# What do you wish you knew when you were getting started with Lightroom?



## Victoria Bampton

I'm working on the getting started information for beginners, and perhaps you can help me...  it's a little while since I was a beginner!

Stretch your mind way back... when you first got your hands on Lightroom, what did you want to know? 

For example, did you need to know how to import existing photos or just new ones?  Were you worried about renaming at that stage?  What about adding metadata?

And then what did you want to do when you first got your photos into Lightroom?  Were you interested in rating the photos, or did you go straight to Develop and play with them?

Did you bother to play with slideshows and prints to start with?  Did you try to export?

If you could roll back time and give yourself some tips, what would you tell yourself?  What do you wish you knew?

Thanks!


----------



## Tony Jay

Victoria the Library module was the biggest one to get my head around together with the import dialog.
The biggest changes to my workflow, as time has gone by, and subsequently the biggest headaches to fix retrospectively, are in these areas.
I sure wish that I had known how to manipulate the import dialog to my advantage in the beginning.
Overall I feel that the digital asset management capabilities of Lightroom are the most underappreciated aspects initially and also of the most difficult to fix retrospectively once the importance of digital asset management is grasped and the abilities of Lightroom in this area are recognized.
The great power and strength of Lightroom, as an application, is also its Achilles heel, since the numerous alternatives at each step of the workflow magnifies into a workflow of almost infinite variation. To the beginner, a few (2-3) alternative workflows guiding one through importing images, keywording, and metadata capture with special emphasis on how to use presets to automate the process where relevent would be hugely helpful.
Because the whole issue of digital asset management is usually so under-appreciated by most beginners strongly emphasizing the cogent benefits of the early part of any workflow (early on the Develop module was my darling - the rest was just fill) would hopefully mitigate the pain associated with retrospectively trying to rename image files, update metadata, and keyword gazillions of image files years later.

I appreciate that my thoughts, as expressed above, may be difficult to translate into a workable beginners package (whole books are written on this subject matter), but the potential benefits would be massive should it be accomplished.

My $0.02 worth

Tony Jay


----------



## Allan Olesen

I actually think that a lot of new users would like to circumvent the DAM features of Lightroom because they feel they are more of an obstruction to their workflow than a help. They also often think that they have to surrender to the Lightroom directory structure instead of using the structure they have already been using for years and find natural. The need to import is the number one reason I see when someone ditches Lightroom after trying it for a short period.

So I think it would be a good idea with a guide showing to how to get easiest possible through the import steps and start working, without Lightroom moving or renaming any files or directories. Something which makes it possible to say:
 "Yes, you have to import first in Lightroom, but if you do it according to this guide, you can keep the directory structure you are used to. The import will only be two additional mouse clicks and then you can start working and pretend that you never did an import."

Given time, those users will probably learn to love the DAM features like the rest of us. But there is no need to rush that.

I can relate this to my own experience. My own background before Lightroom was Raw Shooter Essentials, an old freeware raw converter. With this software, I should only double click on a raw file in Windows Explorer, and then the program would start up in something which more or less resembled the Develop module in Lightroom. The photo I had double clicked would be preselected, and all other photos in the same directory would be accessible in a film strip in the same way as in Lightroom (and I think that Auto Sync was enabled as default). So I could jump directly from Windows Explorer into adjusting all photos from a shooting, and then exporting them. Job done.

With Lightroom, I had to start Lightroom first. This is something I don't do with most software since I think it is usually easier to find the data files in Windows Explorer and then start the associated software from the data file (as I did with Raw Shooter Essentials).
Then in Lightroom I had to start an import and navigate through an unnecessarily clumsy file select dialog with bad memory of earlier import locations. At least that is how I remember it - I haven't used the file select dialog for a long time now.
Then I had to make sure that Lightroom would not move the files. I can't remember if Add was the default, but at least I was so suspicious about Lightroom taking control that I remember examining my options very carefully at that step.
And then I was finally able to do an import and start working.
Next frustration came after some days. I had imported different directories at different locations in a directory tree, and now they were visible in the Library as one long, flat list of directories without any hierarchic tree structure visible.

But after messing a bit with Lightroom, I discovered two things which made my life much easier:

1. Use "Show Parent Folder" a few times and be able to see the full directory tree of your photo collection in Library view.
I think anyone with their own folder structure would like to know about this feature very early.

2. You can actually initiate an import from Windows Explorer and skip the file select dialog in Lightroom Import.
If Lightroom has the correct key in the Windows Registry, you can just select the raw files in Windows Explorer and use Open With. (But quite often, this key is missing for some reason.)
Or you can add your own action to the right click menu of Windows Explorer so you can just right click on a directory and select Lightroom Import.
In both cases, Lightroom will start up, go into Import and already be in the correct directory.
After that, you basically only have to press Enter, and you are ready to work.


----------



## Anthony.Ralph

I suspect that many people pre-Lightroom create their own instinctive (and often very individual) versions of a DAM system. From my own experience I found that a clear understanding of what DAM is and what is used for - together with the fact of having to accept a discipline in using one was very important. To this end, I found the DAM book by Peter Krogh invaluable and although I read it pre-Lightroom, once having deciding to go with Lightroom, it was easy to use my DAM education to quickly come to grips with LR.

So for anyone coming to LR needs some degree of knowledge/instruction on DAM plus the use of databases to hold picture and processing_ information_, so a primer along those lines would help a great deal.

Anthony.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

This is great info guys, thanks.  Keep it coming!


----------



## Denis de Gannes

I started with Lightroom in the Beta days prior to the release of LR 1.x. The tutorial that impressed me the most and which I consider a must view for any new user of Lightroom is available at the following LINK.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/george-jardine-on-lightroom/the-lightroom-catalog/

A view of this prior to using Lightroom will help most new users (even experienced users of Photoshop CS and Elements or similar programs) avoiding the problems most new users experience when they just download/install and try to edit files.


----------



## DaveS

Just as an observation regarding the need to import and have lightroom move things to folders that IT wants to use... you can merely add  (pick Add as opposed to move or copy) them in place where they were in your pre-lightroom approach.    With a plugin Like Jeffrie Friedl's JF Folder Watch you can set it up so that all you have to do is drop folders and photos in where you want them and as long as they are inside the top level folder that Lightroom knows about, it will find them and add them in place with whatever organization you want.   After they appear you can then keyword them and what not.


----------



## Tony Jay

Allan Olesen said:


> I actually think that a lot of new users would like to circumvent the DAM features of Lightroom because they feel they are more of an obstruction to their workflow than a help. They also often think that they have to surrender to the Lightroom directory structure instead of using the structure they have already been using for years and find natural. The need to import is the number one reason I see when someone ditches Lightroom after trying it for a short period.



I think Allen may be making my point rather than contradicting it.

Tony Jay


----------



## Replytoken

I think that Anthony's post above hit on a similar note as my introduction to LR.  I was using Picture Window Pro for image editing before LR, and was trying to deal with the whole DAM issue  as I did not want to lose my images.  I compared LR v.1 with a number of other programs like iView Media Pro (pre-Microsoft), Canto Cumulus and IDimager.  To be honest, I found LR to be wanting, as its "logic" was not very logical or intuitive.  It took me quite a while to understand Adobe's "logic" for the program, but once I understood and accepted it, things started to come together for me.

There were many bright individuals who worked on LR, and many of them really had a passion for photography as well as software design.  But, I think there was also a bit of an "echo chamber" effect, especially when it came time to design the UI and program terminology, and I think that it still hurts the program to date.  I understand the need for a learning curve when using a powerful program, but so much of LR is unique to LR, and not common to a broader base of their potential market.

I could go on at length about the UI, but the short answer is that somebody needs to make a compelling case as to why a prospective purchaser should empty their mind, forget most everything they know, and invest the time and energy to learn how LR works.  I do not feel that it is a program that sells itself.  Using LR reminds me of learning to use a rangefinder after extensively shooting with an SLR.  The underlying philosophy of how to use the equipment is very different, and one needs to embrace this difference if they expect to enjoy doing things a bit differently.

I know this does not exactly answer your OP, Victoria, but I felt it necessary to take an additional step backwards to the stage when prospective users are trying to wrap their heads around they "why" as opposed to the "how".  I'll try to be more "on task" in any future posts.

Thanks for asking,

--Ken


----------



## willdoak

I moved to Lightroom after struggling a while with Photoshop. I put converted NEFs into folders, but it was a struggle keeping up with them. To me, tagging in Lightroom was a huge advantage. I think the advice to start tagging new imports in comforting; you don't have to tag the ones you already have somewhere. 

OTOH, I tagged in a very ad-hoc way, winding up with many too-specific tags and variations of the same tag. Hierarchical tagging was a huge advantage, although that might be too advanced for beginner advice.

Will


----------



## Allan Olesen

Tony Jay said:


> I think Allen may be making my point rather than contradicting it.
> 
> Tony Jay


Perhaps you are right, Mr. Jey.


----------



## Tony Jay

Replytoken said:


> I know this does not exactly answer your OP, Victoria, but I felt it necessary to take an additional step backwards to the stage when prospective users are trying to wrap their heads around they "why" as opposed to the "how".  I'll try to be more "on task" in any future posts.



