LIGHTROOM CC Classic

[Betty LaRue]

Once upon a time I could upload a folder of images to LR and they were a distinct upload, not hooked to anything else. After updates, that function wasn't happening. Now, what I upload is added to previous uploads.  

Yes, I click on "Add Photos".  I don't see any option to do anything else if I want to upload. I've clicked around in Preferences, and nowhere do a find a place to do anything else.

 

I hate having my images added to other uploads. I have a string of images that go on forever. What am I doing wrong, I can't figure it out.  I love updates, I hate updates.  I end up going from something I know how to work in to something that is confusing me.

Betty

[Betty LaRue]

7 hours ago, MDM said:

Good on ya Betty. I assume you are talking to me. I was not trying to tell you how to work as I clearly stated up there but in order to answer your question I had to understand what you were doing as I don't go around with your workflow in my head thankfully. I doubt there are too many people who use Lightroom as a developer only and delete the images from the catalog. However, I don't think you would have been using the wrong program since summer time if you had been doing it in the orthodox way (using an ongoing catalog that is). Anyway I am glad I helped you to sort it out and I will think three or four times instead of twice about answering any more of your questions. Best of luck.

 

 

 

You said:

 

Forgetting about why Betty discards her TIFF files and the 16-bit question which is another story again, I have to wonder why any Photoshop users use TIFF rather than PSD.

 

That is a backhanded criticism. You are a master of those. And we were getting on so well. And I profusely thanked you.

[Betty LaRue]

5 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Maybe there's just two of us (Me and Betty)? 🙂

 

Although I only use LR when I'm batch processing. It's PS ACR normally. I still can't get on with LR's catalogue because it fails to automatically capture changes I make to image filenames and folders in any other app. I'm afraid I'm just not disciplined enough to do everything in LR because I find some operations so much easier using other apps.

 

Mark

We have to find our own path, don’t we, Mark? LR has its uses, ACR has its uses, and Bridge has its uses. I use them all. But I shudder at updates and downloads. I get used to the way something works and it changes.

[Betty LaRue]

7 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Doesn't that mean that you would have to redo your PS work if you wanted to revisit an image? When you save a TIFF exported from LR, it keeps its layers and appears next to the RAW in the LR filmstrip.

Yes, it would mean I’d have to redo from scratch. I’ve found when I revisit an image, I prefer to start from scratch. I’m happy with images from the near years, and the old ones need a complete revamp because modern software is so much better.

Speaking of that, the past couple of days I’ve been revisiting images from a 2006 trip. I didn’t have LR then, but I had PS which was nothing nearly as good as the whole CC package is today.

I was using Nikon then and there was a lot of CA going on. Sometimes I could spend a lot of time and rescue an image, sometimes not. Today I was blown away how easy PS handled purple fringing on a Saguaro cactus. I had not used those images at all because of it. I realize not only is the software better, but also my skills.

[MDM]

6 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

You said:

 

Forgetting about why Betty discards her TIFF files and the 16-bit question which is another story again, I have to wonder why any Photoshop users use TIFF rather than PSD.

 

That is a backhanded criticism. You are a master of those. And we were getting on so well. And I profusely thanked you.

I said that in response to Cal’s comment on TIFFs and it was not a criticism of anyone. It was a genuine open question. I do wonder why Photoshop users use TIFF rather than native PSD files. That is why I said “Forgetting about Betty,,,,” to be clear I wasn’t talking about you specifically. You have entirely misinterpreted my intentions there I’m afraid.
 

For  reference below is the full quote of what I said. 

