Junk Camera & Lens Files

[paulbk]

I wish Lightroom, Photoshop and Camera RAW would not install every camera and lens profile in their database. I only want camera and lens profiles for equipment I own. The rest is junk hard disk clutter. I'm sure a more targeted/selective update routine can be rolled into the process. As new equipment is acquired the appropriate files can be fetched from the cloud.

[kencameron]

I do periodically get the same feeling, and occasionally try to delete stuff I don't use. This is often a frustrating experience because I can't find it or it won't delete. And then I reflect: how much hard disk space does it in fact use? And it can sometimes be useful to have everything there because that allows you to use a profile that might work for a camera/lens combination when the correct one doesn't exist (eg for defishing).

[adias]

I wish Lightroom, Photoshop and Camera RAW would not install every camera and lens profile in their database. I only want camera and lens profiles for equipment I own. The rest is junk hard disk clutter. I'm sure a more targeted/selective update routine can be rolled into the process. As new equipment is acquired the appropriate files can be fetched from the cloud.

Why? Camera profiles are small files anyway. I want all profiles possible, because at any moment I may want to process a file shot by someone else's camera. If anything, I often need lens profiles Adobe has not added yet.

[paulbk]

If others want all camera/lens files, fine. Go for it. As I said in my post, I don't want them. I am not confused, ambivalent, or iffy about the "I don't want them" part. You dig?

[Simon Garrett]

The total size of all the camera and lens profiles is currently 559 Mbyte (or 0.2% of the size of my 256G SSD C drive). 

Compare that with the 10G I allow for camera raw cache, or 7G taken by Lightroom previews. 

Or the 20G taken by \Windows, including 6G for the Windows component store (\Windows\WinSxS), in which most of the components are rarely if ever used and many are old versions since replaced.  Then Program Files and Program Files (x86) take 30G, much of that programs I didn't install and never use.  Installers that don't really need to be stored on the disk take another 5G, fonts 400M. 

So no, I'm not losing sleep over 0.5G taken by camera and lens profiles, most of which I'll never need. 

[Rhossydd]

The total size of all the camera and lens profiles is currently 559 Mbyte (or 0.2% of the size of my 256G SSD C drive). 
.......
So no, I'm not losing sleep over 0.5G taken by camera and lens profiles, most of which I'll never need.

Quite right.
I don't want to have to wade through selecting profiles to install, nor do I want LR needing an internet connection to download anything it thinks might be necessary.

[kencameron]

If others want all camera/lens files, fine. Go for it. As I said in my post, I don't want them. I am not confused, ambivalent, or iffy about the "I don't want them" part. You dig?

Right. Got that. And I am not confused, ambivalent or iffy about the "doesn't matter so much to me for various reasons" part.  My impression of what happens in these forums is that people sometimes feel the same way as you, and say so, or sometimes don't, and say so. You dig?

[petermfiore]

Have you ever tried using other(not specific for your equipment) combos for lens correction? Sometime I like them better for my needs...

Peter

[adias]

Have you ever tried using other(not specific for your equipment) combos for lens correction? Sometime I like them better for my needs...

Peter

Yes I have. It takes experimentation and sometimes works well.

[kencameron]

I guess one thing Adobe could do is to set up the lens profile popup system in the same way as the color profile, so you could choose which profiles would actually appear on your system. Nothing wrong with that, but it wouldn't be my priority for resource allocation.