I wouldn't be apologetic Ken - I think you make an excellent point.
The philosophical approach Lightroom takes to DAM is very different and to get the most out of Lightroom means taking the time to understand their philosophy.
Posts detailing how individuals are attempting to use a powerdrill (Lightroom) as a hammer (whatever their usual previous approach was) are multiple daily occurences on this forum and others.
A very common problem is individuals trying to use very complicated folder systems to classify their images that involve copying the same image into multiple folders instead of using appropriate keywording and smart collections. Using multiple catalogs to try and achieve the same end is also ultimately self-defeating.
These are just two examples demonstrating an extensive issue.

Tony Jay


----------



## Anthony.Ralph

Replytoken said:


> I think that Anthony's post above hit on a similar note as my introduction to LR.  I was using Picture Window Pro for image editing before LR, and was trying to deal with the whole DAM issue  as I did not want to lose my images.  I compared LR v.1 with a number of other programs like iView Media Pro (pre-Microsoft), Canto Cumulus and IDimager.
> 
> [..]
> 
> --Ken



Ken, I ran with IDImager for a while, but once the original developer sold the program on, I moved away from it. At the heart of IDImager of course, is a SQL database - pretty much along the lines of Lightroom; at least conceptually. And this makes my point about getting the message across to new users that data about the images is held in a database but not the images themselves. Perhaps the LR team should have used a different term other than 'import' for registering images into the database - ummm, 'register (images)' perhaps? 

Anthony.


----------



## Allan Olesen

Tony, I get a feeling that this was directed at me, but I also think you are misunderstanding my point.

What I am trying to say is that there is no need to force anyone into doing things the Lightroom Way from the beginning (and I don't even know if there is a Lightroom Way since Lightroom supports plenty of different ways to import and store photos). Learn new users to do the import in a way which obstructs their intended workflow as little as possible. Nothing is lost by doing that. The photos are imported anyway, so the catalogue will still be there afterwards. And a custom, personal folder structure does not in any way hinder Lightroom's operation.

At some stage that user will discover that he actually has some benefit from the catalog, and then he will start using it actively.


----------



## Allan Olesen

Anthony.Ralph said:


> Perhaps the LR team should have used a different term other than 'import' for registering images into the database - ummm, 'register (images)' perhaps?


I fully agree to that. It is in line with what I have been trying to say: 
Many people are being scared away from Lightroom because of the import proces, partly because they believe that Lightroom will take control of where the the photos are stored.


----------



## wblink

HI,

WHITHOUT reading all answers written (so it is my personal view):

Telling LR does keep an INDEX of the pictures, NOT a database.
The flexibility that is a result of that.
Info about previews.
BACKUP BACKUP BACKUP.
More about Smart Collections ....


----------



## Allan Olesen

wblink said:


> Telling LR does keep an INDEX of the pictures, NOT a database.


That would be a lie. It keeps a database which is created using the database tool SQLite.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

wblink said:


> Telling LR does keep an INDEX of the pictures



Hmmmmm, I like the word index for explaining the database, for those who aren't familiar with databases.


----------



## Replytoken

Victoria Bampton said:


> Hmmmmm, I like the word index for explaining the database, for those who aren't familiar with databases.



(Climbs up on soapbox) 

This is a good example of what I was alluding to in my previous post.  LR is a database, and it keeps information on each image, so I think that one would be hard pressed to technically call it anything else.  But, its primary role is a photo file manipulation program, both in image content and metadata, so it is easy to not think of it as a database program like MS Access or other "traditional" database software. So, how does one describe LR to a person with limited familiarity of photo software that resides on a database engine?  The traditional PC paradigm offers a model that allows users to handle their information with software programs that perform their actions on discrete data files (like Word and Excel).  Newer, cloud-based web 2.0 programs often keep their data "within" the software program.  In light of some exposure to these two common approaches, what is a person with limited experience computer skills supposed to make of LR?  While I agree that the term "index" is better than register, how LR handles files is not an easy concept to describe.  I am sure there is a good analogy out there, but it is not coming to mind just yet.  I would have thought that Adobe would have considered this a marketing challenge to selling LR, but that's just my opinion.

(Climbs down from soapbox) :tape:

--Ken


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Replytoken said:


> I am sure there is a good analogy out there, but it is not coming to mind just yet.



A catalog of books in a library is the best I've come up with.  If anyone can come up with a better one, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## wblink

Allan Olesen said:


> That would be a lie. It keeps a database which is created using the database tool SQLite.



LR does NOT keep a database of pictures, but of many other things RELATED to the pictures.
I know hat now, but it was at least a bit confusing in the beginning, that is why I mentioned the INDEX. A fairly complicated index, but that is the real strength of LR in my opinion and that is why I also mentioned "BACKUP BACKUP BACKUP".


----------



## wblink

Victoria Bampton said:


> A catalog of books in a library is the best I've come up with.  If anyone can come up with a better one, I'd love to hear it.



Catalog of books is good. LR keeps a document of each book with info where it is, your remarks, how far you've read it, where you bought it and so on. Never place the book on another shelf without boss LR knowing about it or you will loose your document <-> book connection.


----------



## wblink

Replytoken said:


> (Climbs up on soapbox)
> 
> This is a good example of what I was alluding to in my previous post.  LR is a database, and it keeps information on each image, so I think that one would be hard pressed to technically call it anything else.  But, its primary role is a photo file manipulation program, both in image content and metadata, so it is easy to not think of it as a database program like MS Access or other "traditional" database software. So, how does one describe LR to a person with limited familiarity of photo software that resides on a database engine?  The traditional PC paradigm offers a model that allows users to handle their information with software programs that perform their actions on discrete data files (like Word and Excel).  Newer, cloud-based web 2.0 programs often keep their data "within" the software program.  In light of some exposure to these two common approaches, what is a person with limited experience computer skills supposed to make of LR?  While I agree that the term "index" is better than register, how LR handles files is not an easy concept to describe.  I am sure there is a good analogy out there, but it is not coming to mind just yet.  I would have thought that Adobe would have considered this a marketing challenge to selling LR, but that's just my opinion.
> 
> (Climbs down from soapbox) :tape:
> 
> --Ken



I know a little bit (more) about databases. But with LR I am a photographer, NOT a IT specilist, so I want to know how to treat LR and what I can or must not do. Starting with LR (and I thing that was what "The Queen" asked, I made a little map in my head and it works. That is the "indexes-idea".


----------



## Allan Olesen

wblink said:


> LR does NOT keep a database of pictures, but of many other things RELATED to the pictures.


I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree that it is important to tell people that Lightroom does not take possession of your pictures.

But you are saying it the wrong way. LR does keep a database of pictures.

You seem to think that "a database of pictures" implies that the pictures have to be stored inside the database. That is not correct. There are plenty of examples of databases of X, where X is not stored in the database. In fact that is probably the most common use of databases. For example a database of persons.


----------



## DaveS

I like the term Catalogue...   Noting of course, that this is what LR calls it as well.    But (being a DBA by profession) both terms are good.   Lightroom keeps track of all  your photos, where they are, and what you've done with them (at least, what you've done with them in LR).   As an aside, what trips up many new LR users, is that you have to back up BOTH the catabase (new word hehe) AND the pictures that it is tracking.

Worth remembering, you don't HAVE to use LightRoom's idea of a folder structure.  You can stick them where ever you want, and merely add them (via import), although most of us have LR copy them from our memory cards to a structure based on one of LR's templates.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

I'm working on the getting started information for beginners, and perhaps you can help me...  it's a little while since I was a beginner!

Stretch your mind way back... when you first got your hands on Lightroom, what did you want to know? 

For example, did you need to know how to import existing photos or just new ones?  Were you worried about renaming at that stage?  What about adding metadata?

And then what did you want to do when you first got your photos into Lightroom?  Were you interested in rating the photos, or did you go straight to Develop and play with them?

Did you bother to play with slideshows and prints to start with?  Did you try to export?

If you could roll back time and give yourself some tips, what would you tell yourself?  What do you wish you knew?

Thanks!


----------



## Allan Olesen

I think we are using a lot of effort discussing which word to use. But I think what matters is the understanding that Lightroom will not take the control over photo location away from the user.


----------



## Replytoken

wblink said:


> I know a little bit (more) about databases. But with LR I am a photographer, NOT a IT specilist, so I want to know how to treat LR and what I can or must not do.



Thank you for illustrating my point, Willem.  I know that it seems that we are mincing words, as Allan has said above (i.e. index or catalog), but concepts like LR's paradigm are hard to explain with just a few words to somebody who is not familiar with the program.  Both terms seem to work, as you have illustrated, but I am still finding it difficult to sum up how LR works in just a few sentences.  I realize that a summary is not the be-all, end-all solution for beginners, but I believe that how they get started with LR has a big impact on if they run into the common problems that are frequently posted in the forum.  I applaud Victoria for asking the question!

