Keen Photographers Question

[ShinySideUp]

I am a keen amateur photographer -- all the gear, some idea -- but the thousands of photographs are starting to become a pain to catalogue as I do it all manually (different directories for different dates) and backing up is also becoming more complex.

I was wondering what software other prolific photographers use to catalogue their pictures? I don't mind paying for software so long as it does the job. My wife uses Picasa but I feel it takes too much control away from me.

 

[BigTom]

I use lightroom for all my stuff. Works very well and combines cataloguing with basic editing, resizing, exporting, etc. Plus it integrates well with Photoshop.

 

[Bugdozer]

I also use Lightroom, you can tag photos with a keyword, such as "shrimp" and then when you want to find a particular photo in any of your folders you can just search on the keywords. It is expensive software, but it also has the benefits Big Tom mentioned, and it is a very powerful post-processing tool, especially if you work with the RAW files from your camera. The thing that nobody ever seems to mention is that its editing - unlike Photoshop - is completely non-destructive: you can do something like retouching an area, then do 100 other changes to the whole picture, and then go back and remove the area retouch if you change your mind later on. Trying to do that sort of thing in Photoshop is much more clunky and difficult.

 

[raptorrex]

I also use Lightroom, you can tag photos with a keyword, such as "shrimp" and then when you want to find a particular photo in any of your folders you can just search on the keywords. It is expensive software, but it also has the benefits Big Tom mentioned, and it is a very powerful post-processing tool, especially if you work with the RAW files from your camera. The thing that nobody ever seems to mention is that its editing - unlike Photoshop - is completely non-destructive: you can do something like retouching an area, then do 100 other changes to the whole picture, and then go back and remove the area retouch if you change your mind later on. Trying to do that sort of thing in Photoshop is much more clunky and difficult.

lightroom is a good option.

I'd leave the editing to Photoshop though. because its better at it. though, for some, more difficult to use.
its handy for "on the fly" work though.
incidentally, Photoshop is no more destructive, whilst editing,. than
Lightroom..
the only time you overwrite a file, is when you tell it to. same as in Lightroom.
and, if you do it right. you've converted it to PSD anyway, prior to editing.

 

[Bugdozer]

I also use Lightroom, you can tag photos with a keyword, such as "shrimp" and then when you want to find a particular photo in any of your folders you can just search on the keywords. It is expensive software, but it also has the benefits Big Tom mentioned, and it is a very powerful post-processing tool, especially if you work with the RAW files from your camera. The thing that nobody ever seems to mention is that its editing - unlike Photoshop - is completely non-destructive: you can do something like retouching an area, then do 100 other changes to the whole picture, and then go back and remove the area retouch if you change your mind later on. Trying to do that sort of thing in Photoshop is much more clunky and difficult.

lightroom is a good option.

I'd leave the editing to Photoshop though. because its better at it. though, for some, more difficult to use.
its handy for "on the fly" work though.
incidentally, Photoshop is no more destructive, whilst editing,. than
Lightroom..
the only time you overwrite a file, is when you tell it to. same as in Lightroom.
and, if you do it right. you've converted it to PSD anyway, prior to editing.

*sigh* Sometimes I think you're hell-bent on disagreeing with me for the lulz.
Photoshop IS what is known as "destructive" editing, because unless you make a new adjustment layer for every change you make, the changes are made directly to the pixels of the image, rather than as an instruction which is then applied to the displayed image. In Photoshop, if you decide to desaturate the image to black and white, then adjust the contrast, then apply a dark gradient across the picture, then do some cloning of an area, and then decide you want the picture to be back in colour again but keep all the other changes you did since then, you can't. In Lightroom you can. Once information is lost in Photoshop, it's gone forever unless you have made an extra layer to preserve it. Lightroom retains all the information and doesn't lose any.
Furthermore, Lightroom doesn't overwrite files, it exports a new version.

