less perfect than others.

Alex

[PBelarge]

I am a fairly new person to the digital image industry- sort of. I have taken digital files for 12 years, but those are for work and have never been edited, they are SOOC.
The last 4 years I have become more serious, seemingly each month making progress and learning the technical end, such as cameras, computers, software, etc... This itself is just a tremendous amount of effort and time.

I do not believe most people who are serious in photography and spend the $$ on equipment, yet do not purchase Photoshop is due to the money. I believe it is due to the learning curve. There may be some who learn it quickly (which still equates to years), but most do not or cannot. So now LR comes along and is definitely easier. With each successive cycle, it becomes much more powerful. Add in plugins such as NIK and onOne Perfect Suite (and many more) and it become very powerful in terms of photography, yet is still much easier to learn. Which also adds in the a feeling of great success and pride in what one is doing. The general population is now EMPOWERED. This makes editing for the masses not only easier but more fun, which means the masses are starting to produce amazing work.
Photoshop is so well known, it is in many dictionaries. It is powerful but many of the features will never be used by many photographers and some of the best photographers have migrated away from Photoshop due to the way LR has evolved along with the multitude of presets/plugins available today.
I own CS5 and I can tell you that it is only for very special uses that I go there. I will also admit that opening PS is also like getting on a rocket to space not knowing what is out there.

[PBelarge]

Just to add a little to the backup process.
I have all of my images in 3 different locations.
I have LR backups in 2 locations.
LR catalog backups are not large in a relative sense, as they are data and not the images themselves.

I could be wrong, and I am sure if so the others will let me know.
Excluding the general computer stuff, my images are fairly easy to manage in regards to backup. The worst part would be for equipment/software glitches. Maybe 2 backups is not enough, I am guessing it should be.

As far as my other programs and information on the computer, I am now using two different computers. One mostly for photography and the other computer for everything else.

For the "IT guys"
From your descriptions above, it makes it sound oh so difficult for us who just "drive" our computers. There should be an easier way...

[Colin Southern]

Seems like your white is my black.

I spend all day looking at my monitor at work and prefer not to have the white burn my eyes out (even with my brightness turned down to luminance of about 80 Cd/M2). I'm still a bit partial to green screen terminals too (although it could just be nostalgia). Anything to avoid white backgrounds.

Yeah - I think we're complete oposites; I like things bright bright bright - I run my monitor at 200 cd/m2!!! (and I prefer rooms with 200W bulbs in them). Ironically though, I have to wear sunglasses on even overcast days because my eyes are sensitive to light. I can't figure that one out either.

I too love the old green terminals - the long persistance phospher makes then very easy on the eye.

[Colin Southern]

I am sure everyone on the forum backs up diligently

I hope so, but in reality, in my experience with the population general, I'd say less than 30% do - and 80% of those consist of "copying their photos to a single memory stick"

[Colin Southern]

The idea of a backup is that it can completely recover the state of your working system.

Possibly the very best way would be to temporarily disconnect ones existing hard disk drive (so that there is zero chance of damaging the live data) - connect a new one (or 2nd hand one) (play a little game called "oh cr^p - my HDD just completely failed" - and see how you go from there.

Yes - it does sound rather extreme, but to that I can say two things:

1. Unfortunately it IS a realistic scenario. I've seen many many many HDDs that have either failed or had their data screwed up to the point of being unrecoverable.

2. The person performing the test will suddenly realise just how un-prepared they actually are.

In the real world, what usually happens at this point is folks bring their PCs to folks like me - some in a literal state of panic - and I spend 6 hours reloading everything at a cost of $720 - and then go about trying to get their data back. Again - in the real world ...

- some have some of the data backed up and we can use it

- most hard drives only develop bad spots, and we can recover most of the data

- some end up spending an additional $2000 - $3000 to have the drives sent off to www.drivesavers.com to have the data recovered (they really are very good by the way)

- others just accept the fact that they can't afford a complete recovery and have to live with having lost things like photos of family growing up and world trips (when in many cases even a $10 memory stick would have saved them).

On a more positive note, I have had many nice boxes of chocolates & hugs for saving a few peoples butts!

[Colin Southern]

I do not believe most people who are serious in photography and spend the $$ on equipment, yet do not purchase Photoshop is due to the money. I believe it is due to the learning curve.