--Ken


----------



## jimburgess

"Catalog" would seem to be appropriate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalog


----------



## Rose Weir

I came into Lightroom via the demise of Rawshooter. I had NO IDEA what was required in the library. Once the images were actually displaying in Lightroom I headed for develop and basically followed the previous routine done with Rawshooter...i.e. export a tif and then follow that up in external software. It was a long time before I could get into the aspects of keywords, collections, naming files...long time means at least two years. 
The very term 'hierarchy' can be a foreign language term to a newcomer. I'll admit it is only the recent past that I have reorganized the lengthy keyword list into hierarchy structure.
My opinion is that the 'organization how to' portion of the book have diagrams, simple or recipe style 'how to' steps and *WHY* this will pay off in the long term.
Real world little examples could be anecdotes.
This month I  had a massive project to prepare into a presentation and at this late date in the game discovered the total value of keywords.....or the absence of that keyword <grin> The project went together in no time using a collection. I needed landscape type photos and was able to sleuth out candidates from over a 3 year period. 
The only glitch I had was a different file naming structure in 2009-2010. I've finally landed on a consistent file naming structure that is easy to filter and search at this time but its a custom naming template that suits me. I prefer the image suffix to be the first thing in the name.
Its the simple things that get overlooked for organization
Rose


----------



## Allen

I was using Elements before Lightroom. The biggest improvements that LR gave me were: 
1) quicker, simpler, better photo editing thanks to its easier user interface of its development tools, and 
2) the integrated tagging/cataloging capability of LR.

It's SO much easier to stay on top of keywording the way LR enables me to do it via batch at import, and then in grid library for less-than-universal keywords in the set I just imported. 

It's fair to say I now find Lightroom indispensable for both its post-processing and cataloging capabilities.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

So many gems in such a short thread.  Ok, the outline is coming together...  

I'm working on the assumption that it needs to be a real idiots guide, assuming no knowledge whatsoever.

Main things I'm hearing so far:

How the catalog relates to the photos - explaining the concept of a database
Basics of import dialog - add vs. copy, some default settings, adding basic metadata
How to organize files on the hard drive
How to name the photos?
Rating?
Creating collections & smart collections
Adding keywords
Basics of Develop
Basics of Export
Not too worried about slideshow, book, print, web, just a quick skim

Further thoughts?


----------



## Tony Jay

Victoria, I think that is a very fair summary.
Not that the output modules are unimportant just that if the fundamentals that you refer to correctly in place one can go on to playing with output modules without continually being hobbled by a poor grasp of those fundamentals.

Tony Jay


----------



## Jim Wilde

Backups...catalog, images, settings.


----------



## MarkNicholas

If I knew then....what I know now...la la la.

1. Lightroom basically serves two functions. (i) to Raw develop / edit your photos (ii) Manages your photos.
2. You don't open photos like in usual photo viweres / editors. You first import them into LR then you view them from within LR.
3. That importing a photo does not mean moving or duplicating a photo but merely telling LR of the existence of that photo and where it is on your hard drive so that it can immeditaely locate it next time you fire up lightroom.
4. When you raw convert / edit a photo you are not touching the original photo. You are essentially creating edit instructions that are saved in LR's database. So what you see on your screen is the original photo with your LR edits applied.
5. To create a digital file of photo with your LR edits applied you do not Save As but you Export your photo. Exporting a photo is essentally the same as Save As.


To be continued........


----------



## Leslie

Victoria, that summary seems ok.

I'll give my views which are those of someone who has only been using LR for 2 weeks.

I did a bit of reading before installing LR so I had my head round the idea that LR is a database and that my photos are not stored inside LR. One thing i've not fully grasped yet is what folder and file structure to use to store my photos in. However, from what i've been reading recently it seems that the file and folder structure are not as important as ensuring that my keywording and metadata is accurate and comprehensive. And that once I have my keywording and metadata sorted that collections are the way forward with regards finding particular photos. Maybe I didn't read the correct info before starting or maybe I put too much importance on trying to get a folder and file structure right that I glossed over the importance of keywording and metadata but I think that a guide to keywording and metadata and how you can use them to organise you photos would be useful.

The second thing i'm struggling with is where should I store the files that I export? I understand that export works like 'save as' and all of the develop settings are then saved with the file but so far i've only exported images to a memory stick as I didn't know where they should be saved on my hard drive. I guess this is linked to my point about folders and files.


----------



## Anthony.Ralph

Leslie said:


> [..]
> 
> The second thing i'm struggling with is where should I store the files that I export? I understand that export works like 'save as' and all of the develop settings are then saved with the file but so far i've only exported images to a memory stick as I didn't know where they should be saved on my hard drive. I guess this is linked to my point about folders and files.



Just to clarify, the develop settings are saved in the LR catalogue and indeed, all the adjustments are applied when exporting an image. 

Based on my own work practices; which are partially as a result of my reading of this and other forums, I would suggest that by and large exported images are not stored at all, beyond their immediate use. In other words, just export images - for example to load onto a website or to email to friends - and then discard them, as their recreation is the work of a moment should the need arise. This can appear counter intuitive to anyone who has come to LR from other programs and who are used to having a whole range of derivative versions all neatly tucked away -  certainly it was in my case! In addition, the use of virtual copies within LR can allow several versions; treatments, crops, sizes, etc. to be maintained with no additional space being taken up on disk - which is great - and jolly convenient.

Anthony.


----------



## Jim Wilde

Leslie said:


> However, from what i've been reading recently it seems that the file and folder structure are not as important as ensuring that my keywording and metadata is accurate and comprehensive.



It is true that Lightroom doesn't really care where or how your images are stored, provided you don't change things around without telling Lightroom. However, it can be useful to have your image folders under one or two 'parent folders', rather than haphazardly spread all over the place, particularly when considering your image backup scheme. 



> The second thing i'm struggling with is where should I store the files that I export? I understand that export works like 'save as' and all of the develop settings are then saved with the file but so far i've only exported images to a memory stick as I didn't know where they should be saved on my hard drive. I guess this is linked to my point about folders and files.



I agree with Anthony here, exports can in the main be regarded as 'disposable'...so where you locate them is largely immaterial. Also, have a look at Publish Services for those exports which you want to mainatin in sync with your original files, e.g. for web uploads. I use the Flickr publish service, as well as a host of hard drive publish services for iPhone/iPad, digital photo frames, etc. The web upload services are great in that no intermediate disk-based export is needed, so you haven't got to worry where they go.


----------



## Leslie

Anthony.Ralph said:


> Just to clarify, the develop settings are saved in the LR catalogue and indeed, all the adjustments are applied when exporting an image.
> 
> Based on my own work practices; which are partially as a result of my reading of this and other forums, I would suggest that by and large exported images are not stored at all, beyond their immediate use. In other words, just export images - for example to load onto a website or to email to friends - and then discard them, as their recreation is the work of a moment should the need arise. This can appear counter intuitive to anyone who has come to LR from other programs and who are used to having a whole range of derivative versions all neatly tucked away -  certainly it was in my case! In addition, the use of virtual copies within LR can allow several versions; treatments, crops, sizes, etc. to be maintained with no additional space being taken up on disk - which is great - and jolly convenient.
> 
> Anthony.



Many thanks for that reply Anthony. The point you make about virtual copies is very interesting and something I had no knowledge of. Since I got my dslr I have only used the bundled software that Nikon sent with the camera to edit my photos. I have a very basic file system which has a 'raws' folder and a 'finals' folder. Basically all the raw files are in the raws folder (within different sub-folders) I then edit a selection of them and then I convert them to jpegs and store them in the finals folder. I've always been aware that this is creating two copies of the one photo and therefore taking up valuable disk space.

So with LR I could have different versions of the same photo (one colour and one mono, for instance) using virtual copies which wouldn't require double the disk space? I like that idea and maybe that's something that could be added to Victoria's beginners guide? Or is this getting a bit advanced for that?

Thanks again for your reply.


----------



## Anthony.Ralph

Leslie said:


> [..]
> 
> So with LR I could have different versions of the same photo (one colour and one mono, for instance) using virtual copies which wouldn't require double the disk space?
> 
> [..]
> 
> 
> Thanks again for your reply.



Spot on. You can have as many virtual copies as you like. In effect, Virtual copies are just alternate adjustment instructions stored in the catalogue for a given image. And of course they can be exported to provide a 'finished' image as discussed previously. 

Anthony.


----------



## MarkNicholas

MarkNicholas said:


> If I knew then....what I know now...la la la.
> 
> 1. Lightroom basically serves two functions. (i) to Raw develop / edit your photos (ii) Manages your photos.
> 2. You don't open photos like in usual photo viweres / editors. You first import them into LR then you view them from within LR.
> 3. That importing a photo does not mean moving or duplicating a photo but merely telling LR of the existence of that photo and where it is on your hard drive so that it can immeditaely locate it next time you fire up lightroom.
> 4. When you raw convert / edit a photo you are not touching the original photo. You are essentially creating edit instructions that are saved in LR's database. So what you see on your screen is the original photo with your LR edits applied.
> 5. To create a digital file of photo with your LR edits applied you do not Save As but you Export your photo. Exporting a photo is essentally the same as Save As.
> 
> 
> To be continued........



