# Update on Lightroom 2015.2 / Lightroom 6.2 Release



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 8, 2015)

```
The Lightroom team wanted to let the community know that we’re investigating some critical performance and crasher bugs, and will be issuing an update shortly to address them.</p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">If you are experiencing crashing or slowdowns, please try the following:</span></p>
<ul class="ul1">
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">Go to Lightroom > Preferences.</span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">Click on the General tab</span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">Uncheck “Show ‘Add Photos’ Screen”</span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1">Restart Lightroom</span></li>
</ul>
<p><em>I think it’s important to provide some context to why we made changes to Import.</em>  Over the years we’ve done extensive studies of customers interested in Lightroom.  The studies have been comprised of people passionate about photography and who use their cameras as a creative outlet.  In short, their motivations share the same motivations as people who already love Lightroom.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>We visited them in their homes, and asked them to install, launch and use Lightroom.  Since this was their first interaction with Lightroom, we were interested in observing specifically where they encountered obstacles, and therefore where we needed to focus our attention.</p>
<p>Customers were universally unable to decipher the Import dialog without getting frustrated. Some people pushed forward, bolstered by spending time searching the web for help.  They might have been successful in importing files, but they didn’t feel successful.  Others gave up, deciding that Lightroom might not be the right product for them.</p>
<p>The previous Import experience literally made people push back from their computers in frustration.  Keeping the existing Import experience isn’t an option, and we needed to evolve the Import experience.</p>
<p>We’ve heard great feedback on the changes, and we’ve always evolved the Lightroom product with feedback from photographers and look forward to continue to evolve the experience going forward with your feedback in mind.</p>
<p>Please keep the feedback coming!</p>
<div id="attachment_22787" style="width: 738px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Previous-Import.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-22787" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Previous-Import-728x428.png" alt="Previous Import" width="728" height="428" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Previous Import</p></div>
<div id="attachment_22786" style="width: 738px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Current-Import.png"><img class="wp-image-22786 size-medium" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Current-Import-728x425.png" alt="Current-Import" width="728" height="425" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Current Import</p></div>
```


----------



## LDS (Oct 8, 2015)

Translated: "we watched some clueless users who never bought LR before and they were unable to select a folder and import photos. So we had to dumbsize the experience low enough to allow them find their own photos, while irritating long time users with a new, slow, childish user interface".


----------



## Kathode-Ray (Oct 8, 2015)

I think that's a very accurate translation. The previous import-screen was just fine.

In my view, you're indeed clueless if you can't find your own photo's on your own harddrive...


----------



## fiend (Oct 8, 2015)

LDS said:


> Translated: "we watched some clueless users who never bought LR before and they were unable to select a folder and import photos. So we had to dumbsize the experience low enough to allow them find their own photos, while irritating long time users with a new, slow, childish user interface".



Totally agree on this one.
This is perhaps the WORST update to a program (of all that can come to my mind) that any software company has ever done so far.
The import is SO BAD now that I reverted back to 6.1.1 :/
I will _NEVER_ go back to 6.2+ if don't fix this.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 8, 2015)

LDS said:


> Translated: "we watched some clueless users who never bought LR before and they were unable to select a folder and import photos. So we had to dumbsize the experience low enough to allow them find their own photos, while irritating long time users with a new, slow, childish user interface".



hahaha!


----------



## Click (Oct 8, 2015)

LDS said:


> Translated: "we watched some clueless users who never bought LR before and they were unable to select a folder and import photos. So we had to dumbsize the experience low enough to allow them find their own photos, while irritating long time users with a new, slow, childish user interface".



;D ;D ;D Excellent!!!


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 8, 2015)

Maybe Adobe should stop worrying about converting iPhone Photographers, and worry more about performance and other important features. 

The previous Import was both intuitive and simple and people who could not figure it out are also probably the same folks that by a 5D MK III and leave it in P-mode.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 8, 2015)

To all of the above:- 

A some point everyone is a new user of Adobe products I certainly was one of them in 2014 when Apple decided Photographers didnt matter and ditched Aperture. Aperture for all its faults was intuitive, Lightroom and Photoshop in my experiance are not at least not outside the basic controls and particularly Photoshop CC left side bar tools. Ive not had any issues importing with Lightroom of the two products I far prefer Lightroom to Photoshop CC so do as much as possible within it and as little as possible in Photoshop CC that maybe my fault but I dont have the time or the inclination to spend hours learning how you use it at least Aperture in that respect beat Adobe hands down. Unbelievably in this world we have few options in software to compete against Adobe certainly Photos from Apple is a disaster and a product they should be ashamed of and runs counter to most other things they do. I did try Capture One Pro 8 before going with Adobe CC its certainly more intuitive for new users but was far more limiting. 
So rather than poke fun at new users I applaud Adobe for at least trying to understand ALL users and seeing if the experiance can be improved not everyone comes naturally to software use.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 8, 2015)

One further point regarding Lightroom. I have a fairly fast iMac new generation with plenty of memory etc. but find openning Lightroom from the toolbar icon takes ages compared to just about anything else I use this is something they certainly need to look at Photoshop CC by comparison opens quickly.


----------



## gsealy (Oct 8, 2015)

I think I will stay on 5.7 until this shakes out. Adobe does not have a good track record when it comes to major releases. I don't have time for buggy software.


----------



## jalbfb (Oct 8, 2015)

Uh, but they failed to give any reason as to why they removed some many features that many of us rely upon. The last they could have done it given us some choices to get them back through section in Preferences/Edit so we could have the dumb down view (now in the update) and our usual efficient workflow view.


----------



## infared (Oct 8, 2015)

I am a longtime user. The import feature has been "dumbed-down" and is less useful to all of the longtime users. I get that Adobe wants to sell the product to new consumers, but how about leaving options for long-time users. We have been paying you for years.
What about us?
Also...there is a long list of features that have been taken AWAY. (wait...I paid for an UPGRADE???)...just so that I could natively import photos from a new camera. (Which is ridiculous in and of itself). 
Why would adobe remove "auto eject card" at the end of import????? It was a choice before. Now it is not. You cannot tell me that choice would stop a new user from using the software. Now I have to manually go to my desktop and eject the card. The point is....I had a convenience that made my workflow more fluid. Adobe let me pay for an upgrade and took one of my conveniences away for no apparent reason???????
I would love to have been sitting in on the meeting where that decision was made. Do any of these people actually use the software??????? 
I also had to go online and get advice on how to find how to update my stand-alone version of LR 5 for $79.
I did not want to go to the cloud ( and pay a monthly fee), and I did not want a new $142 version if an upgrade was available.
I challenge anyone, unaided to go to the Adobe website and find the upgrade!!! LOL! It is totally buried in menus with no mention of the product or a way to get to it. I was told it existed...but without expect help from the WEB I never would have found the offered product.
All of the above is REALLY poor for customer relations. Hey....Adobe...serve us...don't abuse us. We keep you i business. Right?


----------



## dennirussel (Oct 8, 2015)

I actually do understand why Adobe wanted to rethink the import window. I've been using LR since beta. As a shooter I rely on it for my business. I also teach photography to graphic design students at a couple of Toronto colleges. For whatever reason, the Import window freaks them out beyond all else. I write tutorials with detailed screen captures and they still go into a brain melting panic. These are students who are used to Photoshop... So they are computer literate to at least some degree.
I'm still on the fence about the new import, myself. I think it might look less scary for many, which will help with the brain freeze. But, maybe not...
The Add Photos section is just idiotic. Anyone who needs that won't be using LR anyway - they'll use iPhoto or whatever the windows picture editor is.
But why in the bloody h*ll did they remove the Import Preset option???????? Why can we no longer see the bloody file extensions in the thumbnails? Do file extensions really scare people that much?


----------



## dennirussel (Oct 8, 2015)

And regarding the relative ease of use differences between Aperture and LR - well, Apple's main goal is to take control away from the user. Adobe's is (used to be?) to give the user freedom. Freedom is complicated. Simplification removes options. If Adobe's new direction is simplification than those of us who like control and creative freedom will lose out. Photoshop needs to stay complicated. LR should not be dumbed down any further.