Hi Pierre,

You're probably right.

On the other hand, I can't understand why folks would spend thousands on equipment - hundreds on Photoshop - and yet won't invest even tens of dollars in a few good books or online training that'll show them how to get the most out of their images. I know this won't go down well with some, but the bottom line is that Photoshop is capable of producing far better images than Lightroom ever will be.

The thing many don't seem to appreciate is that Photoshop is just a toolbox; and like every toolbox, you don't need to use every tool on every project. I use it exclusively - I consider myself a power user - and yet it has tools like the Slice tool that I've never used and wouldn't have a clue what it does - nor do I care what it does; I don't need it, so I don't use it.

Perhaps the real crux of the problem is todays "instant gratification" society, where folks would rather swallow a pill to be able to do something, rather than being prepared to put in a reasonable amount of effort?

[Colin Southern]

For the "IT guys"
From your descriptions above, it makes it sound oh so difficult for us who just "drive" our computers. There should be an easier way...

It's an interesting paradox actually; to make things easier for general users (as opposed to IT professionals) the software has to make more and more decisions on behalf of the users - which in turn means more "blind faith" - which scares the living daylights out of us IT folks.

I'll give you a real-world example. Windows XP Pro has a backup program called NTBackup - you start it - you tell it what to backup (tick the boxes) - and you tell it where to put the composite file. I love it - it's simple and straight-forward ... but for some reason, end users get psyched out by it (it's not hard at all, but I think they think that it SHOULD be hard -- and of course the brain always delivers what folks expect). In contrast, Windows 7 Pro has a new "just leave it to us" backup program. A few months ago I had a complete failure of 1 disk in a Raid 0 pair - so ALL data was COMPLETELY lost. I replaced the drive - went to my backup - and discovered that although all the user profile data was there, some of the system data WAS NOT (I looked / searched everywhere). I guess they just assumed that that data would never be needed - dunno. Bottom line was I lost a couple of important profile files - and had to re-profile my printer for the 3 media types that I commonly use - not a biggie - but many more hours work that I really didn't need.

Bottom line for me is "I don't trust these easier ways"

[PBelarge]

Hi Pierre,

You're probably right.

On the other hand, I can't understand why folks would spend thousands on equipment - hundreds on Photoshop - and yet won't invest even tens of dollars in a few good books or online training that'll show them how to get the most out of their images. I know this won't go down well with some, but the bottom line is that Photoshop is capable of producing far better images than Lightroom ever will be.

The thing many don't seem to appreciate is that Photoshop is just a toolbox; and like every toolbox, you don't need to use every tool on every project. I use it exclusively - I consider myself a power user - and yet it has tools like the Slice tool that I've never used and wouldn't have a clue what it does - nor do I care what it does; I don't need it, so I don't use it.

Perhaps the real crux of the problem is todays "instant gratification" society, where folks would rather swallow a pill to be able to do something, rather than being prepared to put in a reasonable amount of effort?

1. I think that people such as me who have come in late in the game and LR is on the move as well as plugins like NIK and other ones that do a fair amount more than LR alone can works well for us. The learning curve is not too difficult.

2. There is much press that shows people such as me there are PS users who have been with the software for many years are abandoning much of it for LR and similar programs, only using PS for specialty items.

3. Add 1+2 = a slow entry to PS.
I have CS5 and I plan on becoming more proficient, but I am not in a rush to do so.

BTW: I would bet that I have a pretty extensive photo library (I just counted 63 books). I do love to read, and I also am one who has to understand what I am doing in order to move forward - which can at times be a real hindrance - certainly not always a good thing. Hence I come to sites such as CIC to help me over the hurdle.

[PBelarge]

Colin
This whole backup process really gets me running in circles. I am sure that MOST other users are the same.

You can tell me I am way off the mark and should consider other means, but my method of backup is to me simple and I hope adequate.

Multiple backups of info stored on my computers. Save at least one copy in a fire safe. I do not worry about operating systems and and stuff like that on the computer itself, I mostly save just my data. I plan on retiring soon (a somewhat realistic dream), which means I could tank 32 years of info and not even blink an eye. My family photos and personal photos/working portfolio are what my main concern are these days.
This is all due to the fact I am trying to simplify my life, which just 3 years ago was a really crazy/hectic/killing me kind of lifestyle.