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

yeah yeah :)

look, I don't want my stuff on Adobe's cloud, my things are not their business. I don't want to rent my software - I want to own it. I don't want to subscribe to a service - especially when - plainly if they can have a web based service that allows for um SHARING then they darn well know how to make LR share.

But the sheep will subscribe to the cloud, get datamined in the process, pay for the privilege, and be happy little lemmings that their initial software purchase is inadequate and adobe gains a new fanboy.

not me mister.

But - all along I missed one little gem - well not missed, just didn't really ponder it.
You chat about "sidecar" files. And how a shared solution won't help you with those and also be a database... But that's not true Stu, and you know it *wink*

LR is database driven - and it does create - and link - side car files... And you only need sidecar files to interact with less data driven software like Bridge for instance - because Adobe wants to store things that although they could go into the metatags Exif data, they don't - like effect settings and such - so the side car is needed.

But again, your discussion that it would be so woefully hard for Adobe to implement full database sharing - at the very least due to the lack of sidecar support is again a dichotomy, because LR currently manages sidecar files in the database (via linking) and is aware when they are updated by the OTHER software you are using to manipulate your photo workflow.

See, if LR did what it was supposed to do you likely would not NEED the other software - or the sidecar files.

What would be fun is if they simply mashed Bridge into LR and be done with it.
Heck, let's even call it BrightRoom

That way I could have a semblance of a work flow without having to click and open all this bs to get the job done.

Have a new "work" tab that lists all your client projects and sub links all the files required for it in a bridge like browser - or "playlist" if you will.
Library remains general browse - but for all file types
Develop takes care of my quick tweaks
Book and Web remain the add on "sales pitch" they are
Maps remains for geotagging
Add the "Brightroom" link to PS and Ai and In, and so on to track project files like "mini bridge" was supposed to do.

All of it simple database driven sharable linkable data.

Since Adobe is all "i heart all things subscription and cloud" well throw that BS in there too - so the rest of the non production environments have all their toys too.
You know, be able to navigate and share right in Revel, without having to open yet one more friggin app.

But let the big shops have the options to actually disable modules - not simply hide them.

I think it makes sense not to have too many images on spinning disk in my opinion

That is an approach but a poor one when you want to be able to search on metadata and still use LR. I like to have the big catalog that contains everything (except maybe irrelevant images) and I know I am not the only one. If you do stock, for example, you may want to revisit and search your catalog once in a while for missed opportunities. Having multiple catalogs defeats that purpose (unless you resort to Bridge or another tool).

I cannot realistically do that forever in LR but if I was able to connect LR to a proper SQL server, designed to manage terabytes of data easily, I would be able to do that without a doubt.

I don't run an agency or a big office, but I certainly can envision environments where having a central repository of all assets is A MUST. LR is almost there, but the SQL lite database is preventing it.

"But I'll tell you what, if we all compared notes on HOW our workflows worked I bet you that we are all so similar that there is a "natural" standard way for things to function that a company could - oh I don't know - run a flaming focus group and ASK us and actually MAKE it. "

Indeed, but then i'd be out of a job 🙂

"As for workflows not being consistent, well I hate to remind you of ISO classifications, and lean and point over hear at all adobe software - um - doing just that - making things consistent."

I'm just referring to file naming constancy across one's facility. Adobe have the workflow down as far as their line of products is concerned. That is, until the user gets his or her hands on it 🙂

Well, as I said before, I worked in the software industry and there are great tools for collaboration for small to large (and immense) teams. These solutions include backup, replication, mirroring, versioning, branching, you name it. They have it because they need to have it to be competitive, that is why companies pay for them: an integrated solution, supported by a single vendor, because it is mission critical to the company.

Without suggesting LR needs all that in one package at this point, I think you are wrong to say that it should not have collaborative features. Every piece of software released today has some form of collaborative feature. LR does it in the form of the "Export As Catalog" and "Import from Another Catalog" function but this is a half cooked solution. The same features can be used for backups but it is even worst.

There are already great patterns and tools that Adobe could use to beef up LR, this is not rocket science, easy to implement and would be very welcomed by professionals.

Please let us discuss that and be happy with your home made solution. It's not because you have a solution that works for you that others would be happy with it. If your approach was the good one for businesses, there is half the software companies that would go bankrupt, as systems integration is a big business. It used to be that the "best of bread" approach was the norm but it is not anymore because people realized that it is better to spend time on your core business and not your infrastructure. Let that job to your software vendors...

Discussing Axiom 🙂

Do you keep ALL your images live? I have archive catalogs for anything over 2 years old. They sit in catalogs filtered by year. Images are offline until i need to get to them. My live stuff is 2 year folders deep, yeah that gets big depending on how much i'm, shooting but its certainly easier to manage

Stuart, you're arguing semantics here... You need your files here, there, and over here too. So by default, this is a shared environment.

LR doesn't do this, so you had to make it do this.

This thread is about hey wait a second - it SHOULD do this, it's a friggin' database driven bit 'o kit.

As for workflows not being consistent, well I hate to remind you of ISO classifications, and lean and point over here at all adobe software - um - doing just that - making things consistent.

What I have mentioned in another thread exactly address your thoughts on "workflows". Adobe doesn't truly have one - bridge falls short, LR falls short, PS/Ai/In/Dw/Fr well they all just such so bad at workflow it's embarrassing - but yet they create Revel, and Photoshop.com, and creative cloud and good lord NOTHING interacts with it all. And none of it works like drop box, or other cloud services.

Thing is, it's a joke, that Adobe is offering these Pro tools and none of them actually are designed for anything other than ONE user - and it's up to the USER to find a solution. So our workflows are all varied....

But I'll tell you what, if we all compared notes on HOW our workflows worked I bet you that we are all so similar that there is a "natural" standard way for things to function that a company could - oh I don't know - run a flaming focus group and ASK us and actually MAKE it.

Thing is - as this thread has shown over all, and others I've been party to - it would appear Adobe is far more interested in tracking what menus people "dont' click" to remove the feature *cough arrange windows* than they are in improving cores aspects of their software.

As for why I still use Adobe? Adobe has progressively gotten more flash and less function over the years, and it's getting tiresome.

But it's still the best of the worst. I still have to produce, and I simply need the best "best fit" tool for the task.

Doesn't mean I have to like it though.

"Lastly, let me ask a general question here - Just what do you think the database is full of to "suffer such impending doom of corruption?
- it's a database of metadata and tags - oh and the reference to what "filter" is applied - that's it.
like 2k of data per photo.
What is all this fear of corruption? "

Because the times i've had to rebuild an SQL table because of a crash. DB's still need to be backed up, it's still the sidecar file, the XML, the XMP that is important, it's just a lot smaller then the combined images, so the mechanics are the same. Back it up, then back it up again, then back that up again.

My whole point is to work with what is implemented now, we all have ideas for making this better but what about Adobe's roadmap?

Ask yourself why Revel has just been released, we have adobe drive as well. I don't think that Adobe have 'improve LR's DB' on their list