----------



## dennirussel (Oct 8, 2015)

Maui5150 said:


> Maybe Adobe should stop worrying about converting iPhone Photographers, and worry more about performance and other important features.
> 
> The previous Import was both intuitive and simple and people who could not figure it out are also probably the same folks that by a 5D MK III and leave it in P-mode.



Exactly.


----------



## M_Wilks (Oct 8, 2015)

Having used LR since the first Beta I find it infuriating that Adobe removed tools that I rely on regularly during Import. I understand the desire to make the tool easier for first time users, but there is no reason that I can think of to not make the old tools available through preferences. Adobe, if you are listening, please bring back the old functionality through user preferences!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 8, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> To all of the above:-
> 
> A some point everyone is a new user of Adobe products I certainly was one of them in 2014 when Apple decided Photographers didnt matter and ditched Aperture. Aperture for all its faults was intuitive, Lightroom and Photoshop in my experiance are not at least not outside the basic controls...



I guess intuitiveness depends on the person. I immediately found Lightroom intuitive, but couldn't make neads nor tails of Aperture (or Capture One).


----------



## Rick (Oct 8, 2015)

Besides being a budget piece of software, LR catered to folks who did not understand the file/folder system of Windows and/or the "complexity" of Photoshop and how to use these systems to organize their images. Now, they are dumbing it down even more?


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 8, 2015)

*NEWS FLASH - CANON TO ANNOUNCE REMOVAL OF TV, AV, and M shooting modes*

Following Adobe's lead, Canon is announcing the removal of the AV, TV and M shooting modes.

Explains Canon - We interviewed a lot of people and found the AV, TV and M mode scared users. They often got results they did not expect and found more and more they just wanted to pick up a camera and shoot without having to think.

Further, Canon is announcing that they have discontinued all prime lenses in favor of the 100-400mm

Explains Canon - We interviewed a lot of people and found that new users were intimidated by all the lens choices, as well most preferred to have the widest range possible for zooming in our zooming out. Even more so, when presented with lenses like the Tilt-Shift, users found them completely unusable not only for the lack of auto-focus, but too much going on to use the lens.

In a related story, Zeiss announces that they are going out of business since they do not manufacture super Tele zoom lenses or lenses with Auto-Focus which they say has become a graveyard market. 

Who needs the auto bomb to destroy the world, when we have Millenials


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 8, 2015)

My replies about Adobe threads often lead me to being accused of being an Adobe shill, it is funny because I am often accused of being a Canon shill/being blinkered/don't understand too, so maybe I work for both!

Anyway, I fully understand the idea behind the rework, for new users, what I absolutely don't accept is forcing an entirely new workflow onto people who already have a well established one. I don't remember Adobe ever taking such a heavy handed approach before and to not have the old (or similar) import options as previously is a very poor decision.

I 100% disagree with the update only because it forces established users to adopt entirely new workflows, as far as I am concerned not leaving the old options is unforgivable.

I will download the old stand alone versions of LR6 and PS whatever as 'backup' to protect my well established workflows in case any other such 'improvements' are forced on us.

Watching the various videos by the usual LR/Adobe team members illustrate that there is definitely tension in the team with regards a lot of the lost functionality.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 8, 2015)

Maui5150 said:


> In a related story, Zeiss announces that they are going out of business since they do not manufacture ... lenses with Auto-Focus



Sure they do!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1140833-REG/zeiss_2103_751_85mm_f_1_8_batis_short.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1140832-REG/zeiss_2103_750_25mm_f_2_0_batis_wide.html


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 8, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > In a related story, Zeiss announces that they are going out of business since they do not manufacture ... lenses with Auto-Focus
> ...



LOL Sony and Fuji are not real cameras. When Zeiss makes an AF for Nikon or Canon, then we can talk


----------



## coldsweat (Oct 8, 2015)

infared said:


> I challenge anyone, unaided to go to the Adobe website and find the upgrade!!! LOL! It is totally buried in menus with no mention of the product or a way to get to it.


I accepted your challenge & it was easy enough to find (LR page, scroll to bottom, select desktop only version, select the upgrade dropdown) I was so disappointed to find it as I enjoy Adobe bashing as much as the next man - I was hopeing it'd give me something else to grumble about Adobe for!


----------



## infared (Oct 8, 2015)

dennirussel said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Adobe should stop worrying about converting iPhone Photographers, and worry more about performance and other important features.
> ...



Exactly Exactly!!!!! 8)


----------



## infared (Oct 8, 2015)

coldsweat said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I challenge anyone, unaided to go to the Adobe website and find the upgrade!!! LOL! It is totally buried in menus with no mention of the product or a way to get to it.
> ...


That was not my experience.
If "I" go to the Adobe.com The Official Website...here is what "I" have to do.
1. Go to products. (there is LR here but only cloud...Adobe is attempting to steer me to cloud)
2. I have to now click on "All Products" ...wait...LR is listed above...at the very least confusing and not clear. I clicked on "Products"...now I have to click on all products yet LR is the product I need and it is listed on this page with no version designation.... Oh..yeah..that makes sense.
3. Once in "All Products" ....I have to locate LR again. (not labeled as cloud or desktop version...just LR. Wait I already did that on the previous page??)
4.Wait...If I click on LR, it takes me back to LR cloud AGAIN...oh..wait...to the right is USS$149 "buy" (no designation as to what version it may be)...let me click on that and see...but that is not the product that I want?
I have to click on a more expensive unidentified product to get to the product I want...that makes sense.
https://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/software._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_mostpopular.html?promoid=KLXMI
5. If I click on buy a product I do not want $149.99 (and still do not know the designation of the product a. Cloud or b.Stand-alone version)...I get ANOTHER pop-up window. That offers me yet again the The Cloud ($9.99/month) "highlighted" BTW...but....if I click on the less obvious "Buy Now $149" (must be signed into the website with a credit card or I can not do this to see the price or find the upgrade version)...
6. Now I am in the shopping cart with a $149 product that I do not want in my basket...and FINALLY in a section of the cart I see a little arrow that says "I want to buy: Full V". Still no obvious mention of an upgrade version and I am already in the shopping cart!!!??????
7. I click on Full...and I FINALLY get a drop-down that says "Upgrade" no price mentioned yet...let me remind you ...I am in a shopping cart. Name another site to me where you are in the shopping cart and you have not seen the product you are trying to buy and have not been shown a price. Name one.
8. I now have to choose Upgrade, identify what version of LR that I currently own, and click "save changes".
NOw I finally see the product and the price?

Anywhere else...I would go to a LR product page...and clearly listed would be 3 choices (no drop-downs, no hiding, etc) LR Cloud $9.99/month, LR Full Version $149, LR Upgrade Version $79. 
DUH.

What we have here is a company hiding something from the consumer. ...and in our of exasperation, they hope they buy the more expensive version of the product. Its more than obvious.

I do not know what website you went to...but that is not at Adobe.com on my computer???????
Do you work for Adobe? Are you part of the ruse????????


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 8, 2015)

I didn't find anything compelling (for me) in Lr6, so I stuck with the previous version. All this nonsense makes me glad I did. I concur with all who opine that if Adobe wants to change / streamline / simply the Import process for new / less sophisticated users, fine, but provide access to the old, more highly-optioned process for veteran users.

As a longtime PC and Photoshop (Elements) user, I found Lr a little foreign and confusing at first, as well. I had always shunned the Organizer feature in PsE, as I am perfectly capable of organizing my images on my storage devices, thank you very much. And even though I have a background in database development and programming, Lr's database paradigm _for storing photographs_ was new territory for me. But there are abundant resources available online these days, so I just set aside some time, learned how it works, ran a few experiments, and came up with a workflow that works _for me_.

I always laugh whenever anyone talks about this or that process or software being intuitive or counterintuitive. All that means is that whatever they're referring to is either similar or dissimilar to something they've already learned. And just because some process might be "counterintuitive" doesn't necessarily mean that it's not the most effective approach to the task at hand.

Finally, anyone who is "afraid of" or "panicked by" a piece of software probably shouldn't be using computers in the first place. And I question Adobe's purported methodology of visiting newbies in their homes, asking them to install and run Lr, and then collecting their feedback. Seriously? What the heck is that? I appreciate Adobe's desire to expand their user base and sell more copies of their software, but I think that Lr is the kind of product that people seek out under their own initiative, when their knowledge of / experience with digital photography matures to the point that they recognize their need for such a product. Dropping it in the laps of unsuspecting / unsophisticated users, compiling their first-blush reactions and then using that data to retool the program is a recipe for disaster. Hey, Adobe, how about collecting feedback from the people who have actually purchased the program and use it?