 

“forgetting about why Betty discards her TIFF files and the 16-bit question which is another story again, I have to wonder why any Photoshop users use TIFF rather than PSD. The only reason I can think of for using TIFF is if you were going to stop using Photoshop or were thinking about archival compatibility way down the line (in which case JPEG is probably fine for most purposes). PSD is a much more efficient working file format in Photoshop, especially if using layers - not just when working on the files but also saving and the PSDs are a little smaller than the uncompressed TIFFs”

 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by MDM

[Marianne]

I don't think Betty had an older version of Lightroom Classic running, it sounded like she had Lightroom in her dock instead (Why didn't they give the newer mobile-friendly version a different name instead of renaming the one we'd all been using for years? So confusing. You need to be sure it's the icon that says LrC - I don't keep the other one in my dock because I'd open the wrong one for sure since that one kept the old Lr icon)

 

12 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Maybe there's just two of us (Me and Betty)? 🙂

 

Although I only use LR when I'm batch processing. It's PS ACR normally. I still can't get on with LR's catalogue because it fails to automatically capture changes I make to image filenames and folders in any other app. I'm afraid I'm just not disciplined enough to do everything in LR because I find some operations so much easier using other apps.

 

Mark

 

If you synchronize your folders the next time you switch back into LR, all the changes you've made elsewhere are updated. That feature, introduced a few years ago, saves all the headaches that the catalog concept always caused when you worked outside of LR. It will also automatically bring any new images that you have created in other programs into the catalog, so no worries about images named outside of LR.  

 

I import my photos straight from the SD card and rename, do a rough caption and rough keywords as I import the files into my desired location all in one fell swoop. Since I switched to using LR as my starting place years ago, my photos have been much more organized. But that "synchronize folder" option has made the biggest difference. It was really a headache to switch between LR and PS or other programs before. Now, whenever I finish working on my images, I just synchronize whichever folders I've worked in to be sure it stays organized and all the changes I've made or new files I've created in whatever program are up to date in the catalog. 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Marianne

[MDM]

8 minutes ago, Marianne said:

I don't think Betty had an older version of Lightroom Classic running, it sounded like she had Lightroom in her dock instead (Why didn't they give the newer mobile-friendly version a different name instead of renaming the one we'd all been using for years? So confusing. You need to be sure it's the icon that says LrC - I don't keep the other one in my dock because I'd open the wrong one for sure since that one kept the old Lr icon)

 

 

That one got sorted way back Marianne. Betty was using the new Lightroom CC rather than Lightroom Classic by mistake.

 

9 minutes ago, Marianne said:

 

If you synchronize your folders the next time you switch back into LR, all the changes you've made elsewhere are updated. That feature, introduced a few years ago, saves all the headaches that the catalog concept always caused when you worked outside of LR. It will also automatically bring any new images that you have created in other programs into the catalog, so no worries about images named outside of LR.  

 

I import my photos straight from the SD card and rename, do a rough caption and rough keywords as I import the files into my desired location all in one fell swoop. Since I switched to using LR as my starting place years ago, my photos have been much more organized. But that "synchronize folder" option has made the biggest difference. It was really a headache to switch between LR and PS or other programs before. Now, whenever I finish working on my images, I just synchronize whichever folders I've worked in to be sure it stays organized and all the changes I've made or new files I've created in whatever program are up to date in the catalog. 

 

Mark and I have had a number of (very civilised) discussions on this and he is apparently not persuadable about the power of the Lightroom catalog and the ease with which it is possible to keep files in sync.. There are various simple ways of keeping the Lightroom catalog in sync with files on hard drives, the method you mention being one. It is also possible simply to relink files by pointing the catalog at them manually which is what I do. So it comes down to each to his/her own here. 

[Betty LaRue]

6 hours ago, MDM said:

I said that in response to Cal’s comment on TIFFs and it was not a criticism of anyone. It was a genuine open question. I do wonder why Photoshop users use TIFF rather than native PSD files. That is why I said “Forgetting about Betty,,,,” to be clear I wasn’t talking about you specifically. You have entirely misinterpreted my intentions there I’m afraid.
 

For  reference below is the full quote of what I said. 

 

“forgetting about why Betty discards her TIFF files and the 16-bit question which is another story again, I have to wonder why any Photoshop users use TIFF rather than PSD. The only reason I can think of for using TIFF is if you were going to stop using Photoshop or were thinking about archival compatibility way down the line (in which case JPEG is probably fine for most purposes). PSD is a much more efficient working file format in Photoshop, especially if using layers - not just when working on the files but also saving and the PSDs are a little smaller than the uncompressed TIFFs”

 

 

 

Sorry, then. I do recognize you have good software solving talents, at which I am horrible at along with understanding how the guts of computers work. Code? Forget it. My motto is if I don’t understand it, I don’t touch it, or I end up in a world of hurt.

