Database capabilities of LR2?

catspaw

I keep hearing about how useful LR is for database tracking abilities for your photos.

I missed the boat on this. I just don't get it? Do you keep all photos indexed? What happens when you move photos around, or do you make sure you don't do that?

I admit part of my problem is that I often load photos onto the laptop in the living room, then move them to the shared network drive, then eventually move them to my primary photo storage harddrive on the main machine (where I will typically do more intensive post processing if needed). However, I just delete the library once I'm done with it. I presume this makes tagging photos rather pointless?

I also need to upgrade the primary computer (old mini, waiting to see when Apple will upgrade the mini again) and the harddrive is 99.9% full so I'm trying to limit how much space the library takes up and everything else.

But I'm not sure I get it still. Can someone sell me on the idea of using it as a database? otherwise I have everything by date and can typically make an educated guess and find the files I need after poking around in a few folders. :scratch

wildviper

I am almost in the same boat as you. I have two laptops and photos almost always get loaded on these laptops first. My desktop is where I have all my pictures on a network drive.

The problem with Lightroom is that it will not work like you would expect on a network setting. It is BEYOND belief that they have done this, but you have to have a catalog on each of your computers. Which means that you have to update the catalogs on each computer independently to make sure the changes you made on Laptop 1 is carried through. However, and this is the BIG STICKING point is...if you had forgotten that you had updated the Laptop 2 with newer changes, the update I mention would overwrite everything.

So, in short, it is NOT a perfect solution for archiving, database style usage. It is great for keywording and making some photo changes. Hands down there.

I am stuck here as well. I can't keep on exporting catalogues and re-importing all the time. Shame on Adobe for not fixing this.

colourbox

catspaw wrote:

I admit part of my problem is that I often load photos onto the laptop in the living room, then move them to the shared network drive, then eventually move them to my primary photo storage harddrive on the main machine (where I will typically do more intensive post processing if needed). However, I just delete the library once I'm done with it. I presume this makes tagging photos rather pointless?

Lightroom lets you export any portion of a catalog as a smaller catalog so that you can transfer it between machines and retain all of the tagging, edits, etc. you have done. If the images exist on both machines, you don't even have to transfer the images, just the catalog.

The problem, as wildviper described, is that you have to remember to stay on top of exporting/importing the parts of the catalog so that they don't get out of sync. But if you do manage to stay on top of it, you don't have to lose any edits or tags at all.

wildviper wrote:

The problem with Lightroom is that it will not work like you would expect on a network setting. It is BEYOND belief that they have done this...Shame on Adobe for not fixing this.

I am honestly curious because I don't know...which other database apps allow smooth multi-user network access with proper check out/check in to prevent corrupting overwrites, and what do they cost? I've read what Adobe has to say on the subject and they keep saying "It's nowhere near as easy as you think" and "that workaround you tried may eventually corrupt your catalog beyond repair" so I am wondering which photo database product has done it right.

BradfordBenn

There is the way I was doing it for a while, not necessarily a great way but it worked. I kept the catalog and images on an external harddrive that I moved from computer to computer. Always in sync that way The backup was on the internal drive.

wildviper

While I have also read Adobe's reply, I say to them..."we put a man on the moon" !!!! The problem, I think is that they do not want to pay for the licensing required for a upgraded MySQL database environment. I believe they use SQLite.

I have done a lot of testing with various software and no one has the ideal setup. One may have amazing keywording capabilities (Lightroom), while the other will have amazing speed (Picasa).

IDImager seems coming close to what would be ideal. I just don't like the complicated interface and the complicated network install (my test as of end of 2007). For my needs, I want my 65+ dad (computer novice) to be able to pull up pictures he wants as well as I, the advanced user...be able to manipulate and jump over hoops (per se) with the software.

Why can't a software have "Beginner Mode" and a "Advanced Mode"? Anyways, that is off topic.

I have tested, iview, Extensis, Picajet, Fotostation and few others that I can't remember now. Picajet was very close, but I had a problem with them in that they didn't have Raw support. Seems like they have added that.

They also allow working on a network now. I would have to re-test this.