</endrant>


----------



## thepancakeman (Oct 8, 2015)

While I applaud Adobe for wanting to make it easy for new users, it sure seems like this is a complete disaster (I have not upgraded.)

Here's a one-word idea for you Adobe: Wizard.


----------



## BC (Oct 8, 2015)

"When we found that the users were Australian, we increased the price of their products by 40% and kicked them in the testicles."

But really though, there's no way they couldn't have left an option to use the advanced* import dialogue.

*Read also: useful.


----------



## Valvebounce (Oct 8, 2015)

Hi Maui. 
Thanks for the laugh, a nicely executed pee take. 
It is unfortunate that Adobe has dumbed down, unfortunately it seems to be all too common, the race to the bottom. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Maui5150 said:


> *NEWS FLASH - CANON TO ANNOUNCE REMOVAL OF TV, AV, and M shooting modes*
> Who needs the auto bomb to destroy the world, when we have Millenials


----------



## tvexecutive (Oct 8, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> The Lightroom team wanted to let the community know that we’re investigating some critical performance and crasher bugs, and will be issuing an update shortly to address them.</p>
> <p class="p1"><span class="s1">If you are experiencing crashing or slowdowns, please try the following:</span></p>
> <ul class="ul1">
> <li class="li1"><span class="s1">Go to Lightroom > Preferences.</span></li>
> ...



I work with Lightroom by dumping my CF cards to external hard drives and then edit and store on those same external hard drives. ADOBE needs to make this an easier workflow modality. The days of people storing and working with files on their computers is very 1990's. As someone who bought the boxed ver of LR 5 and now is using LR CC, ALL my old hard drives should be automatically cataloged when attached. AUTOMATIC. Come on ADOBE you can do better!!!!


----------



## LDS (Oct 8, 2015)

dennirussel said:


> I actually do understand why Adobe wanted to rethink the import window. I've been using LR since beta. As a shooter I rely on it for my business. I also teach photography to graphic design students at a couple of Toronto colleges. For whatever reason, the Import window freaks them out beyond all else.



I understand what they had in mind too (after all, my job is in software development). Just they had the wrong answer.

One of the main issues for first time LR users, is LR doesn't simply "open" their photo files, like PS or many other tools. It doesn't work simply with files on disk but in the import dialog. Then it works within its database, where it has "links" to actual image data somewhere on disks. People used to other complex software may find it easy, others won't. Some people have issues to manage the disk tree structure too.

Just, the answer is not oversimplification, unless your target is only that kind of user, because it will disappoint many other users. Basically, they adopted a "mobile" oriented interface, and removed most data. In turn, if it makes simple handling simple needs, it makes more complex needs and tasks a nightmare.

LR is not a software aimed at the low-end photographer, it's a tool aimed also at professional. I understand Adobe wish to broaden its user base, but I'm not sure they used the right sample for they usability survey. There's the risk to target the wrong customer, the kind who won't be much interested into the product after all, and disappoint the real paying ones. Corel took that road when it bought Paint Shop Pro - I'm one of the customer who ditched it and looked elsewhere.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 8, 2015)

Maui5150 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Maui5150 said:
> ...



I thought we were talking about lenses. ??? It's unlikely Nikon or Canon will ever license their mount: they don't want competition in that department. 

In any case, those aren't Sony lenses with a Zeiss seal of approval. Those are Zeiss through and through.


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 8, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> I thought we were talking about lenses. ??? It's unlikely Nikon or Canon will ever license their mount: they don't want competition in that department.
> 
> In any case, those aren't Sony lenses with a Zeiss seal of approval. Those are Zeiss through and through.



Tamron, Sigma, and a few others seem to make lenses for Canon and Nikon.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 8, 2015)

Maui5150 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought we were talking about lenses. ??? It's unlikely Nikon or Canon will ever license their mount: they don't want competition in that department.
> ...



They're Japanese companies and aren't restricted in the same way. Further, they reverse engineer the AF communications. Zeiss likely wouldn't put their name on a product rife with incomplete/erroneous electronics due to a lack of cooperation from the mating product's company.


----------



## robertjerl (Oct 8, 2015)

In re all the crashes etc. Did you use the programers who did the Gvt Health Care site?

New Import: Well now I am "frustrated" and so are MILLIONS of users. The old system worked just fine, so there was a learning curve, there is a learning curve for all new software, some much harder than LR. If you need/want it, you learn it. There is no right to "not be frustrated" to the best of my knowledge

The better solution would have been better instructions/tutorials, say a guided mode like PSE.
Instead you changed the whole thing. I don't like the new system.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Of course by doing this a few admin types and a bunch of code writers extended their employment necessity with the company. And now they have more work fixing what they fixed.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> My replies about Adobe threads often lead me to being accused of being an Adobe shill, it is funny because I am often accused of being a Canon shill/being blinkered/don't understand too, so maybe I work for both!
> 
> Anyway, I fully understand the idea behind the rework, for new users, what I absolutely don't accept is forcing an entirely new workflow onto people who already have a well established one. I don't remember Adobe ever taking such a heavy handed approach before and to not have the old (or similar) import options as previously is a very poor decision.
> 
> ...



PBD, thanks for clearing up your lack of affiliation with Adobe. You have, in the past, sounded just as arrogant, cynical, and dismissive as actual Adobe employees, so, naturally, many of your readers just assumed you were one!

Truly, I'm glad you've opened up about this. I've agreed with many, many of your opinions over the past couple years, and I've been educated by many of your facts. When it comes to the subscription model, you are completely wrong, but I defend your right to be so. 

Cheers!


----------



## dennirussel (Oct 8, 2015)

LDS said:


> dennirussel said:
> 
> 
> > I actually do understand why Adobe wanted to rethink the import window. I've been using LR since beta. As a shooter I rely on it for my business. I also teach photography to graphic design students at a couple of Toronto colleges. For whatever reason, the Import window freaks them out beyond all else.
> ...



I absolutely agree - this approach was not the right one. The 'mobile-ification' of everything these days drives me bonkers. Personally, I was fine with the 'old' way - find your stuff on the left, select the images in the middle, figure out what you want to do with them on the right. I don't know why that confuses so many people - some of my students included. And not offering a 'legacy' option shows that Adobe hasn't learned anything from the Windows 8 tiles fiasco.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 8, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > To all of the above:-
> ...


Actually I should clarify, LR is uncomplicated to use and is intuitive but as my post stated Photoshop tools on the left side bar are not and take time to learn. Many of its tools are not controlled easily with a mouse so Ive moved to a Wacom tablet again I did state it maybe me but its taken me over a year to learn some of the finer points of Photoshop that suggests it is complicated to my mind. Sure longer term users who want to spend ages at a computer dont mind, Id rather spend that time getting it right in camera and doing the minimum in software after the event.


----------



## distant.star (Oct 8, 2015)

.
This suggests to me there are increasing numbers of people who simply don't know how to use computers.

These are the folks who, if you told them to map a drive, they'd head to google maps and ask where you want to go!!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 8, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> This suggests to me there are increasing numbers of people who simply don't know how to use computers.
> 
> These are the folks who, if you told them to map a drive, they'd head to google maps and ask where you want to go!!


There are thousands of people that don't know how to re-map a hard-drive it is condescending to suggest using a computer and knowing how all the parts work are somehow mutually exclusive they are not. Does a pilot know how to repair a jet engine, does a construction guy know how to fix the hydraulics on a back-hoe digger? 
Once upon a time we used to get instruction manuals Im one of those guys that used to read them cover to cover thankfully Canon still supply basic manuals and you can down load the full ones. Adobe sells you a license and provides a few video tutorials but there is a whole after market of books on how to use their products because they provide zip.


----------



## ifp (Oct 8, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> arrogant, cynical, and dismissive





YuengLinger said:


> When it comes to the subscription model, you are completely wrong



:


----------



## dadohead (Oct 9, 2015)

I know privatebydesign will roll his eyes when (or if) he reads this, but it is an apt time to bring up the whole subscription model issue again. Bear with me.