[MDM]

45 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Sorry, then. I do recognize you have good software solving talents, at which I am horrible at along with understanding how the guts of computers work. Code? Forget it. My motto is if I don’t understand it, I don’t touch it, or I end up in a world of hurt.

No problem Betty. It is very easy to misunderstand and/or be misunderstood online.

 

I really enjoy learning how to use software - it keeps my brain alive and has been incredibly beneficial to me during the pandemic doing new stuff with video editing, something I knew virtually nothing about before. I am always happy to pass on knowledge or try to figure out where something is going wrong. I do understand that people’s minds work in different ways and I would not intentionally belittle somebody because they don’t get what I get in relation to technology. 
 

So let’s move on. 😀

 

. 

Edited January 22, 2021 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

12 hours ago, Marianne said:

If you synchronize your folders the next time you switch back into LR, all the changes you've made elsewhere are updated. That feature, introduced a few years ago, saves all the headaches that the catalog concept always caused when you worked outside of LR. It will also automatically bring any new images that you have created in other programs into the catalog, so no worries about images named outside of LR.  

 

11 hours ago, MDM said:

There are various simple ways of keeping the Lightroom catalog in sync with files on hard drives, the method you mention being one. It is also possible simply to relink files by pointing the catalog at them manually which is what I do. So it comes down to each to his/her own here. 

 

OK, so I tried a very simple test. I renamed a subfolder (inside Pictures) using Finder which contains 10 pictures already previously imported into LR. In LR I click synchronise on the Pictures folder. It fails to relink the files. It only offers to delete the 10 missing pictures (thereby losing any edit info) and to import 10 new pictures. I could manually relink the folders, but that's not the point. I may have made many changes between visits to LR. It needs to be a more reliable/intelligent automatic relinking for me. It's not rocket science. Each file has unique identifying features which should allow LR to do a better job than this. If it was left open it could even monitor the Pictures folder for any changes. Other apps can do this. I used to use file synchronisation/backup program tracked down renamed and moved files, to avoid having to resend them over the network to the NAS to improve backup speed.

 

I also note this comment on LR Queen here https://www.lightroomqueen.com/synchronize-folder/

 

But stop! Before you press the Synchronize button, stop and think. If Remove missing photos from the catalog has a number next to it and you synchronize that folder, you may lose the work you’ve done in Lightroom. It doesn’t intelligently relink missing files. Instead, you need to cancel out of the Synchronize Folder dialog and manually relink the missing files.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Mark (the un-orthodox one)

Edited January 22, 2021 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

 

OK, so I tried a very simple test. I renamed a subfolder (inside Pictures) using Finder which contains 10 pictures already previously imported into LR. In LR I click synchronise on the Pictures folder. It fails to relink the files. It only offers to delete the 10 missing pictures (thereby losing any edit info) and to import 10 new pictures. I could manually relink the folders, but that's not the point. I may have made many changes between visits to LR. It needs to be a more reliable/intelligent automatic relinking for me. It's not rocket science. Each file has unique identifying features which should allow LR to do a better job than this. If it was left open it could even monitor the Pictures folder for any changes. Other apps can do this. I used to use file synchronisation/backup program tracked down renamed and moved files, to avoid having to resend them over the network to the NAS to improve backup speed.

 

I also note this comment on LR Queen here https://www.lightroomqueen.com/synchronize-folder/

 

But stop! Before you press the Synchronize button, stop and think. If Remove missing photos from the catalog has a number next to it and you synchronize that folder, you may lose the work you’ve done in Lightroom. It doesn’t intelligently relink missing files. Instead, you need to cancel out of the Synchronize Folder dialog and manually relink the missing files.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Mark (the un-orthodox one)

 

I don't know what you are missing Mark but I have been moving files and folders around for years, changing names of folders and so on and I have lost nothing. I don't use the synchronisation, I do it manually. If LR can't find a folder, then a question mark will appear, click that, locate the folder manually and that is it. Other apps may be able to locate files automatically but most don't and it is not standard behaviour. No apps I use do this in fact. Even Apple's own flagship app, Final Cut Pro, has to relink files if they are moved. Again it is a similar manual process. If I was using the synchronisation and it failed, I would just relink manually.