More generally (and this is probably true of most programmes... but more so with LR) once you have mastered it you realise that it doesn't actually do that much (thats not a criticism at all) and you become fully aware of all the available features / options for developing / editing and cataloging. Afterall it was designed for photographs.  After mastering LR you feel in control over the programme whereas at the start you feel that the programme has control over you, in much the same that Photoshop always did even after years of use ! Like many photoshop users I probably only just scratched the surface of using the available features and never ever felt in control.


----------



## seaduck

I'm with Leslie:  Conceptually understanding how to address exporting is/was a challenge.  I still have issues with this aspect of LR:  if for example, I'm emailing a friend and then decide I want to attach a photo, I need to open LR, find the pic, export it and then attach it.  Exporting from LR, nearly as I can tell is LR-centric, meaning that everything written about it assumes that you are starting in LR.   It still feels clunky in other situations when I am working in some other program and then feel the need to pull in a photo.


----------



## Anthony.Ralph

seaduck said:


> I'm with Leslie:  Conceptually understanding how to address exporting is/was a challenge.  I still have issues with this aspect of LR:  if for example, I'm emailing a friend and then decide I want to attach a photo, I need to open LR, find the pic, export it and then attach it.  Exporting from LR, nearly as I can tell is LR-centric, meaning that everything written about it assumes that you are starting in LR.   It still feels clunky in other situations when I am working in some other program and then feel the need to pull in a photo.



You can attach images to an email without having to open Lightroom, complete with the develop settings made to them - just set the check boxes in EDIT|CATALOG SETTINGS|METADATA to include develop settings. 

Anthony.


----------



## Mark Sirota

Anthony, that won't solve the problem that seaduck explained. Your solution will give you the original image file, complete with the XMP data that describes any edits that should be made to it. But it won't render a new JPEG with those settings.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Leslie said:


> So with LR I could have different versions of the same photo (one colour and one mono, for instance) using virtual copies which wouldn't require double the disk space? I like that idea and maybe that's something that could be added to Victoria's beginners guide?



I think that would fit nicely, thanks!  Great to have your input Leslie.



seaduck said:


> if for example, I'm emailing a friend and then decide I want to attach a photo, I need to open LR, find the pic, export it and then attach it.



Thanks seaduck, that's great info


----------



## Anthony.Ralph

Mark Sirota said:


> Anthony, that won't solve the problem that seaduck explained. Your solution will give you the original image file, complete with the XMP data that describes any edits that should be made to it. But it won't render a new JPEG with those settings.



Ah, I thought the develop adjustments were written back into Jpegs themselves with the settings I noted above. And by and large it's Jpegs that get emailed?

Anthony.


----------



## Brad Snyder

Yes, the develop adjustments are written back to the JPG as XMP metadata if you so choose. However, at that point the adjustments are not rendered (we call it 'baked-in') in the file. Without Lr (or ACR) to process the XMP adjustment 'recipe', the metadata is fundamentally useless. It's only when the JPG are exported that the adjustments are actually rendered into pixel data. 

That's the entire reasoning behind 'non-destructive editing' also know as parametric editing.


----------



## wblink

Nice thread: I'm learning ....


----------



## Anthony.Ralph

Brad Snyder said:


> Yes, the develop adjustments are written back to the JPG as XMP metadata if you so choose. However, at that point the adjustments are not rendered (we call it 'baked-in') in the file. Without Lr (or ACR) to process the XMP adjustment 'recipe', the metadata is fundamentally useless. It's only when the JPG are exported that the adjustments are actually rendered into pixel data.
> 
> That's the entire reasoning behind 'non-destructive editing' also know as parametric editing.



Of course - I had a moment's brain confusion, thinking that by writing back the developmet data into the Jpeg header, it would be available to other programs. Of course I know about parametics and 'baking in' vis-à-vis Lightroom.

Anthony.


----------



## Brad Snyder

(Welcome to my world of brain confusion)


----------



## Roscoe17

What still vexes me is the best way to use colors to manage my workflow.  I'm constantly tweaking it and still find myself not liking the product.
Emphasizing keywords, especially the hierarchial nature of them.
Convicing folks that "importing" photos is painless and doesn't actually move anything around (I've seen too many dismiss LR because of the catalog feature.

Like Allan, I cut my teeth on the free program Raw Shooter Essentials (which by the way the company that developed it and the premium version was bought by Adobe and was part of the genesis of Lightroom) and it was easy to use, very fast and didn't require importing...all of the edits were stored in proprietary sidecar files.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

I'm working on the getting started information for beginners, and perhaps you can help me...  it's a little while since I was a beginner!

Stretch your mind way back... when you first got your hands on Lightroom, what did you want to know? 

For example, did you need to know how to import existing photos or just new ones?  Were you worried about renaming at that stage?  What about adding metadata?

And then what did you want to do when you first got your photos into Lightroom?  Were you interested in rating the photos, or did you go straight to Develop and play with them?

Did you bother to play with slideshows and prints to start with?  Did you try to export?

If you could roll back time and give yourself some tips, what would you tell yourself?  What do you wish you knew?

Thanks!


----------



## Roscoe17

Leslie said:


> The second thing i'm struggling with is where should I store the files that I export? I understand that export works like 'save as' and all of the develop settings are then saved with the file but so far i've only exported images to a memory stick as I didn't know where they should be saved on my hard drive. I guess this is linked to my point about folders and files.



I have the same issue...my wife doesn't use LR (wouldn't have a clue) so she just searches the pictures folders (each folder has a descriptive name) for what she wants.  Therefore I will put the final jpegs in that folder and hide the raw files in a subfolder (all via LR of course).  Painful waste of space but that's why I bought a NAS with 6TB of storage.  Maybe someday I can teach her to use LR to search for pictures...


----------



## Allan Olesen

Roscoe17 said:


> Maybe someday I can teach her to use LR to search for pictures...


And then you will both discover that Lightroom is not really multiuser. Or perhaps I should say "not really multi-computer".

Stick to your named directories. That is the best approach if several people want to access the same photos.


----------



## Roscoe17

We'd never need to access them at the same time...if I'm there she'd have me do it.


----------



## Gene_mtl

I bought Lightroom because Raw Shooter stopped being available and I wanted to start processing raw files. I had LR1  and upgraded to LR 2. Skipped LR 3 but grabbed LR4 with the new cheaper price.

I had my own file structure for photos and had no real problem importing as I simply continued the existing structure.  (Parent directeory = year, sub directories named YYMMDD-Event. File names as named by the camera, i,e IMG_5542.cr2.  I used (and still do for the most part today) LR to convert the raw file to a TIFF which was then exported for further processing in an image editor.

Had hoped to get better in processing images in LR with only rare instances of exporting to another software. But with the breaking of auto-tone in LR4, it is easier for me to do minimum processing in LR4 and finish the image in my editing software.

FWIW, LR does not have my finished image. The finished image resides on external disks, backed up on DVDs, and on-line.  If I need to look for a particular photo, it is a simply matter of my searching my online galleries.

I am still very much a novice when it comes to Lightroom.  But that is in the area of develop.  I don't print myself -- too expensive. If I need a print I get it done elsewhere much cheaper than I could do it myself. I had no problem learning the Map module.  What I am interested in becoming much more proficient with is the development module.  What progress I had made got thrown out the window with the changes in LR4.  But I still get the images I want outside of LR. So it's reverted back to a simple RAW converter with Mapping capabilities.


----------



## Allan Olesen

Roscoe17 said:


> We'd never need to access them at the same time...if I'm there she'd have me do it.


It is not only at the same time. As soon as you need to access them from two computers, even at different times, you are in trouble and will have to use hacks or move the catalog between the computers on a portable drive.

So if the two of you are sharing a computer and plan to do that in all future, you can rely on Lightroom. But if she gets her own computer, Lightroom will show its weakness.


----------



## Roscoe17

Library is on a NAS and catalog on dropbox...but I appreciate your words


----------



## Safariholic

I wish to high heaven, BEFORE I started, I had an incling as to HOW I was going to File, Order and Store my finished Products either INside LR or OUTside LR.

Then I may have grasped some basics about Catalogs, Libraries, Back-ups etc.

BEFORE means way prior to IMPORT, Develop etc etc or to put it another way. Once LR is loaded - STOP. THINK. PLAN. ORGANISE. STRUCTURE the Workflow. Work out how to recover any Slips ...... etc

As it is, I remain baffled to this day and that is 3 years since I started with Vers 1.x.

Its capabilities are extraordinary, BUT in that simple assessment lies one of its biggest drawbacks - it is immensely complicated, frustrating and very User Unfriendly.

Do not mean to sound nor seem critical - they are just my initial thoughts shot from the hip and meant to provide feedback and this person's responses to the original Question

Good Luck

Safariholic


----------



## Victoria Bampton

That's very helpful, thanks Nick!


----------



## Replytoken

I know that we put this one to bed, Victoria, but if you have the patience, and the stomach, you may want to read the comments on this DPReview article from Martin Evening: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2252058931/the-lightroom-catalog .  I especially appreciated the discussion about the term "Import" about half-way through the comments.