Suppose the LR team decides not to back down on the new Import "experience." (And remember, this is not some "rogue" development team; this initiative to a flagship product came down from the top.) And it's not just the loss of functionality, but also the entire redesigned UI, especially the dimming of the thumbnails, the lack of dupe warning, the loss of the filename, and the monstrous check mark that obscures the image that are at issue. (And really, why does the type (real information) get so tiny and the check mark (not-so-real information) get so big? That's strictly amateur hour, frankly--somebody's right out of design school.) 

Now, for the purposes of our thought experiment we have two users; a subscriber and an owner of a perpetual license. We are both equally incensed about the change; it's ruined our workflow. We both roll back to 6.1.1. Well, how exactly are you going to feel, as a subscriber, to continue paying for the software knowing that any future features added are beyond your reach until you bend to Adobe's will? Because what is your other option? To stop using the software. Yowtch. I can tell you as the holder of a perpetual license I just shrug. The less I update, the more I'm amortizing the cost of the software. Frankly, I haven't seen any features to _any_ Adobe product that would drive me to abandon my license and subscribe, and I can tell you that I've subsequently paid for my CS6 license many times over. That's called "money Adobe's not getting." Worse, as a subscriber you have absolutely no leverage but to freeze your version, and then you are still paying for it _whether you like it not_. With subscription, it's Adobe's way or the highway. Are you resentful yet? Get back to me in a year after you've made all those payments for what would be essentially deprecated software. And any notion of Adobe always doing the best for its users has been clearly and completely blown out of the water by this update. They admitted they didn't even consult any veteran users before rolling this out. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, but I'm guessing 6.2 is the new face of LR and those who think Adobe will "do the right thing" are likely to be disappointed.

At least with perpetual license you have some sway over the powers that be at Adobe. And if you don't think that's the case, watch the Adobe MAX product demos from this week. In every case, the product managers compare the new features and speed of the new offerings to CS6! That's like Apple touting the features of El Capitan by comparing it with Lion. That tells me, pretty unequivocally, that they are not converting existing perpetual licenses. Because if they were, their product managers wouldn't let them mention CS6 on pain of death. It's old history--unless it's not.

I don't understand why subscription boosters can't see the arguments of perpetual license boosters. We're not saying one or the other; as a perpetual user, subscription is great. Have at it! Just don't take the disc out of my hand. Indeed, Adobe's original stated intention was to have them operate side-by-side for three years. They reneged on that (well, sort of; you can still quietly buy CS6 from Adobe today which is another reason those demos are comparing the new versions to CS6). Subscription or perpetual license, take your pick; does that seem so impossible? At the very least it will help keep Adobe honest.


----------



## Northbird (Oct 9, 2015)

Click said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > Translated: "we watched some clueless users who never bought LR before and they were unable to select a folder and import photos. So we had to dumbsize the experience low enough to allow them find their own photos, while irritating long time users with a new, slow, childish user interface".
> ...




Yup my thoughts exactly.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Oct 9, 2015)

Northbird said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > LDS said:
> ...


----------



## RGF (Oct 9, 2015)

Northbird said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > LDS said:
> ...



+1. There was nothing wrong with the old screen that a few seconds of thoughts would not make clear.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 9, 2015)

The slow (very slow) start-up and crashing issues are equally frustrating surely Adobe should have tested the product to death prior to launch. Ive rolled mine back to 2015-1 in time-machine until they sort the mess out, its no longer crashing due to their work around but very very slow.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 9, 2015)

A professional post on another forum! 

Enoch says:
October 7, 2015 at 10:21 pm
Having been a Lightroom user since version 1, the new import screen is somewhat nice, but I don’t think that it’s significant enough, and still could use a little more work and thinking outside the box before implementation.

I ran Lightroom side-by-side with Aperture and Photo Mechanic (ew) from day one, as to know all the software and to see how they would develop. I can say, there were a lot of things I appreciated about Aperture’s user interface and the design of the working environment as a whole. They were things I wish would have inspired Adobe to do better with on Lightroom. I miss the process of importing on Aperture. It was seamless.

The main thing is, that Adobe should be making software that allows us to spend more time (or our limited time) focusing on what we do best, being creative and making great work. While Lightroom is wonderfully robust, it still lacks in that area, that is, being a virtual work environment where photographers can really edit efficiently and at ease. The import dialog is a small step, but it’s trying to be both for the novist first and professional second. I agree with the sentiment that professionals should have the option to have a more robust import dialog, but I feel like the whole concept of importing, according to Adobe, needs a fresh look.

My main issue right now however, is not that import dialog, it’s the nearly unusable state of the software which has wasted me much time and money recently. It’s also about the leadership of the company which seems to allow for this botched update, which seemingly has become complacent with outdated approaches to software design. As I’ve said before, it’s important for creatives to have good virtual workspaces, and it’s an irony that the software used to create hopefully well designed/created things, is in itself, poorly designed.

I simply want to edit on deadline, fulfill my client needs on a timely basis, and go home at a reasonable hour, because my work can’t wait. I sure hope this kicks Asobe in the ass to do better in the future and I mean, to really rethink things and the way things are done and to focus on improving the experience rather than increased functionality and features that aren’t necessary. It’s very clear through the forum posts, which I have been tracking, and from other sources, that Adobe hasn’t been doing this. While it’s great that there is an effort to obtain feedback, it doesn’t seem to be from the right place. Sure, Lightroom is possibly for everyone, but first and foremost it should be a professional product and a reliable one at that.

He put exactly how I felt about the change from Aperture to Lightroom.


----------



## wtlloyd (Oct 9, 2015)

New bug fix is out now.


----------



## indagarden (Oct 9, 2015)

This is my first post, I follow canon rumors every day. Switched to Lightroom from Aperture about a year ago. I am using the stand alone Lightroom 6 now and downloaded the update right away. Oh my, what a mess. The app kept crashing and the import function, which needed no improvement, in my opinion, was a mess. I closed Lightroom and used Time Machine to restore to my previous version, which works fine. If the stand alone version update had the dehazing tool, I might have kept it but I could see no reason to keep it and put up with the crashes.


----------



## distant.star (Oct 9, 2015)

.
I think you make my case. I'm not talking about doing things in machine language, just simple mapping of a drive. But then I do come from a world where DOS reigned. Apparently I need to lower my expectations.




jeffa4444 said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 9, 2015)

I've finally installed the update. Other than the way the options are presented, I see little or no difference. The file selection from the left sidebar is now on its own screen. 

The user unfriendly file import method has been well known, I've answered countless questions over the years from new users.

I hope that it helps new lightroom users out, but I'm still in doubt. Understanding the concept and the importance of the database is something that totally blows by new users


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 10, 2015)

Kathode-Ray said:


> I think that's a very accurate translation. The previous import-screen was just fine.



The previous import screen (call it v2) sucked eggs. The one before that (call it v1), which looked just like the current export window, was just fine. It was the change away from v1 to v2 that was horribly confusing to new users. I answered probably several hundred questions from users on how to use v2, after answering only a few questions on how to use v1. The new one (call it v3) is a simplified version of v2. Still not very intuitive to new users, and it now has less functionality.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 10, 2015)

indagarden said:


> This is my first post, I follow canon rumors every day. Switched to Lightroom from Aperture about a year ago. I am using the stand alone Lightroom 6 now and downloaded the update right away. Oh my, what a mess. The app kept crashing and the import function, which needed no improvement, in my opinion, was a mess. I closed Lightroom and used Time Machine to restore to my previous version, which works fine. If the stand alone version update had the dehazing tool, I might have kept it but I could see no reason to keep it and put up with the crashes.



I added dehazing to the standalone version through presets. I honestly couldn't find anything it did that I couldn't do with blacks and clarity.


----------



## jcfalconer (Oct 10, 2015)

Just experienced the crashing on import phenomenon with the new version for the first time. Shortly after, I got the pop-up from the adobe creative cloud that another update was now available. Let's hope if fixes that big bug!


----------



## Kathode-Ray (Oct 10, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Kathode-Ray said:
> 
> 
> > I think that's a very accurate translation. The previous import-screen was just fine.
> ...



Could you please read the post before mine, to put things in the right context?

Thank you.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 10, 2015)

Kathode-Ray said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Kathode-Ray said:
> ...



