Photoshop and Cataloging Photos

[Thlayle]

Hi Randy,



Why is this even an issue?

Granted, it doesn't seem like it should be. That's why I rambled on about how I am finding that Photoshop and Lightroom together seem to be too much with the MBP I have. I have opened Bridge and found the resource issues remarkably similar. I thought 'mini-Bridge' might be an aid but NOT so. It still requires opening Bridge along with Photoshop, mini-Bridge or not. SO: when I get my new desktop (someday...) it will NOT be an issue.

I don't think that anybody could learn everything that's tucked away in Photoshop if they studied it for 3 years full time - but - the good news is "they don't have to". Photoshop is designed as a toolbox so that people can learn and use just the tools they need for what they want to do. Think of it as being like the world's best-equipped workshop where the mechanic has every size spanner available (in metric and imperial!) for him to work on the engines, but he has no interest in the mallets and welder. On the other hand, the panel beater using the same workshop really appreciates the mallets and welders, but has less interest in the spanner selection (although they're there if he needs them too).

So don't "aim to master Photoshop in a year" - you won't do it. Aim to be able to make all of the adjustments YOU need; and if you approach that in a sensible way (ie by investing in appropriate education) (paid or free - either way there is more training resources available for Photoshop than probably all the other packages put together) then it won't take a year -- it probably wouldn't even take a week. Honestly, it's not THAT hard; 95% of the time we're only using 5% of "the workshop". Photoshop is your friend, not your adversary. [QUOTE/]

Yes, I get that; thanks. I should have used a different term than 'master' or at least qualified to indicate mastering the basics I need to know. A week? That would be great. I think I will look into as much training resources as I can get.

Bridge can handle hundreds of thousands of photos.

Bridge's image management capabilities are probably even more extensive than LR's (it's multi-user for a start, and I don't think even LR would have the save searching ability (but I could be wrong) (can LR search for and list, say, all shots where you've used an Exposure Compensation of +1.3EV?), but the way it does it IS a little different in that although it caches images for performance reasons (up to a user defined point), it doesn't maintain a central database as such - and that means that it stores all the metadata either in the file (assuming DNG) or in an XMP "sidecar" file. The "disadvantage" of this is that it has to search through them all when you want to find something (which can take a few minutes if you point it at the entire disk), but the advantage of that is that ALL the metadata resides with the file where it can be safely backed up as a tightly-integrated unit. LR on the other hand keeps some or all of the metadata in it's own database (depending on how you set it up) and that in itself has several significant concerns with regards to backups (traditional backups aren't effective if the catalog gets corrupted resulting in loss of data but you don't realize it because it may only affect an image set that you're not currently working with -- and by the time you realise it all current backup sets may be over-ridden). The Bridge approach may be slower in theory (although in practice with modern solid-state drives it's just not an issue), but it's "keep all the data with the photos" design is far far far safer in my opinion, when you're relying on the metadata.

People need to realize what LR is and isn't. It's a neat little program, but at the end of the day, it's a cataloging program with Photoshop's ACR thrown in for image adjustments. If you need to manage lots of shots with minimal processing then it's a great & cheap little program, but THAT'S WHERE IT STOPS. As soon as you need to do any non-trivial pixel-based editing, then you're SOOL ("Severely" out of Luck!).

Bridge might make more sense to me when I am no longer 'renting' Photoshop and Lightroom via the CC program I am using.

Thanks so much for your advice.

-Randy

[Colin Southern]

Bridge might make more sense to me when I am no longer 'renting' Photoshop and Lightroom via the CC program I am using.

Thanks so much for your advice.

-Randy

Unless you buy an older version with a perpetual licence, subscription is probably all that's going to be available going forward.

At the risk of restarting WW3, I'm a huge fan of the CC subscription plan - now instead of having to stump up over a grand (in NZ dollars) to buy it, and 1/4 or so of that on average annually to update it, I get it for AUD $9.99 a month, with no upgrade costs. No brainer in my opinion, which is probably why it's been so spectacularly successful for them.