--Ken


----------



## Bryan Conner

thanks for the link to the article.  I enjoyed reading it.  When looking back at my own resistance to using Lightroom instead of Bridge, I can see that my biggest problem was not creating folders and being in control of my own filing system.  I thought that it was much simpler to create a folder called "Babies" to put all of my baby portraits in.  That way, when I wanted to show examples of my baby work to a potential client, no problem. Now, I realize that adding the keywords "Baby Portrait" upon import is a better method for me to use.  But, if someone does not see it that way, I do not argue with them.  They have to find it out for themselves, and if it is not the best for them, then they should use what works the best for them.  To each his own.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Thanks Ken, I'll have a read


----------



## Tony Jay

Safariholic said:


> I wish to high heaven, BEFORE I started, I had an incling as to HOW I was going to File, Order and Store my finished Products either INside LR or OUTside LR.
> 
> Then I may have grasped some basics about Catalogs, Libraries, Back-ups etc.
> 
> BEFORE means way prior to IMPORT, Develop etc etc or to put it another way. Once LR is loaded - STOP. THINK. PLAN. ORGANISE. STRUCTURE the Workflow. Work out how to recover any Slips ...... etc
> 
> As it is, I remain baffled to this day and that is 3 years since I started with Vers 1.x.
> 
> Its capabilities are extraordinary, BUT in that simple assessment lies one of its biggest drawbacks - it is immensely complicated, frustrating and very User Unfriendly.
> 
> Do not mean to sound nor seem critical - they are just my initial thoughts shot from the hip and meant to provide feedback and this person's responses to the original Question
> 
> Good Luck
> 
> Safariholic



Fundamentally the problem is a lack of an official Adobe manual.
But of course how often are manuals read anyway.

I agree that there is MUCH more to Lightroom than initially meets the eye.
As for digital asset management and workflow even with all the resources available individuals who, arguably, should know better still generate extraordinarily unnecessarily complicated approaches.
It is true that real beginners probably do need help in this area - perhaps this may explain Victoria's current motivation?

I have also had to play catch up with digital asset management and it is possible to do this retrospectively.
If you are motivated start posting some questions and issues that need addressing and lets see what can be done to help you - yes?

Tony Jay


----------



## Bryan Conner

Tony Jay said:


> Fundamentally the problem is a lack of an official Adobe manual.
> But of course how often are manuals read anyway.
> 
> 
> Tony Jay



While there is not an official Adobe "Manual", there is the Help tab in Lightroom that has tons of information, and there is the _Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 Classroom in a Book_. 

I think that a lot of people have the same problem that I had when learning to use Lightroom: we try to learn by doing instead of reading the instructions first.  I wish that I understood the importance of educating myself when I tried Lightroom for the first time.  It would have saved me from a few years of using a less efficient Bridge/Camera Raw workflow as well as many hours of floundering around in Lightroom.  I am by no means flounder free yet, I am still stubborn at times and try to figure it out the hard way, but I do try to "read the instructions" more.


----------



## Tony Jay

That is an interesting perspective Bryan.
Thanks for the input.

I think that what really is missing most are easily implemented fundamental and practical workflow instructions that are fundamentally sound but can be built on as one's insight grows.

Perhaps this is easier said than done but Lightroom's biggest strength, is also its achilles heel, and that is the unbelievably large number of ways to skin the cat.
Many of the possible options, especially related to digital asset management, are not just poor choices but actually counterproductive and even downright dangerous but are there to accomodate workflow approaches that can best be described as outliers on the Bell curve.
Most of us are found toward the median value of the Bell curve, and also require workflow solutions that reflect that reality.

In my mind a solid connection between metadata and keywording on one hand, and smart collections and filtering options on the other, needs to be made early otherwise a foldercentric bias to digital asset management will persist and become thoroughly counterproductive since it definitely does not survive the inevitable upscaling that is required by photographers armed with digital cameras.

Tony Jay


----------



## donrisi

Tony Jay said:


> Victoria the Library module was the biggest one to get my head around together with the import dialog.
> The biggest changes to my workflow, as time has gone by, and subsequently the biggest headaches to fix retrospectively, are in these areas.
> I sure wish that I had known how to manipulate the import dialog to my advantage in the beginning.
> Overall I feel that the digital asset management capabilities of Lightroom are the most underappreciated aspects initially and also of the most difficult to fix retrospectively once the importance of digital asset management is grasped and the abilities of Lightroom in this area are recognized.
> The great power and strength of Lightroom, as an application, is also its Achilles heel, since the numerous alternatives at each step of the workflow magnifies into a workflow of almost infinite variation. To the beginner, a few (2-3) alternative workflows guiding one through importing images, keywording, and metadata capture with special emphasis on how to use presets to automate the process where relevent would be hugely helpful.
> Because the whole issue of digital asset management is usually so under-appreciated by most beginners strongly emphasizing the cogent benefits of the early part of any workflow (early on the Develop module was my darling - the rest was just fill) would hopefully mitigate the pain associated with retrospectively trying to rename image files, update metadata, and keyword gazillions of image files years later.
> 
> I appreciate that my thoughts, as expressed above, may be difficult to translate into a workable beginners package (whole books are written on this subject matter), but the potential benefits would be massive should it be accomplished.
> 
> My $0.02 worth
> 
> Tony Jay



I can't agree more.  I moved to Lightroom specifically for it's DAM capabilities.  I am not nearly as prolific a shooter as some people I know, but I've always seen the need to keep track of my photos.  Back in pre-computer days, it was all on paper (what a mess that was!).  After going digital, I tried several things, from my own concoctions to a couple of commercial software packages.  The last one I tired, which was pretty decent, would not translate to Windows 7.  In trying to make the transition, I lost about 5 years worth of data.  One of Lightroom's great features is it's ability to transfer my data from version to version, platform to platform.  

But what do I wish I knew when I first started?  

I wish I had known more about general importing practices.
I wish I'd known more about collections.  Fortunately, I already had a number of "categories" set up from previous attempts to catalog everything, but the idea of being able to nest collections within collections, to be able to smart collections, and all of that has been a revelation.
I wish I had known more about stacking. I have since learned that I can create an import preset so that when I shoot HDRs or anything where I've shot a number of frames in quick succession, they all stack themselves automatically, saving me the hassle of having to do that manually.  
I wish I had known more about exporting and nondestructive processing.  I was so used to having to click on "Save As" after working on a RAW file, then saving to that it took me more than a month to get used the the need to not have to do that.  And to go with it -- 
I wish I had known more about virtual copies.  Process a photo, create a virtual copy, reprocess it a different way.  Repeat.  Nice feature.  
I could go on, but that's the gist of it.  
Thanks for such a fabulous application.

Don Risi


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Thanks Don, that's useful!


----------



## OogieM

I'ma  newbie. I got LR specifically for the DAM capabilities and I'm still struggling with defining the workflow and how to use it effectively for my needs.

What I wish was that there were clear examples of typical workflows for various people, a case study approach.

For example. I am a scrapbooker, I typically take between 2500-4000 digital pictures a year. I currently store them in folders by year and within that a folder for each day. I rarely do much editing of my photos beyond cropping. If I do need to edit I have both Photoshop and Elements to do that and use them as needed. I have done absolutely no DAM except I have a good backup and archive system. I get that LR can leave my folder organization alone and by using Add I can get pictures in without affecting my current backup and archive strategy. What I need is info on how to determine collections, how to edit and tag photos so I can find the ones I want for the projects I wish to do, how to upload to Shutterfly to print them or add to digital scrapbooks and how to use Photosmith on my iPad to tag and document photos. My camera shoots jpg files, it's a small Canon point and shoot. I don't know or really care at this point about RAW or other image formats. 

Another of my projects is using LR to document a large historical photo collection. For that I need to know about metadata, tags, collections, how to add custom metadata if possible and other things that make LR a catalog. In that project I already have several version of each of the images. The original archival scans as TIFF files, the lower resolution JPG reference files, the even lower resolution web files and the tiny thumbnails. For some files I have print versions that are at specific resolution for specific printing devices. The different versions were created outside of LR using Photoshop with a clear editing workflow. I have no clue how to tell LR that all those different versions are part of the same image. How do I link them in LR? I believe it is possible but I don't know how to do it. Again finding a way to do the tagging and metadata editing away from my main computer is critical. Ideally I could set up an iPad with a group of photos give that to a historical society volunteer to edit and add the metadata and then when it comes back integrate that with the main catalog. That is another reason I'm looking at Photosmith. 

A friend is a semi-pro and uses LR to both store and catalog his photos. He wanted more details on storing Raw, he edits his photos a lot. He has multiple cameras and tracks pictures by a lot more tags than I anticipate using. His needs are different.

So for me a series of if you are an X then here is a good way to use LR to help you do Y would be most helpful.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Great info, thanks Oogie.


----------



## donrisi

Oogie,

Let me take a stab at helping you get at least some of your DAM setup in Lightroom going.  As I go through this, please keep in mind that regardless of the system you finally adopt, catching up will take some time.  Toward that end, I would suggest you just do a little at a time.  Just as importantly, once you settle on a system, make sure that you follow through on any and all new photos as you go.  When you add new work to Lightroom, follow all of your procedures on all of the new photos.

Okay, here we go.