I did. The v2 screen was a major problem for new users, just as both the LR team and I said.


----------



## LDS (Oct 10, 2015)

distant.star said:


> There are thousands of people that don't know how to re-map a hard-drive it is condescending to suggest using a computer and knowing how all the parts work are somehow mutually exclusive they are not. Does a pilot know how to repair a jet engine, does a construction guy know how to fix the hydraulics on a back-hoe digger?



Nobody asks a LR user to be able to repair his or her own hardware, just to be able to use his or her own PC. Today modern planes has a lot of electronics on board. Pilots are required to learn how to use GPS and Flight Management Systems which may be not so intuitive in their operations (a plane GPS is more complex than a car one), as soon as they wish to fly outside the simplest airspaces and airplanes. Not everything may be made too 'easy', without losing functionalities. The idea that a computer should be used without training is silly. It's one of the most complex devices people have access to.

I understand Adobe wants to be the new Kodak ('you press the button, we do the rest'), but even Kodak had professional products, and anyway its cameras never became truly appealing products. Does Adobe needs a "Lightroom Elements"? Maybe, if there's a market for it.


----------



## distant.star (Oct 10, 2015)

LDS said:


> I understand Adobe wants to be the new Kodak ('you press the button, we do the rest'), but even Kodak had professional products, and anyway its cameras never became truly appealing products. Does Adobe needs a "Lightroom Elements"? Maybe, if there's a market for it.



I like that!!


----------



## edknuff (Oct 10, 2015)

MAJOR FAIL!


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 10, 2015)

There is a major issue for new users with LR. But it is not the import screen per se. The difficulty stems from the totally wretched, unintuitive Adobe LR concept, specifically having to IMPORT any image file first into a strange LR catalogue instead of just OPENing the file displayed in a file folder to edit it. 

Adobe is unnecessarily doubling up on what the Operating system already does!

Imagine if Microsoft Office users would have to "import" every single document into an MS Word or Excel CATALOGUE first, rather than just to OPEN the file and start working on it!

Or - after inserting 2 new slides into a Powerpoint presentation one would not just click on "SAVE" but have to "EXPORT" the file. 

Adobe forces an exotic workflow, strange naming of actions and user interface on users that makes it an utterly un-intuitive experience. Worst in Photoshop, but also LR is unnecessarily "difficult".

Adobe should abolish the catalogue from LR. Edit data goes into the xmps, metadata goes into file headers and all the catalogueing is done by windows or mac OS. Like with any other program. Users would then just open files, save them or rename them. Easy, simple, straightforward.

Having to IMPORT at all is the true source of confusion re. iMPORT for new LR users. It is not stupid/n00b users fault, it is solely Adobes fault. Adobe software is ROGUE and off-track both in the Windows world and in mac OS land. The more i see of this Adobe sh*t the more it pisses me off.


----------



## edknuff (Oct 11, 2015)

Northbird said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > LDS said:
> ...


----------



## dswtan (Oct 11, 2015)

Used the new import dialog on LR CC tonight for the first time. UTTERLY CONFUSING!! :-(


----------



## intuition (Oct 11, 2015)

dadohead said:


> I know privatebydesign will roll his eyes when (or if) he reads this, but it is an apt time to bring up the whole subscription model issue again. Bear with me.
> ...
> I don't understand why subscription boosters can't see the arguments of perpetual license boosters. We're not saying one or the other; as a perpetual user, subscription is great. Have at it! Just don't take the disc out of my hand. Indeed, Adobe's original stated intention was to have them operate side-by-side for three years. They reneged on that (well, sort of; you can still quietly buy CS6 from Adobe today which is another reason those demos are comparing the new versions to CS6). Subscription or perpetual license, take your pick; does that seem so impossible? At the very least it will help keep Adobe honest.



While I agree on your entire post, we might be missing the major cause and effect relation here. Perhaps it is the dwindling revenue stream due to disgrunted perpetual license holders that makes them look into how to get new users into the subscription plans? So our weapon of holding back revenue because Adobe fails to put a proper product update to the market may only lead to even worse upgrades? I wish it is not like that, but when Adobe publicly says only the use case of new users were considered it seems pretty obvious.

This is QuarkXpress all over again. One would wish someone at Adobe knew their own history. Indesign could only succeed in the market because Quark mismanaged their professional users. My whole industry just stopped upgrading Xpress after 3.3 and jumped ship to Indesign after *6 years* of not paying for Quark upgrades.


----------



## CTJohn (Oct 11, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> There is a major issue for new users with LR. But it is not the import screen per se. The difficulty stems from the totally wretched, unintuitive Adobe LR concept, specifically having to IMPORT any image file first into a strange LR catalogue instead of just OPENing the file displayed in a file folder to edit it.
> 
> Adobe is unnecessarily doubling up on what the Operating system already does!
> 
> ...


Absolutely correct. I've used Lightroom for several years, and tried to explain the catalog to my very computer literate son a couple months ago. It was a wasted effort, and I realized at that point how stupid the structure of Lightroom is.


----------



## LDS (Oct 11, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> There is a major issue for new users with LR. But it is not the import screen per se. The difficulty stems from the totally wretched, unintuitive Adobe LR concept, specifically having to IMPORT any image file first into a strange LR catalogue instead of just OPENing the file displayed in a file folder to edit it.



Although I agree that the database workflow makes it harder to understand to some computer used who never used a database before, although most of them use one without knowing - i.e. Facebook and the like, where you still "import" - ooops - "upload" your contents. Many multimedia server work alike.
It's strange people can't grasp databases, because our brain works very much alike them. We can access memories in many different ways, using very different "tags/keywords" and "relationships", not just following a single, "monodimensional" path like a file system does (a file system is after all a very simple form of a hierarchical database). 

It's also one of the LR innovations. Unlike say, DPP, LR is both a digital assets management system, and an image editing tool within a single product. Many of the image management features of LR would not work without the underlying database. If you managed documents within the file system, soon LR would get out of sync, and searches, collections, etc. would not work anymore. Some users don't use these features and would be more comfortable in a simpler applications, others, especially those with thousands and more photos, could find them very useful.

Whoever tried to manage even a simple workflow for Word/Excel/Powerpoint documents (and many others) knows you can't really rely on them and file system storage only. It just becomes a mess very soon. You need a document management system, which is a database, where you need to import document first. And yes, it may mean you first import, then "check out" a powerpoint presentation, add two slides, and then "check in" again into the system. It's the only sensible way to know where a document is, how it was modified, and so on.

Adobe never exploited it yet, but how LR works mean it could also work with a remote repository accessed by more than one user at a time, avoiding conflicts.

And is import really the issue? My main issues when I used LR first time were understanding sharpening controls, using effectively the adjustment brush, and how to obtain a decent print. Because unluckily lazy users made lazy and mean companies remove good comprehensive manuals, I did the only sensible thing to do: I bought what looked a good book about LR (in my case it was Martin Evening's The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book - The Complete Guide For Photographers) and eventually understood how to use LR proficiently enough.

I understand, for example, proper sharpening require some knowledge why an image requires sharpening, how sharpening works, and how to select thereby the proper one for a given image and a given result. I do not expect a big "SHARPEN!" button doing all the work for me, especially since the application can't know what I'm aiming for. Otherwise, it's just like a camera with just a "P" setting and nothing else.

I really do not expect to be able to use any system or software moderately complex without any learning and training. This doesn't mean software could be sloppy and deliver ugly, unusable interface, but an oversimplified interface could be ugly and unusable as well as a very complex one.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 11, 2015)

CTJohn said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > There is a major issue for new users with LR. But it is not the import screen per se. The difficulty stems from the totally wretched, unintuitive Adobe LR concept, specifically having to IMPORT any image file first into a strange LR catalogue instead of just OPENing the file displayed in a file folder to edit it.
> ...



How is the structure "stupid"?

Databases have many significant advantages over file-based systems. If LR were file based, it would be far less powerful.


----------



## distant.star (Oct 11, 2015)

.
I believe Adobe sees Lightroom as a database program with an image manipulation program attached to it.

I suspect most users see it as an image manipulation program with an attached database program they can largely ignore.

The conflict between those two perceptions causes a lot of problems for both sides.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 11, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> I suspect most users see it as an image manipulation program with an attached database program they can largely ignore.