 

[BigTom]

I also use Lightroom, you can tag photos with a keyword, such as "shrimp" and then when you want to find a particular photo in any of your folders you can just search on the keywords. It is expensive software, but it also has the benefits Big Tom mentioned, and it is a very powerful post-processing tool, especially if you work with the RAW files from your camera. The thing that nobody ever seems to mention is that its editing - unlike Photoshop - is completely non-destructive: you can do something like retouching an area, then do 100 other changes to the whole picture, and then go back and remove the area retouch if you change your mind later on. Trying to do that sort of thing in Photoshop is much more clunky and difficult.

lightroom is a good option.

I'd leave the editing to Photoshop though. because its better at it. though, for some, more difficult to use.
its handy for "on the fly" work though.
incidentally, Photoshop is no more destructive, whilst editing,. than
Lightroom..
the only time you overwrite a file, is when you tell it to. same as in Lightroom.
and, if you do it right. you've converted it to PSD anyway, prior to editing.

*sigh* Sometimes I think you're hell-bent on disagreeing with me for the lulz.
Photoshop IS what is known as "destructive" editing, because unless you make a new adjustment layer for every change you make, the changes are made directly to the pixels of the image, rather than as an instruction which is then applied to the displayed image. In Photoshop, if you decide to desaturate the image to black and white, then adjust the contrast, then apply a dark gradient across the picture, then do some cloning of an area, and then decide you want the picture to be back in colour again but keep all the other changes you did since then, you can't. In Lightroom you can. Once information is lost in Photoshop, it's gone forever unless you have made an extra layer to preserve it. Lightroom retains all the information and doesn't lose any.
Furthermore, Lightroom doesn't overwrite files, it exports a new version.

Aye, but you soon get into the habit of using a new layer for everything. It's only destructive if you want it to be.

Anyway, I use both of them side by side happily. Any heavy editing I do in PS, but LR is good for simple adjustments, cataloguing, exporting, etc.

 

[raptorrex]

Anyway, I use both of them side by side happily. Any heavy editing I do in PS, but LR is good for simple adjustments, cataloguing, exporting, etc.

which is what i said. because that's what I do!

and nothing is destroyed in Photoshop, until you tell the file to be overwritten. and that's nothing.
every step can be retraced (undo/redo which goes back many steps too).
its lack of, product, knowledge that's the problem here! (err, as usual)

 

[Bugdozer]

Anyway, I use both of them side by side happily. Any heavy editing I do in PS, but LR is good for simple adjustments, cataloguing, exporting, etc.

which is what i said. because that's what I do!

and nothing is destroyed in Photoshop, until you tell the file to be overwritten. and that's nothing.
every step can be retraced (undo/redo which goes back many steps too).
its lack of, product, knowledge that's the problem here! (err, as usual)

I didn't mean Photoshop destroys your file! Destructive/non destructive editing is a term specific to how a program deals with information in the image. With Photoshop, unless you have a layer as a backup, what you see on the screen is all you have. If you throw detail out of the image, you can't get it back later on. Not so with Lightroom. Undoing is neither here nor there because it's always chronological. Lightroom offers what could be considered a non-chronological ability to undo.

 

[BigTom]

Anyway, I use both of them side by side happily. Any heavy editing I do in PS, but LR is good for simple adjustments, cataloguing, exporting, etc.

which is what i said. because that's what I do!

and nothing is destroyed in Photoshop, until you tell the file to be overwritten. and that's nothing.
every step can be retraced (undo/redo which goes back many steps too).
its lack of, product, knowledge that's the problem here! (err, as usual)

I didn't mean Photoshop destroys your file! Destructive/non destructive editing is a term specific to how a program deals with information in the image. With Photoshop, unless you have a layer as a backup, what you see on the screen is all you have. If you throw detail out of the image, you can't get it back later on. Not so with Lightroom. Undoing is neither here nor there because it's always chronological. Lightroom offers what could be considered a non-chronological ability to undo.