I also use a system of daily folders nested inside yearly folders.  For example, Monday's shoot went into a folder named 120107, which is inside my newly created 2013 folder.  The day folder's name is YYMMDD format.  Notice that I leave the "20" off the year.  That's because I don't have any photos from 1913, and by the time 2113 comes around, I'll be long gone, and won't be shooting any more.  So I save the keystrokes there, only to use them on the month and day -- the month and day must always be two digit numbers or the computer may not sort them correctly.  I usually follow the date with a short description of what I shot that day.  For example, I shot some portraits that day, so the full folder name would be, "120107 -- Smith Portraits"  It's just a way of making sure that somehow, some way, I can always be sure to be able to find my photos.  And if Smith ever wants to shoot more portraits, I can find those, separately from these.

As far as collections are concerned, it might be helpful to think of collections by the term most of Lightrooms competitors use -- categories.  So you have to ask yourself what categories your photos fit into.  I literally sat down with a virtual "pencil and paper" (my work processor), and wrote them out in outline form. 

As you do this, remember that Lightroom as different types of collections.  There are regular collections, collections sets, and smart collections.  I tend not to use smart collections too much, but there may be ways for them to be of help to you.  But let's stick to regular collections and collection sets for now. 

As I started my list, I realized that I shoot general types of photos, and specific types of photos, and that, generally speaking, many of the specific types fit within some general type.  This is where collection sets come into play.  For example, I shoot wildlife.  All kinds of wildlife.  So I have a collection set named "Animals."  What kinds of animals do I shoot?  Great Egrets, Robins, Grizzly Bears, Squirrels, and a host of others.  Well, they are all animals, but the Great Egrets and the Robins are also Birds.  So within the collection set called "Animals," there is another collection set called "Birds," and within that is a regular collection called "Great Egrets" and another called "Robins" (along with several other collections for other types of birds).  And every time I shoot a kind of bird I've never shot before, I create a new collection within the "Birds" collection set. 

Then I have another collection set within the "Animals" collection set called "Mammals," and within that there's a collection called "Squirrels."  The grizzly bears go in a collection called "Grizzly Bears," but that's in another collection set called "Bears" (because I also shoot black Bears and Brown Bears, and maybe someday, Polar Bears), which is within the "Mammals" collection set, inside the "Animals" collection set. 

In my Library, my Collections ends up looking like this:

            Animals
     Birds
         Bald Eagles
         Great Egrets
         Hawks, Red Tail
         Robins
         Snowy Egrets
     Mammals
         Bears
              Black
              Brown
              Grizzly
        Squirrels
            Next Major Category Collection Set
        Next Sub-Category
        Next Sub-Category Collection Set
              Next Sub-Sub-Category
              Next Sub-Sub-Category

And so on.

Yes, it can get pretty complicated.  But it's worth it. 

One of the neat things is that although you can't put a photo in a collection set, any photo can be in as many regular collections as you want at the same time.  For example, if I want to create a collection for photos I want to print, and I have a photos of a grizzly bear that I want to send to the printers, I can have it in both the "Grizzly" collection and the "To Be Printed" collection.  And if I shot that grizzly in Yellowstone National Park, it can be in the Yellowstone National Park collection as well. 

Keep in mind that Keywords work in a similar fashion.  You can nest keywords inside other keywords.  Unlike collections, though, you can have a photo assigned to both the sub-category keyword and the major category keyword at the same time. 

Which system you decide to use will depend on how you work and how you see your overall collection of photos.  Personally, I use both systems side by side, as I feel like both have their place in my work.  You can search keywords, but you can't search collections. 

Here's the catch:  I shot the USAF Thunderbirds at an airshow.  I can keyword those photos using keywords like "Aircraft," "Military," "Thunderbirds," "USAF," "F-16", etc.  But if I search on "Aircraft," and I didn't add that keyword to a photo of the Thunderbirds, it won't show up.  Your system is only as good as your willingness to keep it up.  What are all the possible key words that could apply to a photo?  As many as you think of today, next week you'll think of more, and then you have to think about all of your past photos, and do any of them fit that keyword?  And all that applies to collections, too. 

All of this applies to your historical collection, as well.  It's just more collections and/or more keywords.  You can set your Library thumbnails up so that they display the file format, which means you'll know if it's the original archival scan TIF or the lower res JPG just by looking at the thumbnail.  You can also display any number of other things on the thumbnail as well.  Just put your cursor on the border at the top of any thumbnail, and right click (if you're on a PC; if you're on a Mac, it's whatever the Mac equivalent of right clicking is). Be careful exactly where you place the cursor, though.  There are 4 distinct places  at the top of each thumbnail where you can put info, and each one is set separately.  So if you want a specific thing in a certain position, make sure your cursor is in that position when you right click.

You can also have LR display that same info in Loupe view. That setting is accessed through the View menu at the top of the screen. 

To link the different versions, you could just stack them.  Decide which thumbnail you want on top, and click on it.  Then, holding down the Ctrl key (Option on Mac), click on the other versions one at a time.  When you've clicked all the versions, hit Ctrl (Option) G, and they will be grouped into a stack.  A number will appear on the stack's top photo telling you how many photos are in that stack.  On each side of the thumbnail, there will be two short vertical lines.  click on one of those, and the stack will open up so you can see the other photos in that stack.  You can then do anything you want with any of them (print, edit in Photoshop, whatever).  When you're done, click on one of the vertical lines again, and the stack will collapse.  The help file will tell you how to add or subtract photos from an existing stack. 

I think, though, that one of the things that beginners have trouble getting used to in Lightroom was something that took me some time to get used to myself -- the fact that we no longer need many copies/versions of the same photo.  You say you have original archival scans as TIFF files, the lower resolution JPG reference files, the even lower resolution web files and tiny thumbnails.  You don't need all those versions with LR.  All you need is the original TIFF files.  Lightroom will create its own thumbnails.  When you need low res web files, use the export feature.  Once you set that up (and there are excellent tutorials out there on how to publish to the web directly from LR), that's all you do.  The low res versions will go to the web, and never actually exist on your computer.  So you don't have to keep track of all those versions any more. 

Like your friend, I shoot RAW, and I do 90% of my processing in LR.  So I take a RAW photo to the Develop module, and work on it.  If I decide I want to try something different later on, I just make a virtual copy, make the new changes, then stack it with the original.  Since LR doesn't actually change the original photo, it's still there, but I no longer have all sorts of versions and variations floating around. 

Hope this helps.  Have fun. 

Don


----------



## OogieM

Thank you Don, that really does help. 

I have a few more questions for you about how to use the LR editing features to save on creating the lower resolution forms but I think that more properly goes in the Develop your photo's section so I'm going over there to post a questions. I hope you will follow along and offer your insights.


----------



## donrisi

You're welcome, Oogie.


----------



## Retsurfer

When I picked up this (expensive) hobby in January of 2011 I did a lot of digging for both equipment & storage/processing. I came across George Jardine’s LR Video’s.  

Now, 15,000 shots and 2 cameras later I feel lucky and blessed that I followed his folder and backup suggestions, among many others. 

The only thing now I wish I would have done from the beginning is geo-tagging; although there wasn’t a map module in LR 3.6 I am now “muddling” through tagging all my photos.

Mark


----------



## MarkNicholas

This all makes very interesting reading. In my view, controversially perhaps, I see one of the main issues is todays "instantaneous" ideology. We expect everything immediately. We google and get an immediate answer, we text and get an immediate response. We get a new piece of software and we expect to be immediately able to use it proficiently. However, there is no substitute for experience, particularly with LR. 

I now consider myself to be highly proficient with Lightroom. But that was not always the case ! Take a look at some of my initial posts. I used to import my RAW photos, undertake various edits and then export them. I then "Removed" the RAW photos from Lightroom !! I didn't want them remaining there as I did not know what LR was going to do to them or whether I would ever see them again !!! It was only after several weeks and months that I was brave enough to leave them there and start to understand why they were supposed to be left there !! 

Regarding having a robust filing system (outside of LR) I had already gone through that pain when using Photoshop. I still use the simple filing system that I developed at that time and it works very well for me. Basically every shoot gets a dated head folder for example "2013_01_29_Paris" and within that folder I will create another folder named "CR2 Files" in which I put my RAW files. I will create other folders within the head folder on an ad-hoc basis such as Jpeg_800px_LR4.2 in which I would store exported Jpegs. So I know where everything is both within and outside LR.


----------



## Dee

Being a newbie, I think you have nailed the basic questions that someone new to LR4/ databases faces.  I am very much struggling with all of the above right now.  The first three items in particular.  What to put on my hard drive vs a portable drive - and how to do this while not losing too much speed.  I have yet to find something that describes this intuitively.


----------



## ClickCardo

Victoria

Just reading this thread now for the first time and having bought your e-book I see you have answered almost all of their and my FAQ.  Wonderfully I might add.

One thing I do not see covered much is emphazing keywords over collections or vice-versa or using both equally as your primary metadata vehicle.  Having come from IDImager and worrying about Adobe's Cloud licensing I lean to trying to do as much with keywords as possible because I can now get this info out of LR if needed and back into something else like IDImager if ever necessary.  I do admit I also use collections to some advantage, but still try to add some kind of corresponding keywords for my possible transitional needs.  It's more work now, but I feel will be rewarded many, many, times over if I should have to transition my catalog a 3rd time.  Perhaps you or I should even move this question to another thread.

