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

LR is based around the idea of a single catalog. You can't search across catalogs. You can't open multiple catalogs. Much of the power of the database concept is removed by splitting into multiple small catalogs.

I have two catalogs - one for home, one for work.

Complex concurrent editing protocols are many and varied and often open source (Google Wave for example).

yes, the SQL would have to change from Lite to something else. Big deal. I think concurrent editing is more important. While I don't think the recent crabby comments are helping or accurate, I think it's time for A to invest some thought in this for pro users.

-Walker Blackwell

What I hear over and over is that even at the more elementary "networking" level, even synchronizing a catalog between a laptop and a desktop Lightroom is seriously deficient. Users just can't do it - i.e. not without a lot of workaround. At a minimum (!) what is needed is a two-way file/folder compare feature and synchronize catalog updates. Many photographers using laptops in the field and desktops at home are all bent and twisted over this. It would be perhaps one of the single most popular upgrade features Adobe could implement. The core DB functionality of LR is seriously deficient, unless you're a single user, never use a laptop kind of photographer. I don't know many of those.

... and your needs are just as valid as ours for what improvements people would like to see.

I'm sure if I followed around your postings, I'd find one or two features/improvements that you're on the bandwagon for that I'd like to see as well - but the fact we are here on THIS thread, with THIS request means it is required, wanted, needed by at least 204 people. At a max of $150 a pop - just for this version - that's a $30k revenue of cash for Adobe, and if other offerings arise that offer what we as customers need, we'd switch.

Thing is, it's great that you don't need this feature, I'd like to also be in that position, so it's good that you have chimed in to let Adobe know, but when you do need it, it's not going to be there.

This thread has exposed the minimum effort they have placed into the database core of lightroom - which, btw, is EXACTLY the reason this software was originally made for. You don't build a house on rented land, and that's what they have done - so all the additional features and benefits people "want" are built on a weak and "relatively ignored" foundation.

Ironically, if it was built with a proper DB engine, your lcat file might be more efficient, might be smaller, and networking would exist, and this thread would not be here.

true, it can get large... you must have a massive amount of images and metadata :)
However a file that large would still be sluggish over any network connection - even local access would be sluggish... to keep mine smaller, I have multiple catalogs for varied "themes" and or projects... it's the same idea for outlook PST files - as they hit 2gigs it all bogs down. But associating multiple smaller pst files help alleviate the pressure.
Each work flow is different of course.

"And yes, this basic need/request has been ignored while resources have been pumped into "features" than many, if not most users could care less about."

I could care less about network access. There are dozens, if not hundreds of other features I'd rather have the team work on than this one. I'm not belittling your need for this feature, or that of others, I'm only pointing out that users have different needs and that the need for this feature is not as ubiquitous as many of it's supporters imply in their posts.

"So at the very least Adobe could have allowed Lightroom to open an instance of the lcat "locally" and allow THAT to be used as the "live file" with incremental saves to the original upon actual exit/save by the user. "

My .lrcat is 2GB, and my network access is over wireless. I would not be willing to wait the required 7 minutes for LR to launch and then another 7 minutes to exit to implement the above solution.

Laurel's comments are spot-on. I'm on the Board of ASMP Tucson. Without question, the desire/need for a multi-user, network accessible LR catalog has been present for a very long time. So-called workarounds are fraught with the potential for disaster. And yes, this basic need/request has been ignored while resources have been pumped into "features" than many, if not most users could care less about.

Sure, Adobe has the technical expertise to do this, but they have not put the resources into it, in the same way that they have not put the resources into Bridge to fix many long-standing problems/complaints. It's considered "good enough," and top programmers are moved to other projects.

Is this an easy feature to implement? Clearly not. Photo Mechanic is still behind schedule on their multi-user, network capable shared catalog, but they are definitely working on it, and they are minuscule in size compared with Adobe. If iView MediaPro had not gone down the Microsoft buy-and-bury route, the market would likely already have a multi-user, network-capable image catalog, with a slick app, to boot. Portfolio has the client-server model down, but not integration with Adobe products. Adobe Cloud instead? Most photographers I know find that repulsive. Where will this go? Only Adobe knows... but many of us are not optimistic, for good reason.

Chris, In response to your comment, I want the feature to happen. I want a multi-user, network accessible Lightroom catalog. Why? I work in a community college marketing department. We like Lightroom's library and develop features. We use keywords and metadata to make our collection searchable. We've worked around the shareability shortcomings but it's a major pain.

Our staff, including photo archivists, print and web designers, and writers - need read and write access to our photo collection. If you need details for use cases or feature requirements, I can provide them.

Guys at Adobe, it's comments like 'armchair developers' that really gets my goat up ... believe it or not, there are lots of people outside of Adobe with *many* years of architecture / database experience. (I'm only 33+yrs and counting...)

And, I'd hazard a guess that a large number of us have *never* been involved in a development that has released so many issues to the customers over so many iterations ...

And, Chris, we do want the feature to happen. people did tell you what we wanted. A long time ago. We said why we needed it. A long time ago.

The ball is in YOUR court, guys ...