Yes we know what you mean! As long as you're using a fresh layer for each adjustment then PS is also non-destructive. Admittedly its not as elegant as LR in how it handles it and does require basic user knowledge and input to achieve it, but still non-destructive

 

[Bugdozer]

Anyway, I use both of them side by side happily. Any heavy editing I do in PS, but LR is good for simple adjustments, cataloguing, exporting, etc.

which is what i said. because that's what I do!

and nothing is destroyed in Photoshop, until you tell the file to be overwritten. and that's nothing.
every step can be retraced (undo/redo which goes back many steps too).
its lack of, product, knowledge that's the problem here! (err, as usual)

I didn't mean Photoshop destroys your file! Destructive/non destructive editing is a term specific to how a program deals with information in the image. With Photoshop, unless you have a layer as a backup, what you see on the screen is all you have. If you throw detail out of the image, you can't get it back later on. Not so with Lightroom. Undoing is neither here nor there because it's always chronological. Lightroom offers what could be considered a non-chronological ability to undo.

Yes we know what you mean! As long as you're using a fresh layer for each adjustment then PS is also non-destructive. Admittedly its not as elegant as LR in how it handles it and does require basic user knowledge and input to achieve it, but still non-destructive

So you make a new layer every time you press the mouse with the burn/dodge tool, or every time you do a spot removal with the clone tool?
I'm not saying PS can't imitate Lightroom, or that editing pictures with it "destroys" them, there are some people here who don't "get" or aren't reading the phrase I've highlighted in red in my quote. Editing a picture in PS is analogous to editing a recorded musical performance (of which you can make backup copies, i.e layers in order to retrace your steps) whereas Lightroom is analogous to having the live musicians there and being able to tell them what notes to play directly to get the performance you want. The whole point I was making is that it's about 10 times easier to change your mind about what you've done using Lightroom than it is using Photoshop. Regardless of whether PS can or can't do stuff, for certain things Lightroom IS easier.

 

[BigTom]

Anyway, I use both of them side by side happily. Any heavy editing I do in PS, but LR is good for simple adjustments, cataloguing, exporting, etc.

which is what i said. because that's what I do!

and nothing is destroyed in Photoshop, until you tell the file to be overwritten. and that's nothing.
every step can be retraced (undo/redo which goes back many steps too).
its lack of, product, knowledge that's the problem here! (err, as usual)

I didn't mean Photoshop destroys your file! Destructive/non destructive editing is a term specific to how a program deals with information in the image. With Photoshop, unless you have a layer as a backup, what you see on the screen is all you have. If you throw detail out of the image, you can't get it back later on. Not so with Lightroom. Undoing is neither here nor there because it's always chronological. Lightroom offers what could be considered a non-chronological ability to undo.

Yes we know what you mean! As long as you're using a fresh layer for each adjustment then PS is also non-destructive. Admittedly its not as elegant as LR in how it handles it and does require basic user knowledge and input to achieve it, but still non-destructive

So you make a new layer every time you press the mouse with the burn/dodge tool, or every time you do a spot removal with the clone tool?
I'm not saying PS can't imitate Lightroom, or that editing pictures with it "destroys" them, there are some people here who don't "get" or aren't reading the phrase I've highlighted in red in my quote. Editing a picture in PS is analogous to editing a recorded musical performance (of which you can make backup copies, i.e layers in order to retrace your steps) whereas Lightroom is analogous to having the live musicians there and being able to tell them what notes to play directly to get the performance you want. The whole point I was making is that it's about 10 times easier to change your mind about what you've done using Lightroom than it is using Photoshop. Regardless of whether PS can or can't do stuff, for certain things Lightroom IS easier.

If you've got a good workflow then 99.9% of the time it simply isn't an issue in PS. The rest is just semantics. PS is great, LR is great, they do different things (and some things that are the same but handled differently). Having fully functioning layer masks and blending modes in PS makes it massively more powerful than LR for advanced editing - the 'disadvantage' of having to use layers compared to having sidecar files in LR is also PS's greatest strength. LR is deliberately crippled in this regard to maintain the need for both sets of software. Different tools and different workflows for different jobs.