This was the only things I missed seeing in your FAQ.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

I'm working on the getting started information for beginners, and perhaps you can help me...  it's a little while since I was a beginner!

Stretch your mind way back... when you first got your hands on Lightroom, what did you want to know? 

For example, did you need to know how to import existing photos or just new ones?  Were you worried about renaming at that stage?  What about adding metadata?

And then what did you want to do when you first got your photos into Lightroom?  Were you interested in rating the photos, or did you go straight to Develop and play with them?

Did you bother to play with slideshows and prints to start with?  Did you try to export?

If you could roll back time and give yourself some tips, what would you tell yourself?  What do you wish you knew?

Thanks!


----------



## Victoria Bampton

That's an excellent point NewCardo!  Of course, if you knew you were going to transition to a new program, you could go through and assign a keyword for each collection at that time, but that would be a bit of a job.


----------



## Gisele

I'm about to make the move from PSE (I have all versions 9-11) to LR5 on my Mac. I'm scared! My biggest concerns are creating a maintainable workflow and understanding tagging. I don't want to get too deep into it and realize my basic setup/workflow/organization is not ideal and have to re-do 30,000 files

I thought I was pretty organized in PSE. I have categories, sub-categories and keyword tags. Every photo has at least one of those things.

Now I'm concerned (see http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showthread.php?19489-PSE10-to-LR5-Catalog-Questions )  about whether my categories should really be keywords in PSE before I begin using LR. 

Also, I'd love to know the basic settings changes I should make right from the start (like use PSE Editor to edit, show Parent folder, etc.). 

Any help is appreciated.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Just a quick thank you to everyone who contributes to this thread. The result was this free Quick Start guide... http://www.lightroomqueen.com/free-downloads/quickstart/lr5/ 

I hope I've got most of the things you wanted to know when you got started, so it'll help other newer users. Please do share it around with any newbies you know!


----------



## Rormeister

I'm a lucky guy, I just joined today and because of 'Queen' Victoria's generosity and talent, I have already benefited from my membership.  Where was LR5 when I started shooting in the early 70's? The biggest challenge for me in adopting LR we getting a handle on how to properly construct my Keyword architecture.  After several days I finally settled on 8 major categories and a maximum of 4 sub categories.  My only wish was that LR had an Eyedropper for grabbing keywords from one image and then allowing you to paint the results on other images.  Thank you Victoria for your support of the LR community!


----------



## sty2586

Rormeister said:


> My only wish was that LR had an Eyedropper for grabbing keywords from one image and then allowing you to paint the results on other images.  Thank you Victoria for your support of the LR community!



Maybe "metadata sync" can solve your problem!?
Franz


----------



## Rormeister

thanks Franz, I'll give that a go, but hey, the paint tool is pretty fun.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

That's great news Rormeister.  Welcome aboard!


----------



## Rob_Cullen

Follow up on a question from Franz (some time back)


> grabbing keywords from one image and then allowing you to paint the results on other images.



This may work- 
In Library view- Select the image with the wanted keywords, In the 'Keywording' Panel- drag mouse across keywords to highlight them, Press CTRL+C,
In Library view- Have visible all the images that you will add the keywords to.
Click on the 'Spray Paint Can' icon, Select 'Keywords' from the drop-down box
Click the mouse cursor on the panel- 'Enter keywords to paint onto photos here', Press CTRL+V
Paint all the images with copied keywords.!

Instructions look complicated, but it is simply a "Copy and Paste" process common to most software and does not involve any typing apart from the Copy/Paste keyboard shortcuts.


----------



## john74

What impresses me most about Lightroom is the concept of having a workflow tool that can handle just about everything in a complete package.


----------



## I Simonius

the thing that baffled me then and still does is auto import

I will post elsewhere for responses/answers


----------



## wireless200

john74 said:


> What impresses me most about Lightroom is the concept of having a workflow tool that can handle just about everything in a complete package.



Personally I would rather use Photoshop alone but because of the nice LR workflow and cataloging I use it in conjunction.  If PS had basically the Library module I probably wouldn't use LR at all.  Not a big deal but PS does everything LR does and more so why work outside PS with a separate package.  Not to mention I like the way plugins such as NIK work in PS by creating layers rather than more photos in the LR library.  

-David


----------



## jgreenwa

Victoria,
I see that you already have a lot of extensive and well written replies from more knowledgable people than myself. For me the biggest confusion in the beginning (and still I must admit I am not totally clear on this) is about what data is stored where. For example, exactly what information is kept with the DNG file and which information in the catalog... and most importantly, what information is not in the intersection of these two sets of information. I think most people might not care about this but it would have helped me to know from the beginning more about the data structure.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Well the good news is that's covered in detail in my book, although not in the quick start guide.


----------



## ClickCardo

Victoria Bampton said:


> Well the good news is that's covered in detail in my book, although not in the quick start guide.


  Victoria, I just re-read the the Proprietary JPG vs RAW section and still am not sure.  Doesn't everything only stay in the catalog while your working on your pics until you Save The Metadata back to the actual DNG file and vice-versa just like with a RAW file?  Could you please clear this up.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Hi NewCardo.  Have a read of the XMP section in the Catalogs chapter too - it applies to all file types.  The short answer is yes, you're correct.


----------



## jgreenwa

NewCardo said:


> Doesn't everything only stay in the catalog while your working on your pics until you Save The Metadata back to the actual DNG file



I hear over and over that you don't "save" your work in LR.  Now I am intrigued. 



Victoria Bampton said:


> Have a read of the XMP section in the Catalogs chapter too - it applies to all file types.



I need to get a hold of your book! Which one is it? (I see that you have more than one on your website).


----------



## Victoria Bampton

You do!  Here you go: http://www.lightroomqueen.com/books/adobe-lightroom-5-missing-faq/  (and there's a discount code in my signature  )

Regarding Save, there are a couple of things involve.  New users are using the word 'save' to apply their changes to the image - we'd use Export.  But it's also possible to save some of the metadata back to the files in a format called XMP, in addition to it being stored in the catalog.  That's what NewCardo was referring to.


----------



## Mike-Photos

Hi Victoria
You are really amazing and dedicated!
I'd like to make a suggestion about how Adobe could improve the difficulties with importing images, and I'd like to know what you think.

I've helped quite a few people get up and running with Lightroom. Almost all of them are moving from other processing software, many of them from Photoshop. They have different levels of skill.

Most of these new people want to firstly just get on with it and process photos. Many are not yet convinced they will remain with Lightroom, others see it as another processing tool to use alongside LR, at least initially.

The point is that they *are just not interested in using the catalog.* That may change over time, of course.

And so, they have to learn how to import, probably without renaming, certainly without copying, and initially at least, with no metadata. They have to set the XMP to write externally. Then, once they have exported, they have to delete photos from the catalog. Etc., etc., there is a lot to learn, and for many, it's an unnecessary pain. I know two people who had no intention whatsoever of ever using the catalog and just gave up on LR because of these additional steps.

So, my suggestion is that Adobe has a non-catalog mode. In this mode, you can browse folders, open photos, and "export" them. Once you close LR, the photos are not in LR anymore. If you want to continue working on the photos, you browse again. The browser could detect XMP files and show the user which photos are already modified.

I think a system like this will help new users to learn and evaluate LR far quicker. The Develop module is the key module, and you want to get into it straight away and just start processing. Once you are happy with the Develop module, you then want to start looking at what else the system has to offer.

In summary, just from reading this thread it's obvious the catalog presents many difficulties to new users. The Develop module is a joy to use compared to any other software. Why can't new users just get into Develop quickly? And, for those users who don't want a DAM environment, why can't they just bypass it?

Mike


----------



## Victoria Bampton

I've heard a number of people ask the same, but a lot of LR's features depend on its database.  Adobe do offer Bridge as a browser with ACR as the Develop module, for those who are really averse to cataloguing.


----------



## Tony Jay

Mike-Photos said:


> *So, my suggestion is that Adobe has a non-catalog mode.* In this mode, you can browse folders, open photos, and "export" them. Once you close LR, the photos are not in LR anymore. If you want to continue working on the photos, you browse again. The browser could detect XMP files and show the user which photos are already modified.


Your suggestion is not novel Mike.
Every now-and-then on different forums the same suggestion is made.
However, Adobe already has exactly what you describe - Adobe Camera Raw/Bridge.

If you really want a workflow like what you describe use ACR/Bridge.
Some people really don't understand the paradigm in which Lightroom operates.
The Library module and the catalog are absolutely central and fundamental to how Lightroom functions - remove this and there is no Lightroom - it is as simple as that.

Tony Jay


----------



## Denis de Gannes

I agree with you Tony, I for one use Lightroom mainly because I can get rid of using and managing .xmp files. I have and use PS CS6 and use it for doing things I cannot do easily in LR. The previous version of Photoshop I had was PS CS when I first started shooting RAW with my cameras. The last version of ACR I used was V 2.4. When I was unable to update ACR in PS CS for V. 2.4, I utilized other raw processing software. When Lightroom was introduced I adopted it from the third beta release, and have moved through from Version 1 to 5.


