Enough with "Classic is for serious photographers, Lightroom is for newbies" - Lightroom is better than you think, and the two aren't going to be separate products forever.
Thanks, Scot for your in depth comparison. As a user of both Lr and LrC I have been sitting on the fence for a while. It’s the lack of plugin support and virtual copies in Lr that is the final thing holding me back. While I get that Versions provides the same things as virtual copies in Lr, I prefer having them as separate images in my catalogue, rather than having to remember they are there. I am ready to take the plunge across to Lr, as find LrC quite unwieldy at times but these are the final points holding me back. As you say, I expect Adobe to address much of these soon 🤞🏻
Thanks for reading. I think you make a great point about how Versions doesn't really fill the gap left from the absence of Virtual Copies, and that they need to sew that up. Hopefully soon!
Hey Scot. Thanks for being brave and stirring up the hornet's nest on this one!
I'm with you on most of your assertions. LrC is too slow, too clunky, too old-fashioned these days. I'm completely addicted to how Lr manages everything in the cloud - instant access to everything from my Mac, PC, iPad and iPhone. That's very hard to accomplish cleanly when LrC is in the mix. Syncing always seems to break.
That said, there are a few things that I wish they'd bring over from LrC that would make me very happy:
1. Better control over import. It's an inconsistent experience between Lr desktop and Lr mobile. On mobile, you can at least filter between RAW and JPG/HIF and choose what to import easily enough. On desktop, there's no filter. There's no way to zoom into a thumbnail to pick which of the 14 identical-but-somehow-subtly-different photos *should* be imported.
2. Being able to handle RAW/JPG pairs as one (at least from a metadata perspective). LrC does it. Capture One does it. Photo Mechanic does it. Apple Photos does it. C'mon Lr!
3. Virtual copies. I *love* the ability to have a virtual copy of my photos. Often I'll tinker with multiple processing choices for a photo and it's useful to see them all side by side. Sure, Versions can emulate that (a little), it still won't allow for side-by-side viewing. On the back-end, it's just another XMP sidecar linking back to a common RAW file. Sure, we can duplicate photos, but in the era of 100MB RAW files, that starts adding up. XMP files are (thankfully) still measured in kilobytes.
3a. If you can't give me virtual copies, please give me the ability to auto-stack based on my criteria of choice (like date captured or base filename).
4. Metadata handling. Why (WHY???) is the Caption field only one line and not resizeable? In the same vein, why are Alt Text and Extended Description 2 and 4 lines big and unable to handle multiline text? I understand the need to make accessibility fields more visible (and more likely to be used), but why did they put them in at the expense of the Caption field (which actually gets used). That's just bad UI.
5. Maps. Sure, you can copy & paste a GPS coordinate from your favourite maps app onto one or many photos, but there's a certain elegance with being able to shift-click or cmd-click a bunch of photos and drag them onto a specific spot on a map. This is also REALLY useful for spotting inaccurately tagged photos and quickly placing them where they ought to be, without jumping around to multiple apps & websites.
6. More export options, specifically around variable-based file naming. It would be nice to append keywords automatically at export time as well.
Overall, you're right: Lr has come a long way. As a longtime LrC user who went on hiatus a while ago and came back to the Lr ecosystem, I've come to appreciate Lr and cannot use LrC anymore. It just feels too old and limited esp. wrt cloud integration.
Thanks Eric - Felt good to finally get this all down on paper and out there into the world. Turned out it was impossible to say it all concisely, unfortunately. A few responses to your feedback:
1) I just import everything and use my culling workflow to remove what I don't want (and I format every time) so I haven't encountered those, but good points.
2) Interesting. Isn't the idea that if you are importing both, that you hide RAW unless you need to access a RAW for more control? (I shoot RAW only so had not noticed this).
3) I have a section here on Versions vs Virtual Copies + Snapshots. I do appreciate why Adobe simplified those two confusing and overlapping features. Are you not liking the Versions that replace Virtual Copies?
4) I agree about the arbitrary-ness of those field sizes.
5) I did address that point - to me I don't see the advantage of dragging onto map vs either typing in a city or pasting in coords. But you're right about being able to visually see if one got missed for example.
6) I sure would like title to be one of the options for file naming during export!
1) I shoot RAW+JPEG but use the RAW 99.5% of the time. So why even bother with the JPG? Because I like to shoot in different aspect ratios (square, 5:4 etc.) and compose in camera. Fujifilm doesn't let me choose an aspect ratio unless I'm also saving in JPG or HEIF format. When I know I'm not going to use the JPG, I'd rather not import it at all, and the current import dialog on Lr desktop doesn't allow for filtering. iOS import actually has filtering ability.
Another point: I'll sometime review my photos in-camera and apply star ratings to the photos I *know* I'll want to keep. It would be neat for the import dialog to allow for filtering on star rating too
3) I see Versions as a great 1:1 replacement for Snapshots. A virtual copy can allow for multiple versions of the same photo to coexist (say, colour and B+W, different aspect ratios, etc.) each with their own metadata. Super practical.