 

Not relinking files automatically is not a criterion I would even think about as a real negative. Lightroom does a lot of things very very well. I don't need it to make my coffee. The important thing for me with the Lightroom Catalog is that it is incredibly fast for searching and integrates beautifully with the Develop module as well as Photoshop. 

 

By the way, you never lose edits if you use xmp sidecars for the raws (which is what I always do) unless you actually delete the files. I always have write changes to xmp on although to date the catalog has never corrupted as some databases are prone to doing. 

 

But each to his/her own. I was not trying to persuade Betty or yourself to change your ways and I am not now. 

Edited January 22, 2021 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

On 22/01/2021 at 23:22, MDM said:

I don't use the synchronisation, I do it manually.

My point exactly... That's what I don't want to have to do. I'm not asking LR to make coffee - I have a nice machine for that - although I must admit it doesn't know which cupboard I've hidden the coffee beans in.

 

One of the things I like about LR (relative to PS) is the preservation of (undo) history. Does a single xmp file save the history and snapshots etc? I thought it only saved the final state?

 

I do find myself using LR more and more (especially during our slide copying exercise), and it's better now I've got a faster Mac. So maybe I'll get there in the end. But at the moment I still find myself deliberately wiping the catalogue every so often to clear out all the rubbish. I'm also still hestitant to increase my reliance on a subscription based product, even though it is, for sure, currently the best.

 

Mark

Edited January 24, 2021 by M.Chapman

[M.Chapman]

Deleted (double post).

Edited January 23, 2021 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

My point exactly... That's what I don't want to have to do. I'm not asking LR to make coffee - I have a nice machine for that - although I do must admit it doesn't know which cupboard I've hidden the coffee beans in.

 

One of the things I like about LR (relative to PS) is the preservation of (undo) history. Does a single xmp file save the history and snapshots etc? I thought it only saved the final state?

 

I do find myself using LR more and more (especially during our slide copying exercise), and it's better now I've got a faster Mac. So maybe I'll get there in the end. But at the moment I still find myself deliberately wiping the catalogue every so often to clear out all the rubbish. I'm also still hestitant to increase my reliance on a subscription based product, even though it is, for sure, currently the best.

 

Mark

 

You know the answers to your questions Mark so you don't need me to spend more time answering them. We have been through this before (on more than one occasion I am sure). Fortunately it is not compulsory for any of us to use Adobe software. And as I said above  "But each to his/her own. I was not trying to persuade Betty or yourself to change your ways and I am not now. "

[Allan Bell]

I may have misread something in the above comments but I have been using synchronise for virtually all the time I have been using LR and LrC and not lost anything when they delete images. They are only making new links to where the images have been moved and deleting the old links to where the images were originally as far as I can see.

 

Allan

 

 

[M.Chapman]

9 hours ago, MDM said:

 

You know the answers to your questions Mark so you don't need me to spend more time answering them. We have been through this before (on more than one occasion I am sure). Fortunately it is not compulsory for any of us to use Adobe software. And as I said above  "But each to his/her own. I was not trying to persuade Betty or yourself to change your ways and I am not now. "

 

That was a good thread, I just read it all again. Full of good info and tips. Thanks for the link.

The answer to the question I raised is that xmps only store the details of the final state of the image - the LR editing history and snapshots etc aren't stored.

 

Mark

[MDM]

45 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

That was a good thread, I just read it all again. Full of good info and tips. Thanks for the link.

The answer to the question I raised is that xmps only store the details of the final state of the image - the LR editing history and snapshots etc aren't stored.

 

Mark

The editing history is of no real importance in that it is only the final values that matter- it is non-linear editing. The Xmps  store the final values so can be imported into a new catalog. In other words, it doesn’t matter to the final state what orders I tweak any properties in. The end result is the same. 
 