You think most people just open, edit, export, and forget? That sounds so preposterous to me... essentially treating LR like Adobe camera raw only, like using photoshop but not bridge. But you may be right, perhaps hence Adobe adding in a "look at your entire storage system" import mechanism.

I have several hundred thousand photos in my main archival catalog. If Lightroom worked like MS Word, it would be unmanageable.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 11, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



YES! This is exactly the way I'd like to use LR. As a raw converter + image file editor. I have about 200.000 raw images so far, adding between 15k and 20k every year. Everything is sorted nicely into well-named folders. Ever since MS opened up on the earlier 8.3 naming convention this is quite easy and well structured. 

My top folder structure is by year (YYYY) and within year folders are named YYYYMMDD_name_of_event_or_scene_captured. 

If Lightroom would write the keywords I assign into each file [RAW and if i SAVE that raw after editing as jpg, the keywords should also go into the header of the jpg file. EXPORTING is something my counrty does really well, shippping stuff to other parts of the world. On my PC I OPEN files, I EIDT theam, and then I SAVE them otr use SAVE AS .... 

MS Windows search is also much since Win 7 and allows me to easily find keywords in file headers. It works with all my Excel files, my Powerpoint presentations, m,y Word documents. Just not with my RAWs. Those need to be IMPORTED and EXPORTED and what the heck. 

And if I want to find all images with Unckle Bob or Auntie Ruth in them, I can use free of charge Picasa Image Editor. It has an absolutely astounding FACE RECOGNITION. Works miraculously well, without a fat CATALOGUE, without IMPORT screens and EXPORTS to China or the cloud [although with Google you have to reyll be careful not to use the Picasa web albums, otherwise Uncle Bobs images are all over the web). 

In conclusion: anno 2015 there is no need whatsoever for a freakin' fat, cludgy and unwieldy Lightroom database any longer. Adobe cannot even call a "database" a databse, but needs to call it a frekin' "CATALOGUE" ... fully in line with all their other weirdo, non-standard, ultra-proprietory ways. 

Yes, I do dislike the basic LR approach. It reminds me of Microsoft Outlook - that black sheep of all MS Office apps. Microsoft handling of Word, Excel, Powerpoint are intuitive to me. MS Outlook is not intuitive - it is a big, bloody mess because of that stupid convoluted, mega-fat Outlook.pst file [probably also some database]. I would greatly prefer having each item just as a file [raw files, jpgs as well as every single email-message] in named folders. That way I am in charge, not some software supplier! I do know, where specific data resides on my system [logically, not physically]. Adobe and Apple and increasingly MS try to hide everything from users and make us all mere tenants on our own hard- and software, rather than landlords. Of course, tenants have to pay monthly rent. That's the grand scheme Adobe is pushing on us. And I am pushing back.  

Whether Adobe will be successful with their strategy remains to be seen. As far as I am concerned, I use LR 5.7 as long as I don't buy new cameras and will then re-evaluate available software options. Luckily there are other options - not least Canon's own DPP. 

RANT END. 

What I do like about LR [ever since LR 3] is having to just use 1 program for RAW conversion and image edits. I purchased Photoshop once, opened it once, and deleted it from the disk. Totally unusable. LR is usable as an image editor. Anything I cannot do with it - don't care. Luckily I am just an amatuer and don't have to "beautify" faces and skin or "liquify" body fat ... beyond recognition.


----------



## LDS (Oct 11, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> My top folder structure is by year (YYYY) and within year folders are named YYYYMMDD_name_of_event_or_scene_captured.



That's just one dimension to search for. My images have far more "tags" attached, and needs thereby far more ways to be searched for. My file system structure is just based on dates. Everything else is looked for using LR search capabilities.



AvTvM said:


> MS Windows search is also much since Win 7 and allows me to easily find keywords in file headers.



Yes, it does use a database too, and being able to make a full text index, can take up 1/3 of the indexed files size. Moreover, it doesn't understand the full EXIF/IPCT data LR understands. Nor the keywords hierarchy or geospatial info. There have been several plans to turn file systems into full databases to broaden their search capabilities.



AvTvM said:


> In conclusion: anno 2015 there is no need whatsoever for a freakin' fat, cludgy and unwieldy Lightroom database any longer.



Face it: the larger the data, the better a database is. There are a few companies that became extremely rich selling database systems. Even on your smartphone, many information are stored in a SQLite db just like LR does.



AvTvM said:


> Yes, I do dislike the basic LR approach. It reminds me of Microsoft Outlook - that black sheep of all MS Office apps.



Outlook/Exchange handle far more than email messages, and in far more complex ways. They are a huge success for Microsoft. Really, I couldn't manage my daily workflow with a less powerful application.

That said, I understand someone found databases too difficult to use, and can do without. Maybe Adobe could split the image management system from LR and sell it separately. I'd buy it anyway, because I got tired of handling images through a file system long ago - I even wrote my own database before using LR.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 11, 2015)

A big part of your (AVTVM) complaint seems to be what the function is called.

Export is a far more appropriate term than save. LR isn't writing to your files, it's writing metadata. If you open something in Photoshop and save it, you're changing the file. Save as will make a copy. Neither describe what LR does when you export (though save as is certainly closer, but "new from" is best).

Open isn't necessarily accurate either, since there is no flip side (close). You don't "open" a file when you drag it to a folder in Windows, and it makes as little sense to call it open when you load data into LR.

However it is easy enough to think of import as open and export and save, no?

In any case, would you prefer to use Windows or OSX folders to manage files/names/locations/metadata/etc? If so, why use Lightroom at all? Use a standalone raw converter. Personally, the database approach makes significantly more sense (even though I manually manage folder structure), and it allows more functionality than a folder system (virtual copies, collections, copy/paste of develop settings, offline editing, etc).


Outlook is more akin to the single blob option of aperture than to Lightroom. LR doesn't package image data in an amorphous archive file, it uses the OS's basic file management system.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 11, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> In any case, would you prefer to use Windows or OSX folders to manage files/names/locations/metadata/etc?
> If so, why use Lightroom at all? Use a standalone raw converter.



1. Yes. 
2. The only reason I use LR is that it works for me as not only a RAW converter but also as my one-stop image editing program. I only shoot raw, and I only edit RAWs. No edits on other filetypes, most definitely not on jpgs. My whole workflow only uses 2 filetypes: RAWs and jpgs, which I really treat like paper prints in the old days (=output only) and the "recipe" .xmp files LR creates. I'd prefer LR to write my keywords, EXIF, IPTC data into those .xmps - Windows would certainly be able to search and find the stuff within those - provided Adobe did it in a "standard", non-proprietary way. 

What i do not like is the fat catalogue/database in LR and all the ramifications that database has. It really only doubles up on what MS Windows could handle on its own - administration of files and associated metadata. The LR approach may have been necessary at the time of LR 1.0 but with Win 7, 8 10 definitely no longer needed. 

The catalogue (or horribile dictu - multiple catalogues!) is the primary source of the many LR's performance issues and software bugs and the main source of confusion for many (potential) LR users. Adobe has correctly identified that IMPORT (into database) stuff as an obstacle to using LR. But they applied the wrong fix. They should have dumped the database altogether, eliminating the need for imports ... rather than dumbing down the "import" functionality.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 11, 2015)

I imagine if they dumped the database they'd see people dump their product en masse.

I used to use photoshop camera raw and manage as standalone files with discrete xmps. Lightroom was revolutionary for my workflow.

Funny how two people can have diametrically different experiences.


----------



## emko (Oct 11, 2015)

CTJohn said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > There is a major issue for new users with LR. But it is not the import screen per se. The difficulty stems from the totally wretched, unintuitive Adobe LR concept, specifically having to IMPORT any image file first into a strange LR catalogue instead of just OPENing the file displayed in a file folder to edit it.
> ...



yes its so stupid? especially when you CAN USE Bridge a file system browser with Adobe Camera RAW lol come man, if you really did know what Lightroom is then you would know it cataloging database with ACR.


----------



## emko (Oct 11, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



Sound's like you don't know what your talking about, if you want just file system? use bridge and ACR why would you want to change Lightroom into Bridge? everyone else wants a cataloging system with ACR and that is exactly what Ligthroom is.