Hey Jason - One of the main things I bring with my perspective is that I've been a solid user of both platforms, so nothing I say is (hopefully!) uninformed or under informed. Why do you say "clearly you've never use nested" when I talk about their advantages in the piece?
Unless I read wrong, you stated that key wording in Lr is better. I disagree. I’ve come close to using Lr while traveling a few times, but the lack of key wording is a deal breaker for bird photography.
However it is still baffling to me that Adobe hasn’t merged these applications yet. I have zero desire to rely on an internet connection to manage my photos, but I find great utility in leveraging the cloud when I’m traveling. I’ve been encouraged by Adobe adding the ability to work with local files instead of requiring everything to be uploaded to the cloud server.
I think they really need to get all their developers in a room and lock the door until they standardize features between Lightroom (all flavors) and Photoshop. I mean, whose idea was it to use CMD-K to invoke the brush tool in Lr? Did the Photoshop developers threaten to sue?
Mmm, not quite. That was the one category to which I did *not* award a winner, and in it I said "Classic may have the upper hand in functionality here, but honestly, it feels kind of overkill." I then went on to list its pros and cons. IOTW I could go either way with the winning approach here. If they do go with nested in the converged product, I hope they find a way to simplify the UI - we shouldn't need four sub-modules to support that functionality.
I agree about how baffling it is that the convergence is taking so long! Hopefully we'll start to see a groundswell of interest from users looking forward to and to the years-long confusion.
Given my use of three different drives and over 10TB of photos, I continue to prefer Classic while remaining baffled by Adobe’s direction for the product line(s). I’m glad they’re offering direct plugin support now in Lr. Sometimes I just scratch my head.
I started using Lightroom more regularly, particularly with an iPad when traveling. There’s a lot to like and you can do a lot with it but it’s still missing features, and it’s been ages since it’s been out now.
I want to switch but until it has feature parity for some of the key features of LRC then I don’t think I’ll ever completely make the jump.
Using Lightroom on the iPad would have you using Lightroom Mobile, which is a very different app from Lightroom on the desktop. It's nice in its own ways but is not the subject of my article! I should actually make that clear in the intro.
Did you disagree with my assessment of the features and their current state of parity/where we need to go to get there?
Thanks, Scot for your in depth comparison. As a user of both Lr and LrC I have been sitting on the fence for a while. It’s the lack of plugin support and virtual copies in Lr that is the final thing holding me back. While I get that Versions provides the same things as virtual copies in Lr, I prefer having them as separate images in my catalogue, rather than having to remember they are there. I am ready to take the plunge across to Lr, as find LrC quite unwieldy at times but these are the final points holding me back. As you say, I expect Adobe to address much of these soon 🤞🏻
Thanks for reading. I think you make a great point about how Versions doesn't really fill the gap left from the absence of Virtual Copies, and that they need to sew that up. Hopefully soon!
Hey Scot. Thanks for being brave and stirring up the hornet's nest on this one!
I'm with you on most of your assertions. LrC is too slow, too clunky, too old-fashioned these days. I'm completely addicted to how Lr manages everything in the cloud - instant access to everything from my Mac, PC, iPad and iPhone. That's very hard to accomplish cleanly when LrC is in the mix. Syncing always seems to break.
That said, there are a few things that I wish they'd bring over from LrC that would make me very happy:
1. Better control over import. It's an inconsistent experience between Lr desktop and Lr mobile. On mobile, you can at least filter between RAW and JPG/HIF and choose what to import easily enough. On desktop, there's no filter. There's no way to zoom into a thumbnail to pick which of the 14 identical-but-somehow-subtly-different photos *should* be imported.
2. Being able to handle RAW/JPG pairs as one (at least from a metadata perspective). LrC does it. Capture One does it. Photo Mechanic does it. Apple Photos does it. C'mon Lr!
3. Virtual copies. I *love* the ability to have a virtual copy of my photos. Often I'll tinker with multiple processing choices for a photo and it's useful to see them all side by side. Sure, Versions can emulate that (a little), it still won't allow for side-by-side viewing. On the back-end, it's just another XMP sidecar linking back to a common RAW file. Sure, we can duplicate photos, but in the era of 100MB RAW files, that starts adding up. XMP files are (thankfully) still measured in kilobytes.
3a. If you can't give me virtual copies, please give me the ability to auto-stack based on my criteria of choice (like date captured or base filename).
4. Metadata handling. Why (WHY???) is the Caption field only one line and not resizeable? In the same vein, why are Alt Text and Extended Description 2 and 4 lines big and unable to handle multiline text? I understand the need to make accessibility fields more visible (and more likely to be used), but why did they put them in at the expense of the Caption field (which actually gets used). That's just bad UI.
