> > > > And exactly what do I gain by importing them? Nothing except a file > management UI I don't like in the first place and metadata-based > searching I'll never use along with the need to import it in the first > place, which Bridge doesn't need to do. Not to mention the fact that > Bridge allows me to work on the files as I scan them without > additional jumping through hoops (don't need to set a watched > directory). And I'll end up importing once, then having to point LR at > the files again when they go from 'To Be Worked' to the archives. > Which I don't have to do with Bridge. So Bridge does exactly what I > want, with less work.
Absoultely no reason for you to use LR then, but a number of the complaints you make about it are factually incorrect, and that could seriously mislead people who are considering it, and for whom it would be a very useful tool. I don't fully understand the process you're describing here, but what again it sounds as though you're claiming things about LR that simply aren't true. For example, there is absolutely no reason why you should have to set up a watched directory - I don't have any watched directories. In trying to work out what you mean about moving things around between archives, I suspect that the differences of opinion about LR may arise from differences in how people use it in the workflow. So I, and I think Godfrey too, just use it end-to-end, whereas I'm getting the impression that other people have developed a workflow and use different parts of different tools in the workflow. If I'm right about that then LR is never going to be right for people who do that, because it's not designed to be used that way. > > My organizational needs are different between film and digital. I > don't edit the files the same way, I can't usually organize film scans > by the day they were shot and the day they were scanned is useless to > me since I might have scanned a half-dozen rolls of varying vintage > that day (Among other things, I'm rescanning my archives). So using > the same folder heirarchy makes little sense to me. Lightroom doesn't require you to use the same folder hierarchy. I import film scans and digital scans into different top-level folders and could structure those any way I wanted. I scan into a folder called 'Raw scan' and import in place from there. It's true that you have to do the import step for scanned files, and can't as Mark said, use LR's facilities without importing, but that's the way LR was designed to work from the beginning. Complaining about it is like complaining that a car is not as good as a pram because you have to put petrol in it. > > As to keyword metadata, frankly I find adding it annoying and using it > of little use to me. I understand what value it can add, I just find > using said capabilities to be something that doesn't work for me. I've > got nothing agains keywording (Which Bridge fully supports btw), I > just don't want it shoved down my throat like Lightroom does (Since > the LR file management UI is based around it) > Nothing in Lightroom forces you to use keywords, and you can just as easily work with a hierarchical folder structure with no extra effort. If LR doesn't suit you, that's fine, but you ought not to put out misleading information about it. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
