P: Allow Catalog to be stored on a networked drive.

BTW, the continuation of this discussion is pointless without recognition by Adobe that this is a needed feature they are working on. It only serves to further remind us of a fact we are well aware of and that is that LR is missing a core component present in almost every piece of software developed today.

Obviously multi-user is something that is of great concern and appears to be something Adobe plans to ignore. Workarounds are fine for temporary fixes but shouldn't have to be continued forever. They can keep the downgrades to LR5 if they can't add true multi-user support. There is already so much bloat in LR with all the shine that 99% will never use that the program is becoming something akin to the Emperors new clothes.

Ah i see, yes i'll give that a drive

:: adendum - as a photographer, there are times i'd like to fire up a related program and stuff a photo into it rather than export and find and place and man this is a waste of time...
But I have to close LR, find the document, open it, browse to place and man I could have been done by now.

We have nifty tools and none of them play nice - which is so bizarre cuz they all come from the same manufacturer.

my 2003 tv remote allows me to use my dvd player from a different manufacturer, so wtf?

HI Andre...
okay, let's look at the system adobe has created - bridge: a file browser, LR - a photo browser, PS - a paint program, Ai - a vector program, In - a typography program, Fw - a web imagery program, Dw - a web coding program

Each of these things are what they are, except for two.
BR and LR are the same thing. It's why there are so many OOODLLEESSS of threads on the topic. Because they are totally different also.

PS has it's place for in depth actions against a pixel.
LR is not that - it is a lean mean cataloging machine with the BONUS of some rather awesome - but "tiny" editing tools to get your photo published NOW, not after days of "airbrushing"

Bridge, well, because adobe didn't make previews for our OS's windows, and stuff, we HAVE to have - or we buy other plugins for our systems.

The point is that LR should NOT be PS in any way - it's not cost effective for the end user and it muddies PS performance, and muddies LR's performance and you would have the worst of both worlds in one PhotoRoom and this thread would be way worse. lol

Really I guess Adobe needs to make a Multimedia Asset Management program.
You set up folders for all your crap - and then catalogue it all.
You then simply click your crap and it opens where you want it to for editing - being it LR as a lean editor - or PS for restorative stuff or raw creativity - or Ai for vector and so on.

But that's inventing a new and ground breaking thing and so I don't anticipate it coming out of adobe anytime soon.

Instead we HAVE LR which if you simply added recognition of other file types you have a ready made catalogue. That's half the battle. Ditching bridge then frees up resources for their coders.
So merge the two "little" players that duplicate tasks and be done with it. Then you can free up the ole bridge team to make it sharable.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel, I just want proper tires and not these stupid plastic "Big Wheel" things.

actually Stu, I meant actual modules - not your plugins... on windows they are .lmodule files... book, layout, web, maps, etc.
HIDING them in preferences is not turning them off... you have to go into your program folder and I think into the package on the mac and THEN make - or move - the .lmodule files outta there.

I've found significant improvement in load times and switching from layout to develop and so forth - they program seems to use less internal resources to track all the "things you may or may not do with your image"

andre - negating PS 's place in production is limited to the scope of the scenario I painted for Stuart. When you're slapping articles together you don't need the bloat of a photo editing program like PS... LR is more than sufficient for a crop, perspective shift, and colour and light and tone balance.

Besides, I'm not going to hold up a $100 bit of code to a $1000 bit of code and say hey, how come this doesn't do this?

And minimizing the number of brush stokes and gradients, etc. helps + keeping the sharpening and noise reduction as the last step. LR4 introduced a lot of slowness in the sharpness and noise reduction. That is the price to pay for the "recipe" + preview approach that makes the non-destructive editing environment possible.

For anything other than light healing, PS or Gimp is required. If you do not do the kind of photography that requires it, LR does the job. Which is nice because you get a cheap solution, easier to use than PS for most. But at the end of the day, LR's editing features are just Camera Raw's, very limited.

Axiom,

I get you, I was talking about Bridge in the context of photography, period. Bridge is meant to be, well, a bridge between components of CS. It is a specialized file browser for the Adobe products. I know it has a lot of features for that but, for photographers, there is nothing more in Bridge than in LR, in fact less since LR is better integrated with CR (the develop module is CR with some extra bells and whistles like the History, a very welcomed addition).

To continue in that direction, I would say that LR should be integrated to PS and not Bridge to LR. Maybe the PS functionality as a paying option but there is complete overlap in the CR part of PS and LR and PS could definitely have a face lift as far as asset management goes. But then it is Bridge's job... There is some reengineering to do at Adobe... Bridge is outdated and becoming obsolete for photographers (but not for other creatives) and photographers now wish for a tighter integration of LR and PS. Another subject, I guess...