LR usability frustrations

[Schewe]

See for a bit more about the thinking behind the UI.

That's pretty cool. I remember watching that when it first came out (shortly after LR 2 I think) and it's interesting to go back and look at it and listen to Phil now that LR 4 has come out. However, I do think the goal of having "less UI" hasn't been met :~)

[Stephane Desnault]

However, I do think the goal of having "less UI" hasn't been met :~)

With touch becoming ubiquitous, it might become a worthy goal for LR7 or 8? I'm impressed with the way Snapseed is leveraging touch on tablets.

[Rhossydd]

Most other apps let the user adjust they keys

Most ? more like some.

Only with repetitive manual work entering directory names.
Weren't computers introduced to reduce that?

Many of us like that degree of control. Having computers making their own decisions about where to put things is many people's pet hate.
The alternative is to have complex scripting that needs to be set up by the user and as I've already pointed out most users don't want to get involved in that sort of complication.

Yup, but how to I qualify which files to search in? That text search field is all or nothing.

No, the search works on the range of photos in the library grid. You could search through everything in the library or just a specific folder, collection or smart collection. Simple, but powerful once you understand the possibilities.

Click to focus is what is the most annoying misfeature of Windows and MacOS. Way too many clicks...

Just hovering over things requires precision and carries a risk of accidental actions. Clicking to make something happen or active is an absolutely fundamental part of how modern UIs work, if you can't cope with that idea you're against almost everyone else.

And then there is plenty who will not use it because of its UI...

Really ? I've yet to read of anyone not using LR because of it's interface, other reasons, yes, but not it UI.

[afx]

Having computers making their own decisions about where to put things is many people's pet hate.

The decision is mine. But I need to be able to tell the machine what to do...
Currently I can't tell the box to do the work, instead I have to do it all manually.

The alternative is to have complex scripting that needs to be set up by the user and as I've already pointed out most users don't want to get involved in that sort of complication.

Nonsense. No scripting involved at all. Just extend the current directory patterns to also use the job name.

No, the search works on the range of photos in the library grid. You could search through everything in the library or just a specific folder, collection or smart collection. Simple, but powerful once you understand the possibilities.

That is not what I was asking. I was asking in which fields to search.
You currently can not generate a search like
keyword (lion) and not location(namibia or botswana) because the search filed has no provisions to limit the search to specific metadata. So if namibia also shows up elsewhere, the search string would match that too.
When trying to combine that with the selection lists to limit the search, it really starts to get messy.

Just hovering over things requires precision and carries a risk of accidental actions. Clicking to make something happen or active is an absolutely fundamental part of how modern UIs work, if you can't cope with that idea you're against almost everyone else.

Why limit a system just because the average user lacks control? Make the behavior optional.

Really ? I've yet to read of anyone not using LR because of it's interface, other reasons, yes, but not it UI.

That is one of the key reasons that I get to hear outside the Adobe fan club.

cheers
afx

[Rand47]

and the image quality of LR 4 has made a huge leap to the front

So, bottom line . . . is the image quality worth your frustrations over the UI?  Will you trade a favored UI & work flow, for lesser image quality?  Seems to me like that is the bottom line, regardless of the pros and cons of how LR works or doesn't work.  Other than, of course, the theraputic venting of one's spleen.  

I'd use a sledge hammer and chisel if it got me better image quality.  I'm just glad to have LR and glad that the folk making it are continually moving forward with amazing improvements that greatly increase image quality.  With Lightroom 3.6 onward it is like someone bought me new cameras for the price of the upgrade. (And a new computer I had to build, powerful enough to run it fast!  LOL )

Best regards,
Rand

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So, Lightroom is not perfect.

Lightroom fails to satisfy everyone's laundry list of personal preferences.

Hmmm... what else is wrong with the world? Do tell us, Mr. afx.

[Glenn NK]

I'm just glad to have LR and glad that the folk making it are continually moving forward with amazing improvements that greatly increase image quality.  With Lightroom 3.6 onward it is like someone bought me new cameras for the price of the upgrade. (And a new computer I had to build, powerful enough to run it fast!  LOL )

Best regards,

Rand

Rand:

I agree on all counts.

Recently I had a bit of a "discussion" on another forum wherein I was called down by a mod; I suggested that losing all the edits in a LR disaster wouldn't be much of a problem for me because I'm doing all my past six years of edits all over (in LR).   His reply; "Surely you jest with us. For many users the edits contained in the database would represent hundreds or even thousands of hours of work."