Snapshots, proof copies and virtual copies are not stored in the Xmp files so if these features are important then it is necessary to back up the database or export these virtual states as actual files. It would probably be very difficult to store all this extra info in an Xmp file. It has never been an issue for me. 

[M.Chapman]

13 minutes ago, MDM said:

The editing history is of no real importance in that it is only the final values that matter- it is non-linear editing.

I realise the end result (final image) is the same, but I also find the history useful, especially with the record of when images were exported, (or alternatively use snapshots). This allows different versions of an image to be recreated at a later date if needed. As it's clear these "intermediate edit states" are not stored in the sidercar file, if I want to retain access to them, it's essential I relink their catalogue entries to any files I've moved or renamed in another app. This unfortunately is often a manual operation for me. I think a more sophisticated auto-relinking could be a very useful LR feature, as I suspect it's one of the reasons why some users get frustrated with LR - certainly there are plenty of requests elsewhere for "catalog free" systems, although a part of this is probably because they don't understand how the LR catalogue actually works.

 

Mark

[MDM]

I think this has run its course Mark. It is going round in circles. You can wish until you are blue in the face but as the man said “it is what it is”. So either use Lightroom or don’t. 

[Betty LaRue]

3 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

I realise the end result (final image) is the same, but I also find the history useful, especially with the record of when images were exported, (or alternatively use snapshots). This allows different versions of an image to be recreated at a later date if needed. As it's clear these "intermediate edit states" are not stored in the sidercar file, if I want to retain access to them, it's essential I relink their catalogue entries to any files I've moved or renamed in another app. This unfortunately is often a manual operation for me. I think a more sophisticated auto-relinking could be a very useful LR feature, as I suspect it's one of the reasons why some users get frustrated with LR - certainly there are plenty of requests elsewhere for "catalog free" systems, although a part of this is probably because they don't understand how the LR catalogue actually works.

 

Mark

That’s me, Mark. I don’t understand it (cataloguing) and don’t care to spend the required amount of time to go to school on it when the system I have works fine. I prefer to spend that kind of time on things that are in my wheelhouse. Things that if I spend the time, I see a lot of improvement in the end results.

That’s what makes the world go around. It would be a dull place if everyone was a clone of everyone else. I find, when learning something new, it needs to be of true interest to me. When I began painting years ago, I bought oils and canvasses. I took pictures of things I wanted to render into a painting. Exciting stuff. Searching for subjects, photography, then painting. I did two oils and realized I didn’t like the medium. Out I go to buy watercolor paints, brushes and high quality paper. I found myself seeing a sky and telling myself “cobalt blue” Oklahoma’s clay soil? Burnt Sienna. I see the world in watercolor hues. I can put all the time in the world on something that excites me.

Watching how-to videos about cataloguing doesn’t do it for me! 😊 But I have respect for those who do, or do anything in between. We all have our talents and it is wise to know where one’s natural ability lies. Mine is artistic. I won’t say I’m that good at it, but I love it. I hated mathematics, although I made good grades to please my teachers and my mother, and these days I remember just enough to get me in trouble. 

[Harry Harrison]

9 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

I think a more sophisticated auto-relinking could be a very useful LR feature

I can see where you're coming from Mark, the history is really important for me and is just one of the reasons that I wouldn't want to migrate from my Perpetual version of Lightroom. I quite often look at images that I've processed in the past and feel like I could do a better, or at least a different job of it. This is either because I've learnt something new, or just like a slightly different look now.

 

Although if I really wanted to I could rework an image from scratch using a new virtual copy from the RAW file I would normally just use the history to find a suitable starting point for the new variant (ouch, that word's got a new context now). This is a big time saver and of course I can also see how I got there the first time around.

 

The xmp sidecar file does work really well and I was surprised to discover from MDM on this forum that it contains the very instructions that enables my ancient version of Lightroom to read RAW files processed in the latest versions. There must be limitations, if my version doesn't have the same tools for example but it does more than I thougfht it would. However, as far as  know it only works properly within the Adobe universe.

