8
Replies
In regard to your comment about non technical users losing years of data - which as you say is not as uncommon as it should be - this is also referenced on the LrC Backup panel upon exit as well
I can see perhaps making this sentance stand out a bit more (larger font in red) and maybe add something like "Be sure to backup your photos as well as they are not included in this backup" to the sentance.
But, I might also argue that anyone using a computer should understand that it is a machine, and machines break from time to time. And that the antidote for a lost/broken/stolen machine is a backup. This is no different than assuming that anyone who owns and drives a car should understand that some day the car may be stolen or may be involved in an accident and therefore they need to have insurance. In some states you have to prove you have insurance to register the car or get a drivers license.
However, the old adage "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" holds true, as many people know that they should have backups but never bother to actually do it. They say, "Too busy, maybe next week" or "after I clean up all my folders" or "I meant to, just never got around to it". More bad them.
Apple and Microsoft have tried to help with things like Time Machine being turned on by default (but only for the internal drive) and Microsoft puts all the user files on the C drive into OneDrive by default both of which save some folks from themselves. But I still make money from folks who ignore the risk either out of ignorance or arrogance and wind up regretting it.
I have gradually learnt that almost all them have no real idea how computers work. Windows users grudgingly acknowledge this and most macOS users are fiercly proud of it.
By @Jeremyau
I kind of get the OP's point, very succinctly put above.
But I don't think the Import dialog terminology is the problem. Whatever you call it (and "connect" is even worse), lots of people are convinced their photos are "in" Lightroom. The catalog concept itself seems to be what they can't get their heads around. Or they don't care.
It's not just Lightroom. After Photoshop got the infamous "home screen", in effect a miniature catalog, we see the same there. I'm sometimes shocked at how so many users have absolutely no idea where they're saving their files.
But while I think the OP's description is basically correct, I'm not sure if it's really Adobe's responsibility. I'm inclined to think not. Adobe's responsibility is to make this professional-grade software as efficient as possible. Sometimes people just have to take responsibility themselves.
(Note: I actually meant for this reply to be under the original post.)
I think it’s a good idea to reconsider the term “Import” which has bothered me for a long time, but I assumed it was so ingrained that there would be little support for changing it. But if it could be changed, maybe it should be changed to a word like “Ingest”. That word is used by Photo Mechanic and in video editing.
Ultimately, it needs to convey the notion that you are entering paths to photos into a database, not copying the actual photos into the database which is what Import makes people think of.
Is the word “Import” an Adobe-specific quirk? Maybe not. Adobe Bridge has a similar function, but the name of that command is not Import, it’s File > Get Photos from Camera. Maybe that would be a better name, but it’s too long for a button. So I still like “Ingest” better.
Also supporting the idea that this not just an Adobe thing, it’s possible that Lightroom called it “Import” because the original competition for Lightroom 1.0 was Apple Aperture. I looked up the documentation for Aperture, and guess what: They also called it Import. So maybe the original Lightroom team thought they should make it familiar to Aperture users. (Aperture could also import by reference, not actually copying photos into its database.)
Another precedent might be Adobe Premiere Pro and After Effects, which both existed for more than a decade before Lightroom, Bridge, or Aperture. Those apps both use File > Import as the command for adding paths to referenced media, not copying actual media files into a project. This last example is interesting: The use of the word “Import” when files are not actually embedded goes back so far and so widely, that it is possible that it is too much of a precedent for one app to change, so that the real job is to educate users that for over 30 years, across many apps, Import has not always meant “copying the file to embed it in the project, and in fact in many apps it does mean ‘add a path-based reference to the file’ .”
Of course if the images were (by default) shunted into the catalogs' folder, then when the default drive housing this folder (...Pictures ->Lightroom) gets full as it almost always does when folks store RAW images on the C (Internal), drive and the user ports the whole folder over to a new EHD - the catalog winds up on a slow drive.
By @Califdan2
No, of course not! This is just the default at startup, everything else remains the same. If the image folder gets too large, then the user would move the "Original images" folder to another drive, not the entire catalog folder. Lightroom Classic could tell them how, or even make that a semi automated process. We are talking about new and casual users here. The same people who now use a very similar setup when they use Apple Photos. The Photos Library is basically the same as a Lightroom Classic catalog with the images inside the catalog folder and the folder disguised as a file because it is a 'package'. The only difference is that Apple offers the option to offload those photos to iCloud if local disk space is running low.
AdChoices