Call me guilty - I just don't have enough time to acquire enough images that would require thousands of hours of work - should I get out and start shooting like crazy?

OTOH, I'm having too much fun reading interesting posts like the first one here (and the subsequent replies).


Glenn

[Rand47]

"Surely you jest with us. For many users the edits contained in the database would represent hundreds or even thousands of hours of work."

Strange how folk sometimes parse what's important / critical.  I might suggest that anyone with "thousands" of editing hours and no robust back-up scheme is a bit goofy.  

Rand

[Glenn NK]

Strange how folk sometimes parse what's important / critical.  I might suggest that anyone with "thousands" of editing hours and no robust back-up scheme is a bit goofy.  

Rand

This guy has used PS for quite a while - last September he "tried" LR for the trial period.  It seems that he keeps looking for something wrong with it, and then tries everything to prove he's right.  Every chance he gets, he rags on Lightroom - and believe it or not he is the so-called site Administrator.

He suggests that if the catalogue in LR corrupts, we're doomed.

What's notable is looking at the LULA forums; the number of threads and posts for LR compared to the others.  LR is gaining ground and fast.

Glenn

[Rhossydd]

Nonsense. No scripting involved at all.

It's not nonsense at all. You're expecting the computer to automatically put your data in a user defined folder. You've decided on a specific formula for your own folder structure, how do you expect the computer to work out that formula ? You have to give it a set of rules to work it out, ie a script.

That is not what I was asking. I was asking in which fields to search.

You didn't say that.

Why limit a system just because the average user lacks control?

You can't build in everything. The writers have to make decisions about what to include and exclude and that means they'll usually add features the average user wants and leave out the obscurities that have less appeal. Basic good business.

If you read the volume of complaints here about LR, you'll know it's not an "Adobe fan club". What you do get is a lot of experienced users that will offer help and solutions. If you find the IQ of LR's output to be worthwhile it might be worth listening to other users experience to help you understand LR better and you might find that adapting to LR's workflow might help you become more efficient.

[sniper]

Rand:

I agree on all counts.

Recently I had a bit of a "discussion" on another forum wherein I was called down by a mod; I suggested that losing all the edits in a LR disaster wouldn't be much of a problem for me because I'm doing all my past six years of edits all over (in LR).   His reply; "Surely you jest with us. For many users the edits contained in the database would represent hundreds or even thousands of hours of work."

Call me guilty - I just don't have enough time to acquire enough images that would require thousands of hours of work - should I get out and start shooting like crazy?

OTOH, I'm having too much fun reading interesting posts like the first one here (and the subsequent replies).


Glenn

Many photographers shoot hundreds (or even thousands) of shots a day, a typical wedding photographer might shoot anything from 500-3000 at a wedding, times that 50 weddings a year and it soon adds up.
 I know photographers with 100.000+ images catalogued in Lightroom, it would take a long time to re-edit that many I suspect.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I might suggest that anyone with "thousands" of editing hours and no robust back-up scheme is a bit goofy.  

"a bit goofy". You're a master of understatement!

Jeremy

[Jim Pascoe]

This guy has used PS for quite a while - last September he "tried" LR for the trial period.  It seems that he keeps looking for something wrong with it, and then tries everything to prove he's right.  Every chance he gets, he rags on Lightroom - and believe it or not he is the so-called site Administrator.

He suggests that if the catalogue in LR corrupts, we're doomed.

What's notable is looking at the LULA forums; the number of threads and posts for LR compared to the others.  LR is gaining ground and fast.

Glenn

Glen

My main catalogue has 175,000 images in and yet the actual Lightroom Catalogue file is only 2.2Gb.  The answer is just to back that up and your risk is minimised.  The Preview data file for the same catalogue is 82Gb - which I also back-up, but it is not a critical loss if that goes.  The Catalogue can rebuild the preview data if necessary.

Jim

[Damon Lynch]

You've decided on a specific formula for your own folder structure, how do you expect the computer to work out that formula ? You have to give it a set of rules to work it out, ie a script.

I don't know why you believe it must be a script. There are standalone programs that allow you to rename photographs as you download them, including using job codes in subfolder and file names. These don't require any special scripts on behalf of the user.