5. Maps. Sure, you can copy & paste a GPS coordinate from your favourite maps app onto one or many photos, but there's a certain elegance with being able to shift-click or cmd-click a bunch of photos and drag them onto a specific spot on a map. This is also REALLY useful for spotting inaccurately tagged photos and quickly placing them where they ought to be, without jumping around to multiple apps & websites.
6. More export options, specifically around variable-based file naming. It would be nice to append keywords automatically at export time as well.
Overall, you're right: Lr has come a long way. As a longtime LrC user who went on hiatus a while ago and came back to the Lr ecosystem, I've come to appreciate Lr and cannot use LrC anymore. It just feels too old and limited esp. wrt cloud integration.
Thanks Eric - Felt good to finally get this all down on paper and out there into the world. Turned out it was impossible to say it all concisely, unfortunately. A few responses to your feedback:
1) I just import everything and use my culling workflow to remove what I don't want (and I format every time) so I haven't encountered those, but good points.
2) Interesting. Isn't the idea that if you are importing both, that you hide RAW unless you need to access a RAW for more control? (I shoot RAW only so had not noticed this).
3) I have a section here on Versions vs Virtual Copies + Snapshots. I do appreciate why Adobe simplified those two confusing and overlapping features. Are you not liking the Versions that replace Virtual Copies?
4) I agree about the arbitrary-ness of those field sizes.
5) I did address that point - to me I don't see the advantage of dragging onto map vs either typing in a city or pasting in coords. But you're right about being able to visually see if one got missed for example.
6) I sure would like title to be one of the options for file naming during export!
Following up...
1) I shoot RAW+JPEG but use the RAW 99.5% of the time. So why even bother with the JPG? Because I like to shoot in different aspect ratios (square, 5:4 etc.) and compose in camera. Fujifilm doesn't let me choose an aspect ratio unless I'm also saving in JPG or HEIF format. When I know I'm not going to use the JPG, I'd rather not import it at all, and the current import dialog on Lr desktop doesn't allow for filtering. iOS import actually has filtering ability.
Another point: I'll sometime review my photos in-camera and apply star ratings to the photos I *know* I'll want to keep. It would be neat for the import dialog to allow for filtering on star rating too
3) I see Versions as a great 1:1 replacement for Snapshots. A virtual copy can allow for multiple versions of the same photo to coexist (say, colour and B+W, different aspect ratios, etc.) each with their own metadata. Super practical.
Clearly, you’ve never used nested keywords. I cannot use any of my keywords in Lr CC.
Hey Jason - One of the main things I bring with my perspective is that I've been a solid user of both platforms, so nothing I say is (hopefully!) uninformed or under informed. Why do you say "clearly you've never use nested" when I talk about their advantages in the piece?
Unless I read wrong, you stated that key wording in Lr is better. I disagree. I’ve come close to using Lr while traveling a few times, but the lack of key wording is a deal breaker for bird photography.
However it is still baffling to me that Adobe hasn’t merged these applications yet. I have zero desire to rely on an internet connection to manage my photos, but I find great utility in leveraging the cloud when I’m traveling. I’ve been encouraged by Adobe adding the ability to work with local files instead of requiring everything to be uploaded to the cloud server.
I think they really need to get all their developers in a room and lock the door until they standardize features between Lightroom (all flavors) and Photoshop. I mean, whose idea was it to use CMD-K to invoke the brush tool in Lr? Did the Photoshop developers threaten to sue?
Mmm, not quite. That was the one category to which I did *not* award a winner, and in it I said "Classic may have the upper hand in functionality here, but honestly, it feels kind of overkill." I then went on to list its pros and cons. IOTW I could go either way with the winning approach here. If they do go with nested in the converged product, I hope they find a way to simplify the UI - we shouldn't need four sub-modules to support that functionality.
I agree about how baffling it is that the convergence is taking so long! Hopefully we'll start to see a groundswell of interest from users looking forward to and to the years-long confusion.
Given my use of three different drives and over 10TB of photos, I continue to prefer Classic while remaining baffled by Adobe’s direction for the product line(s). I’m glad they’re offering direct plugin support now in Lr. Sometimes I just scratch my head.
I started using Lightroom more regularly, particularly with an iPad when traveling. There’s a lot to like and you can do a lot with it but it’s still missing features, and it’s been ages since it’s been out now.
I want to switch but until it has feature parity for some of the key features of LRC then I don’t think I’ll ever completely make the jump.
Using Lightroom on the iPad would have you using Lightroom Mobile, which is a very different app from Lightroom on the desktop. It's nice in its own ways but is not the subject of my article! I should actually make that clear in the intro.
Did you disagree with my assessment of the features and their current state of parity/where we need to go to get there?
Sorry, I should say I use both. I’ve given the desktop version a lot of time as well and the same argument on my end still stands.