----------



## emko (Oct 11, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> I imagine if they dumped the database they'd see people dump their product en masse.
> 
> I used to use photoshop camera raw and manage as standalone files with discrete xmps. Lightroom was revolutionary for my workflow.
> 
> Funny how two people can have diametrically different experiences.



If they dumped the database it would be another Adobe Bridge i don't get why people who don't want a database don't use Photoshop with ACR or Bridge with ACR?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 11, 2015)

emko said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > I imagine if they dumped the database they'd see people dump their product en masse.
> ...



Photoshop costs significantly more.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I bought a PS license once, but don't want to use it. Horrible user interface. Very bloatrd. Lots of features i don't need or understand. I am no graphics or pre-print expert. I dont like apps that heavily rely on keyboard shortcuts. Can never memorize them. Massive learning curve involved. Not interested and not willing to make the effort. De-installed it. Never touched ACR or Bridge, found the looks of it totally counter-intuitive.

Using LR was easy - coming from Raw Shooter and DPP. It does what i want: o ly 1 app to allow not only raw conversion but also extensive global and local edits - directly on raws. No messing around with complex layers and masks, quite intuitive slider concept. But i don't like the totally un-intuitive database aspects of it. To me it is an outdated, overly bloated software model. Windows search is reasonably good by now. No duplication of database needed ... for me. Imports, exports - foreign trade. Image File editing: open and save ... For me.


----------



## stoneysnapper (Oct 12, 2015)

.2.1 solved nothing, it is still incredibly buggy, completely unusable imo, thankfully I haven't update to .2 on my iMac but trying to work on images on my macbook which has .2.1 is utterly useless.


----------



## emko (Oct 12, 2015)

stoneysnapper said:


> .2.1 solved nothing, it is still incredibly buggy, completely unusable imo, thankfully I haven't update to .2 on my iMac but trying to work on images on my macbook which has .2.1 is utterly useless.



i am guessing these issues are Mac only so far 6.2 is working perfectly fine on win10 after 10 hour marathon editing


----------



## emko (Oct 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > emko said:
> ...



you don't have to use Photoshop just open bridge its a file system browser and then just right click on a raw file and open it up with Adobe Camera Raw and it will be exactly the same as Ligthroom development options.
Lightroom was made for cataloging with ability to use ACR on the images, so suggesting that Adobe should remove the database is crazy since they already have products that do exactly that. Then you have many other programs that process RAW without cataloging some are even free in fact you also have a FREE RAW processor its on the CD that came with your CANON camera.

Database is not bloated system its a DATABASE its basically used for cataloging data and it does THIS EXTREMELY WELL its the reason we have MYSQL,SQL etc that run basically all the websites. You are comparing Windows search to a database? are you joking you want to have to type all your searches? Rating:>2 Star windows response "Working on it" yea that's very effective well since its not a database it wont be its a file system. Imagine wanting to find all pictures tagged with "sky,sunset" that have 3 stars or more and are shot with a 35mm lens? your telling me its easier to use a filesystem?


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2015)

emko said:


> .. in fact you also have a FREE RAW processor its on the CD that came with your CANON camera.



I know. Used Canon DPP for along time but found its editing functionality too limited. That's what I really like in Lightroom - it was (and probably still is) so much more powerful as an image editor. Global and even more importantly local edits. Have not used DPP in a long time.What pisses me off about DPP is the mess cAnon created with the split between versions 3 and 4 and suppot/no support for diefferent Canon EIOS cameras. I want only one version of a RAW-capable, reasonable powerful yet intuitive to use image editing software - for all my cameras. What I don't need is a doubled up file management system and database -neither in Lightroom nor the one in Bridge.


----------



## emko (Oct 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > .. in fact you also have a FREE RAW processor its on the CD that came with your CANON camera.
> ...



"Never touched ACR or Bridge, found the looks of it totally counter-intuitive." 

So you like Lightroom that is using ACR because it looks good? but you don't like lightroom because its a database? Counter-intuitive? its exactly the same all the sliders everything except the graphical look of it.








so you don't like ACR because its not as good looking makes no sense to me man.


----------



## LDS (Oct 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> those .xmps - Windows would certainly be able to search and find the stuff within those



Just, nor Windows nor OSX probably ever will. They are generic OS, and are not interested to manage all those image specific stuff (but maybe as a generic text blob). It will make their own index/search functions more complex, and users will complain as well. Windows has already simplified too a lot of its file management features over the years. Because most users don't like to be overwhelmed by too many metadata about their files. Nor the search UI will add all the complexity to look for specific image data. Anyway, indexing was added because (many) users aren't able to proper store their files in the file system, and tend to scatter them around. So the OS creates a searchable database of them, automatically "importing" each file - up to the point I have to disable it for folder where a lot of file activiy happens and indexing them is useless, or it impacts performance.

Moreover, now they are obsessed with "cloud storage", expect local file systems get far less attention and features. And especially, I'd like to avoid that all my metadata and searches are sent to the "mothership" as Windows 10, for example, attempts to do (not that Adobe may not tempted too)...

A dedicated application like LR can implement all the specific management features which users needs, in a UI dedicated for the specific task of managing digital image assets. Do you believe Windows (or OSX) cares if an image has a property/model release form or not?



AvTvM said:


> The catalogue (or horribile dictu - multiple catalogues!) is the primary source of the many LR's performance issues and software bugs and the main source of confusion for many (potential) LR users.



Believe me, without a database LR would become even slower and buggier - it would have to guess what happens behind its back, and software is never good at guessing. People will move and delete files, then complain LR doesn't work... there's a reason often in mobile devices users are forbidden to mess with the file system. Also, a database is designed to ensure data are "consistent". They can ensure several changes to them happens as a whole (from a consistent state to another), or don't happen at all. Simply writing to files usually can't ensure that, and if something goes wrong, the state is inconsistent and you need a backup to recover.


----------



## Mr Bean (Oct 12, 2015)

stoneysnapper said:


> .2.1 solved nothing, it is still incredibly buggy, completely unusable imo, thankfully I haven't update to .2 on my iMac but trying to work on images on my macbook which has .2.1 is utterly useless.


I uninstalled 6.2 and reinstalled 6 which took 15-20min. It kept the preferences during the uninstall, so the reinstalled version runs like it always did before the upgrade.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2015)

emko said:


> so you don't like ACR because its not as good looking makes no sense to me man.



1. Does ACR offer ALL the image editing functionality of LR? Global and local adjustments? Gradients, replace tool, distortion/keystone adjustment etc. ? I always thought ACR is only the straightforward RAW converter engine with little or no image editing functionality - as opposed to LR? 
2. Does ACR work free-standing - without PS? I thought it can only be had as the RAW-conversion module in PS (or in LR)?


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Oct 12, 2015)

Mr Bean said:


> stoneysnapper said:
> 
> 
> > .2.1 solved nothing, it is still incredibly buggy, completely unusable imo, thankfully I haven't update to .2 on my iMac but trying to work on images on my macbook which has .2.1 is utterly useless.
> ...


Well I also uninstalled v6.2, re-installed v6.0 then v6.1 and all the lost functionality is restored. However the software download took nearly 4 hours. I guess a number of other people were reverting to the old version at the same time.


----------



## Kristofgss (Oct 12, 2015)

LDS said:


> One of the main issues for first time LR users, is LR doesn't simply "open" their photo files, like PS or many other tools. It doesn't work simply with files on disk but in the import dialog. Then it works within its database, where it has "links" to actual image data somewhere on disks. People used to other complex software may find it easy, others won't. Some people have issues to manage the disk tree structure too.



I am definitely one of _those people_. I usually use photoshop for editing, but occasionaly do something in raw and use lightroom for processing, but that entire catalog database thingy drives me nuts. I don't want to catalog my images, I simply want to open, convert to jpg and save. The only option I found to do that is to put the images I want in a separate folder, add it to the catalog, process and save the images, remove the catalog again and start over next time. I would have loved the editing abilities on just the windows file structure without any catalog like photoshop does. (or word, or basically any other product)


----------



## Stu_bert (Oct 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > so you don't like ACR because its not as good looking makes no sense to me man.
> ...



Yup, ACR is the develop module effectively within LR. ACR has none of the DAM functionality that LR has.

ACR is part of Photoshop, I dont believe it is free standing....


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > emko said:
> ...