Personally I never use job codes. And I note these guidelines recommend against them, at least with respect to filenames.

[afx]

So, bottom line . . . is the image quality worth your frustrations over the UI?  Will you trade a favored UI & work flow, for lesser image quality?

Yup, there is always something that is not perfect, the question is though, what do you do to change it?
So I will have to join the ranks of those who are annoyed with Adobe but still use there products for one reason or another.
I guess I was lucky to be able to avoid this so far.

What I find puzzling is the apologetic comments in this thread and this "it works for me so everything is perfect" attitude.
Or RTFM pointers that just confirm the issues I wrote about.

cheers
afx

[afx]

It's not nonsense at all. You're expecting the computer to automatically put your data in a user defined folder. You've decided on a specific formula for your own folder structure, how do you expect the computer to work out that formula ? You have to give it a set of rules to work it out, ie a script.

A script is just one potential way to do it, but definitely not needed.
According to your logic, the date structure offered by the Lightroom popup would be a script...
Far from it..
(I am proficient in at least half a dozen scripting languages, so pleas do not tell me that a simple specification of a file placement is a script).

If you read the volume of complaints here about LR, you'll know it's not an "Adobe fan club". What you do get is a lot of experienced users that will offer help and solutions. If you find the IQ of LR's output to be worthwhile it might be worth listening to other users experience to help you understand LR better and you might find that adapting to LR's workflow might help you become more efficient.

Sure, I might pick up something, that is sort of inevitable.
That still does not solve the basic efficiency issues or Adobes refusal to even supply working shortcuts for non US keyboards.

cheers
afx

cheers
afx

[afx]

Personally I never use job codes. And I note these guidelines recommend against them, at least with respect to filenames.

Well, that guidance is partly incomplete.
If overly long file names are a problem then your IT is stone age.
And if you have only a job code and no date info, then yes, I think this falls short, but why would any sane person do that?

As wrote previously, that structure has served me well for a decade and I do tend to have quite a bit of repetitive Job names. Still the file names are easily distinguishable and unique.

Without the Job code and needs an image browser or DB for even the simplest identification.

cheers
afx

[Mac Mahon]

Rand:  +1
Glenn:  I've been there too!

Of course there are features we would like in a perfect version of Lightroom:  I for one, would like a kind of Boolean search function such as afx is looking for.  I'm optimistic it'll turn up in the on-going evolution.
Till then, LR eats most s/w I've used for usability and functionality.  (Despite the protestations of the other forum's moderator!)

Tim

[Tony Jay]

If overly long file names are a problem then your IT is stone age.

The issue would not be one's own OS.
Many servers around the world are running exactly those legacy OS's that do limit file name lengths and will also behave unpredictably to special characters.
If one's images need to be ported across these sorts of systems then stick to the lowest common denominator.

Tony Jay

[Glenn NK]

Glen

My main catalogue has 175,000 images in and yet the actual Lightroom Catalogue file is only 2.2Gb.  The answer is just to back that up and your risk is minimised.  The Preview data file for the same catalogue is 82Gb - which I also back-up, but it is not a critical loss if that goes.  The Catalogue can rebuild the preview data if necessary.

Jim

Just to make sure everyone understands:

I have no problem with LR at all - I'm fine with it just the way it is.  No product of any kind is perfect (in spite of the over use of the word perfect, but that's a whole different subject not related to photography).  Anyone expecting perfection is bordering on insanity - and I'm not saying which side.

The problem with the (vain) attempt to make LR satisfy everyone is that it starts to look like the racehorse designed by a committee.  What's worse is that with software it soon becomes bloatware and effectively executes itself (as in dead).

There is a simple solution for anyone that doesn't like the features in a product and isn't complaining.

The person on the other forum that suggested that it could take thousands of hours of work to redo lost edits may have a point - or perhaps his collection could use a bit of thinning down.  However most of us are reluctant to throw anything away - we humans do collect a certain amount of junk.  I've decided to get rid of the chaff - a few months ago I had about 40,000 images - I'm down to about 23,000 now and there will be more "reassessment".

I'm wondering out loud because I simply don't know:  If a wedding photog takes a few thousand images for one wedding, and the couple gets say, the best five hundred, what happens to the out-takes?  Do you keep them?  If the people that buy the good ones don't get the bad ones, why keep them?  Can you use them for someone else?     

Glenn