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

Great, thanks, I shall try that. I did delete a few recently, I was using a few of the Jeffrey Friedl's plugs and till had them hanging around not doing anything

The only reason I use PS is when I'm editing images via one of the Nik plug ins. (or i have to do soem actual manipulation which is rare as I mostly shoot wildlife and portraits) LR's implementation using these plug ins is dire. So, I'm in LR, I edit via PS, add a layer, convert to a smart filters and add the plug in.

Using the Nik plug ins directly from LR creates endless virtual copies which is a pain

Java errors?

Anyways... The performance degradation has all to do with the more powerful editing tool. The "recipe" approach has it's limit. But there is not reason why allowing to run the catalog on a dedicated SQL server would affect performance. The performance issues people are experiencing are mostly in the development module. To the contrary, allowing remote catalogs on proper SQL engines might speed up the Library module significantly.

"negates the use of PS (as I use it) "

That depends on your style of photography and the end product/client. There are many things that cannot be done in LR and Adobe would be fools to risk the PS revenues, considering the price tag difference.

"Have you used Adobe prelude?"

Heard about it but thanks for reminding me. Will look at it to have an opinion 😉

I come from a software industry background. So I realize that my views are biased by it. But if software companies had to manage source code the way LR and your workarounds do, it would be a catastrophic mess.

I see the photos + the metadata as source code for photographers and creative teams as team of developers (they are different but the workflow needs really intersect). The same collaborative needs. The software industry came up with great patterns that could definitely be reused for managing our assets.

stuart - for speed, try moving the modules you don't use into a "disabled" subfolder - bet you see an improvement.
I haz a thread on that in here and elsewhere.

Ahh... andre... Bridge allows for an "explorer" window that allows browsing with previews - that without buying a "plug in" for windows you cannot have (ps thumbnails, ai thunmnails, etc.)
Because (again) adobe was too lazy to implement that feature (which is it's own wtf? moment)

But anyway - bridge ALSO reads darn near every kind of file, and links directly to the software that opens it - allows for fast entries to metadata (sidecar) and allows for other settings to HELP with a CS workflow.

BUT it has no basic photo editing, no basic database, no fast search, etc.

Lightroom has NO (practical) browsing but for it's own lcat folder, and no support for non camera files.

All other solutions (DAM's aside) require windows explorer and your own workflow - and you cannot share "settings" from an image in PS to a photo catalogue, and I can't even begin to describe my horo at what "Windows" calls a "search" (oh my god I wish Quicksilver was made for a pc)

So melding Bridge and Lightroom into "Here's What We AdvertisedTM" WITH SQL proper being live and happy and sharable and we're done.

For Stuart,
obviously I still use lightroom, so no, not having proper sharing is NOT a deal breaker, but one has to wonder about the thought processes of a company who - like apple - repeatedly offer shine without substance - it's wearisome.

See, Adobe is COSTING companies money not just simply to buy it - but to run it - I have to pay - or be paid by - the people who have this software that we need to use to do our jobs.

We don't get refunds on software, we cannot demand a change - some "adobe staff" on here have suggested that we simply use something else - and that implies that customer service is not only unimportant, but that it's not even mandated to offer any.

So essentially, software companies have become 'the mob" or "the man" and are able to exist outside of any proper business practice's common sense.

I can't even imagine turning to a client and saying - if you don't like it go somewhere else - knowing full well they cannot - and taking their money anyway.

So LR (and other adobe gems) here is - in my mind - EXACTLY like what apple did with iOS - sold all the shine - and left out the basics (cut copy paste) and then SOLD that "NEW" feature three versions later.
And like lemmings we buy into mediocrity.

So is it a deal breaker for me to buy anything new from Adobe ?
I'm going to have to say yes, yes it is.
I cannot spend another cent on a company that repeatedly sells me software with half-hearted development.

How does that saying go ?

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity?

"How does having files locally help a collaborative workflow, unless they are synced to a DB somehow? "

I meant for performance, local copies of working files are best. I obviously store archive on external storage. I was trying to say that, since local storage is the best option for performance, I would love to have a mechanism, built into LR to push/pull master files from/to my computer's local storage from/to a remote repository. I would only keep master files for the images I am working on locally. This is what I currently do but do the push/pull manually.

"But you can't Andre, given what your current requests are."

Why? We did not talk about other things than collaboration and replication. The rest (which is 90% of why I use LR) is fine. I like LR, it has helped me have a better workflow, I like the organizational features and Camera Raw integration + history, etc., etc. I said that before. I just wish collaboration was easier.

"My question now: why do you categorically refuse to talk about improvements? Why do you so badly want to prevent LR from moving forward with collaborative features? (aside from your previous arguments about stability, focus of the dev team on other things than image related feature)?
"

It's not that at all, I just can't see Adobe spending anytime on it, given what they push with Adobe drive, Revel etc. It would be great to see LR networked, built on SQL, but the coding has to be spot on otherwise we'll run into all kinds of Java errors, exceptions etc.

From LR 3 through to LR 5, what has actually happened? A new brush tool, smart previews and as I can see it, it now runs slower.

I love LR for it's ability to catalog, simply and with no fuss or custom forms. It does a few things very well and is cheap and negates the use of PS (as I use it)

Have you used Adobe prelude? It's more video related but it would be nice to see LR, the photo version of Prelude.

"I want to use LR and PS"

But you can't Andre, given what your current requests are.

"To my point, storing the master file locally is still the best and cheapest option. I was just trying to point out one weakness in your solution."

How does having files locally help a collaborative workflow, unless they are synced to a DB somehow?

It has to be shared storage in order for people to gain access. Of course that brings on the usual RAID, back ups and Archive scenario