Thanks for the confirmation. Just as I thought, ACR is no possible free-standing substitue for LR.


----------



## Stu_bert (Oct 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > emko said:
> ...



Lightroom is a DAM & Editor as I said in the previous post. The DAM side is heavily reliant on a SQL DB, which is more efficient than individual files. But I still keep the XMP in sync as a fall back position. The DAM side allows you to

- Create collection of images across any photo you have. I use it to maintain all my best pictures, but they never move from their original location
- Allows you to apply edits across multiple photos, again in any location. One of the simplest methods I use is if I notice I have gunk on my sensor, then I can edit them all at once.
- Allows me to search based on the metadata. Windows search does the same. It's not doing it in real-time, it has an index function which stores the metadata in a database of sorts, and then it searches the index. Or you can let it search every file in which case it's a lot slower.
- Lets me maintain keywords about images, so I can see every picture of a Lion i've taken over the past 10 years and compare them.
- Lets you rate pictures using any number of methods, and then either cull them or promote them.


Import/Export ?

Export is there as everything LR does is non-destructive. Export is Save. But it's more powerful as you can batch things up, apply different attributes, integrate your pictures into flick, facebook or wherever. Or you can chose to just look at the developed photo in LR without ever having to save a version of it and it takes up considerably less space. Export is when you want that photo outside of LR (bar printing). If you dont need a TIF or JPEG version, and go from RAW to print, then you may never need export.

Import - honestly most of the time I bypass it. Once I have my photos on my filesystem, I right click on the root folder and tell it to synchronise. Every time i change photos in that filesystem, I do the same. If I want to add specific previews or metadata, I can do that via the same dialog.

But lightroom does not control my filesystem, nor my pictures. I do that. I refresh the database through import so I can manage my library - 120K images in the main library, 40K images in other library. I like to have separate libraries, other people prefer one.

If you just want to edit a handful of pictures and you're not interested in managing your collection. No worries. Lightroom is probably an overkill. Put CaptureOne and DxO Optics Pro in the same category. Photoshop ironically is closer to your requirements, but it is indeed more complicated initially and a lot more expensive. But if you kept to bridge & acr and just used photoshop to do the save, then it probably would do most of what you want.

Horses for courses at the end of the day...


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



Then you're missing like 90% of the functionality.



> This is exactly the way I'd like to use LR. As a raw converter + image file editor. I have about 200.000 raw images so far, adding between 15k and 20k every year. Everything is sorted nicely into well-named folders. Ever since MS opened up on the earlier 8.3 naming convention this is quite easy and well structured.
> 
> My top folder structure is by year (YYYY) and within year folders are named YYYYMMDD_name_of_event_or_scene_captured.
> 
> If Lightroom would write the keywords I assign into each file [RAW and if i SAVE that raw after editing as jpg, the keywords should also go into the header of the jpg file.



Raw files are proprietary. They'll only write dates and times into them. JPEGs, DNGs and so on do get everything written into their headers, including keywords, if that's what you want. But you said above you don't want LR to manage anything so I'm not sure why you would want that.



> EXPORTING is something my counrty does really well, shippping stuff to other parts of the world. On my PC I OPEN files, I EIDT theam, and then I SAVE them otr use SAVE AS ....
> 
> MS Windows search is also much since Win 7 and allows me to easily find keywords in file headers. It works with all my Excel files, my Powerpoint presentations, m,y Word documents. Just not with my RAWs. Those need to be IMPORTED and EXPORTED and what the heck.
> 
> And if I want to find all images with Unckle Bob or Auntie Ruth in them, I can use free of charge Picasa Image Editor. It has an absolutely astounding FACE RECOGNITION.



I tried Face Recognition from several different programs, and Picasa was the worst of the bunch.



> Works miraculously well, without a fat CATALOGUE, without IMPORT screens and EXPORTS to China or the clou [although with Google you have to reyll be careful not to use the Picasa web albums, otherwise Uncle Bobs images are all over the web).
> 
> In conclusion: anno 2015 there is no need whatsoever for a freakin' fat, cludgy and unwieldy Lightroom database any longer.



You do realize, I hope, that Windows Search, Google Search and all the others use a database, don't you? Probably not.



> Adobe cannot even call a "database" a databse, but needs to call it a frekin' "CATALOGUE" ... fully in line with all their other weirdo, non-standard, ultra-proprietory ways.
> 
> Yes, I do dislike the basic LR approach. It reminds me of Microsoft Outlook - that black sheep of all MS Office apps. Microsoft handling of Word, Excel, Powerpoint are intuitive to me. MS Outlook is not intuitive - it is a big, bloody mess because of that stupid convoluted, mega-fat Outlook.pst file [probably also some database]. I would greatly prefer having each item just as a file [raw files, jpgs as well as every single email-message] in named folders. That way I am in charge, not some software supplier! I do know, where specific data resides on my system [logically, not physically]. Adobe and Apple and increasingly MS try to hide everything from users and make us all mere tenants on our own hard- and software, rather than landlords. Of course, tenants have to pay monthly rent. That's the grand scheme Adobe is pushing on us. And I am pushing back.
> 
> ...



What you are essentially saying is that you like having a database, but you don't want to know that you have a database.


----------



## emko (Oct 12, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > emko said:
> ...



Yea when you open the RAW file it will open Photoshop and then ACR you can do all the same editing like Lightroom and save your image to any file format etc with your edits .xmp. You don't have to touch anything in Photoshop other then the close bottom if ACR is all that you wanted to use.

If you use bridge witch is just a file browser like windows explorer with it you can make ACR open without Photoshop i use bridge to mass edit time lapse raws with ACR.

But them suggesting Adobe to remove the DAM functions in Lightroom is never going to happen that is exactly the purpose of Lightroom. If Adobe didn't want a DAM anymore they would make us go back to ACR there would be no point in having 3 ways to get to ACR.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 12, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> What you are essentially saying is that you like having a database, but you don't want to know that you have a database.



I think what he is saying is:
1. He likes the generic OS file system regardless of whether it is purpose-built for managing photography, which may include a number of file types the OS has no knowledge of*. 

2. He wants a standalone ACR which will open file-based RAW files, and generate (to refrain from using the e-word) sidecars and jpegs when he clicks save.

He wants none of the database functionality of LR, and none of the layers/masking/per-pixel manipulations/etc of photoshop. 



*Windows will preview my .CR2s, but not my .ARWs, for example.



emko said:


> But them suggesting Adobe to remove the DAM functions in Lightroom is never going to happen that is exactly the purpose of Lightroom.



Ding ding.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2015)

Thanks for all the hints and explanations to everyone. 
Using ACR and/or bridge is no option, as they require PS, which I de-installed and will never again install. 

I'll keep working with - or against?  - LR 5.7 but will not purchase LR 6 or rent CC. Once I buy a new camera not supported by LR 5.7 any more, I'll say goodbye to Adobe software.


----------



## KBStudio (Oct 12, 2015)

Update to LR CC 2015 2.1 and it still locks up when trying to quit the program. Attempting to quit out of LR causes it to going to a "Not Responding" loop. The only way out is to "Force Quit". This is the same behavior as LR CC 2015 2. This is occurring on a Mac OS 10.10.4.

The Soft Proofing bug is still there. So they only fixed the minimum necessary to get us off their backs?

Otherwise seems stable.


----------



## Stu_bert (Oct 13, 2015)

KBStudio said:


> Update to LR CC 2015 2.1 and it still locks up when trying to quit the program. Attempting to quit out of LR causes it to going to a "Not Responding" loop. The only way out is to "Force Quit". This is the same behavior as LR CC 2015 2. This is occurring on a Mac OS 10.10.4.
> 
> The Soft Proofing bug is still there. So they only fixed the minimum necessary to get us off their backs?
> 
> Otherwise seems stable.



That's interesting as sometimes i get similar behavior on Windows. One wonders if the problem is then the LUA interpreter or something in the LUA code which causes the issue. Fortunately LR 5 & 6 are more robust at being terminated unexpectedly and recovering the catalogue, but I still regularly select those images whose metadata has changed and write those to the XMP. That and weekly backups should ensure I am safe.

Thanks for testing. I might give it a whirl and see if they still have the memory leak. Funny I reported it on their bug tracking site, and no acknowledgement from Adobe, no request for further information. Disappointing.


----------