----------



## Mike-Photos

Tony, Denis
I don't agree with you:
1) Why must I pay the premium price of Photoshop when I want a lower level of functionality in Lightroom? I essentially have to pay much more money to get lesser functionality?
2) The LR Develop module is far easier to use than ACR. Again, I have to spend more money to get less.


----------



## Denis de Gannes

I agree, I have used Lightroom from its inception and upgraded to each version. I have only upgraded Photoshop once from PS CS to PS CS6 (ignored CS2 to CS 5.)

While you need to import your photos(register) into the catalog to be able to work with them there is no need to use any other functions in the Library Module. The Catalog does not contain copies of your images, they can remain in the folders of your file system. If you take a look at the video on the Lightroom Catalog a the link below you will get a full appreciation of how it works. Its from an earlier version of Lightroom but the concept is the same in the latest version of Lightroom.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/george-jardine-on-lightroom/the-lightroom-catalog/

Now Adobe is providing *Lightroom free to PS CC users/subscribers* maybe they are preparing to abandon the need to provide updates to ACR since the functions are available in Lightroom.



Mike-Photos said:


> Tony, Denis
> I don't agree with you:
> 1) Why must I pay the premium price of Photoshop when I want a lower level of functionality in Lightroom? I essentially have to pay much more money to get lesser functionality?
> 2) The LR Develop module is far easier to use than ACR. Again, I have to spend more money to get less.


----------



## Tony Jay

Mike, you have my sympathy with regard to the financial argument, however the bottom line is that Adobe is not going to make ACR/Bridge available as a standalone.

I would encourage you instead to embrace the paradigm in which Lightroom operates - a massive proportion of both professional and amateur photographers have, in fact, done this. Nearly all of those have never looked back.

Tony Jay


----------



## Mike-Photos

Tony Jay said:


> Mike, you have my sympathy with regard to the financial argument, however the bottom line is that Adobe is not going to make ACR/Bridge available as a standalone.
> 
> I would encourage you instead to embrace the paradigm in which Lightroom operates - a massive proportion of both professional and amateur photographers have, in fact, done this. Nearly all of those have never looked back.
> 
> Tony Jay



Hi Tony
I'm very happy with LR, as are most of the people I have introduced to it. I was simply replying to Victoria's thread, which is heavily weighted in terms of library / catalog issues for new users, put together with my experience trying to get new users up and running quickly in LR.
Mike


----------



## Victoria Bampton

I'm working on the getting started information for beginners, and perhaps you can help me...  it's a little while since I was a beginner!

Stretch your mind way back... when you first got your hands on Lightroom, what did you want to know? 

For example, did you need to know how to import existing photos or just new ones?  Were you worried about renaming at that stage?  What about adding metadata?

And then what did you want to do when you first got your photos into Lightroom?  Were you interested in rating the photos, or did you go straight to Develop and play with them?

Did you bother to play with slideshows and prints to start with?  Did you try to export?

If you could roll back time and give yourself some tips, what would you tell yourself?  What do you wish you knew?

Thanks!


----------



## wireless200

I would prefer to have a develop/catalog module or tab in PS.  PS does everything LR does to the image but does not have the convenience of the nicely managed catalog.  If PS had that, I might not have to use LR at all.  Thoughts?  I'm fairly well experienced with LR but not as much with PS.  One of many things I love about PS are the healing and tone and patching tools.  They are much more powerful in PS than LR for my uses.  

regards, David

p.s. I do appreciate Victoria's twitter feed.  If she posts something it's worth taking a look at.


----------



## Tony Jay

Mike-Photos said:


> Hi Tony
> I'm very happy with LR, as are most of the people I have introduced to it. I was simply replying to Victoria's thread, which is heavily weighted in terms of library / catalog issues for new users, put together with my experience trying to get new users up and running quickly in LR.
> Mike


Fair enough - hopefully the points that we have discussed will help those new users understand a bit of the background as to why Lightroom is designed in the way that it is.

Tony Jay


----------



## René Roberts

I came to Lightroom as an advanced PS user, so the Develop Module was easy for me. And I had a pretty good folder/file structure (on a Mac) that worked for me.

But as I've improved the file structure and consolidated things, I couldn't get LR to move things around or create new folders in the way that I wanted. I know I'm supposed to move and create folders and change file locations within LR, but I've never gotten a handle on this. It still confounds me, after 3 years of using the program. I still wish there was a comprehensive explanation of the various file and folder moving scenarios. (I still end-run it by doing it in the finder and pointing LR to the missing pictures, but this has created some unwanted duplicates.)   

I wish I'd known more about the right-click options to find lost files or folders. On a Mac with an ordinary mouse, there is no "right click". It's Control-Click, which I rarely use. I wish I'd known more about finding files that had the dreaded ?'s.

I wish I'd known more about which functions you could do in the Filmstrip and which functions you had to do in Grid mode. A list for each would have helped, instead of an instruction buried in text that I couldn't find later. An example is deleting multiple images at once from catalogue or hard drive.

I wish I'd known more about synchronizing settings and metadata. I still don't know how to synchronize keywords! 

I wish I'd known to make sure to create a Parent Folder in the finder which would hold all the images. (I actually did have this, but apparently it wasn't enough of a Parent for Lightroom on one occasion.)

I REALLY wish I'd had an understanding of working with multiple computers, merging catalogues at the end of a shoot, or importing one into the other. What gets overridden if one does that?

I continue to wish there had been a more comprehensive explanation of Keywords and Keyword sets and how to organize them, and the differences between them. I have both of Krogh's and LRQ's FAQ books and it's still sketchy. What gets written is "it has to work for you" but understanding exactly what would really work, how complex or exactly what words to chose and how to set up the hierarchy, has been a bear. Unfortunately, the stock photography categories don't help. There's been more written on how to recover shadows in a picture than has been written on the Keyword panel! I have pretty much avoided Keywords as a result of not understanding how to set up the organization in the beginning.

All that said, I probably still wouldn't be able to work in LR at all without Victoria's FAQ book!


----------



## Spook44

I am new to LR but not to post-processing.  I used apple aperture for several years and I see several parallels. If I knew that LR in the develop module used ARC would have been helpful. The lens and camera panel are awesome.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Interesting!  Had you previously used ACR then?


----------



## Spook44

I used acr in elements and have read a on it.


----------



## LisaMcG

Just found this thread and wanted to add my 2 cents as a newbie LR user: more information on keywords, metadata and collections please!!! Especially for those of us transferring over to LR.  I came to LR hoping for a way to manage my digital assets including 80,000+ photos, 10,000 heritage scanned photos and then a sizable digital scrapbooking stash. I use CS5 and PSE12 to edit my photos but LR to manage and organize them. I have Victoria's FAQ book and her free eBook plus many hours logged into Adobe for help!  I understood the database concept  and have a EHD for my photos which are organized via year and then by month and shoot day.  I had hoped that LR would allow me to group them within LR via collections/keywords so I didn't have to remember that in April of 2012 there was an event!

My problems come in with trying to figure out how to use keywords and collections to the best advantage. When I used PSE's Organizer it had ratings, keywords and it could be arranged in a hierarchy etc... and I had workflow where I imported, tagged, saved information to the metadata and then went about editing. When I started with LR I imported the photos and tried to set up a similar workflow but ran into issues. My keyword tags were imported into LR BUT LR has put all the keyword tags into alphabetical order and skipped any hierarchy that I had. 

For example in PSE the tags were like such to delineate each trip (Italy vs Germany) and day (01 vs 02) and who took the photo (mike vs lisa) Each photo under each heading is tagged with the tags above it. So Photo 3 under Italy would be tagged with 01_Lisa, Italy, and Vacation. Additionally each photo is numbered with the date taken and a number so 2010Jun5_001, 2010Jun5_002....

Vacation
Italy 
 01_Mike
    Photo 1, Photo 2, Photo 3.....
 01_Lisa
    Photo 1, Photo 2, Photo 3....
 02_Mike
 02_Lisa
Germany
 01_Mike
  Photo 1, Photo 2....
 01_Lisa
  Photo 1, Photo 2...
 02_Mike
 02_Lisa 

In LR it now reads like this:
01_Lisa
01_Mike
02_Lisa
02_Mike
Germany
Italy
Vacation

Since each photo under each of those is tagged with Vacation, Italy or Germany and 01_Mike, 02_Mike etc... how come it did not transfer the file tree over into the keywords? I can't find the answer to questions like this anywhere!

I am fearful of playing with the keyword list because I get a dialog box that says if I change something it will apply that change to ALL items with that keyword and I am not sure if the keyword 01_Lisa means that it will change it on ALL those photos for every trip and then I will have every photo I ever took on Day 01_Lisa in one mashup regardless of which trip it was. Will it erase the other keyword tags?? What about the metadata? The dialog box mentions changing the metadata and that concerns me as to what and how it is changed. 

So for me the essential questions which need to be answered involve details on transferring keywords and using them appropriately with the collections panel without losing my previous work. I can see that LR has a lot of power but at the moment it is not working for me. 

Or possibly this is just my issue and everyone else has had a seamless transition?!


----------