 

I must admit that I simply don't get the problems with synchronising files if they have been moved or renamed outside of Lightroom because I don't tend to do that, I do everything, moving and renaming within Lightroom. If I do something by accident then the '?' on the grid view helps me relink them easily and in fact I've never even tried the 'Sync' feature described above.

 

I think the bottom line is that if Adobe could do what you describe and put the history in the xmp it could only make sense within the Adobe universe and (more cynically perhaps) they don't don't seem to go out of their way to provide features that would help their customer base move elsewhere and, in particular, away from the subscription model. The subscription model is a purely business decision, they could easily be providing a 'Perpetual' license still.

[MDM]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

I can see where you're coming from Mark, the history is really important for me and is just one of the reasons that I wouldn't want to migrate from my Perpetual version of Lightroom. I quite often look at images that I've processed in the past and feel like I could do a better, or at least a different job of it. This is either because I've learnt something new, or just like a slightly different look now.

 

Although if I really wanted to I could rework an image from scratch using a new virtual copy from the RAW file I would normally just use the history to find a suitable starting point for the new variant (ouch, that word's got a new context now). This is a big time saver and of course I can also see how I got there the first time around.

 

The xmp sidecar file does work really well and I was surprised to discover from MDM on this forum that it contains the very instructions that enables my ancient version of Lightroom to read RAW files processed in the latest versions. There must be limitations, if my version doesn't have the same tools for example but it does more than I thougfht it would. However, as far as  know it only works properly within the Adobe universe.

 

I must admit that I simply don't get the problems with synchronising files if they have been moved or renamed outside of Lightroom because I don't tend to do that, I do everything, moving and renaming within Lightroom. If I do something by accident then the '?' on the grid view helps me relink them easily and in fact I've never even tried the 'Sync' feature described above.

 

I think the bottom line is that if Adobe could do what you describe and put the history in the xmp it could only make sense within the Adobe universe and (more cynically perhaps) they don't don't seem to go out of their way to provide features that would help their customer base move elsewhere and, in particular, away from the subscription model. The subscription model is a purely business decision, they could easily be providing a 'Perpetual' license still.

I don’t think you lose the history migrating from perpetual to CC Classic. The fact that older versions can read files from newer ones, simply disregarding data that does not exist in the older version is a big plus as well. 

 

I think this whole thing with synchronising files is a non-issue anyway. As you say if you move files within Lightroom, that solves everything if on a single machine and the ? manual relink never fails. If working on a second computer on a different catalog, it is possible to merge the catalogs which preserves everything. So the fact the history is only stored in the database and not in the sidecar files is a proverbial storm in a coffee cup.. Now time for coffee. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

5 hours ago, MDM said:

So the fact the history is only stored in the database and not in the sidecar files is a proverbial storm in a coffee cup.

 

What storm??? You said;

 

On 22/01/2021 at 23:22, MDM said:

By the way, you never lose edits if you use xmp sidecars for the raws

 

I was simply seeking re-clarification as to whether intermediate edits and snapshots are stored in xmp files, and it's clear they aren't.  That is useful information to those who may not realise it and want retain access to the history and underlines the importance of the catalogue.

 

Mark

 

[MDM]

36 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

What storm??? You said;

 

 

I was simply seeking re-clarification as to whether intermediate edits and snapshots are stored in xmp files, and it's clear they aren't.  That is useful information to those who may not realise it and want retain access to the history and underlines the importance of the catalogue.

 

Mark

 

 

The coffee cup was meant to be humorous and related to the idea of wanting Lightroom to make the coffee as in earlier post. As we have already had this discussion on at least two if not more previous occasions, I was surprised you were asking for re-re-clarification as I am sure you know all that and it is very easy for a man like yourself who clearly loves the technical side of everything to test it in any case. You don't really need me to clarify that.

 

From previous and current conversations, your objections to not using Lightroom because it doesn' t keep tabs on files changed outside the program feel somewhat like you might be cutting off your nose to spite your face but it feels like I am flogging a dead horse here and my proverbial arms are extremely tired so I will stop now. Each to his own once again.

 

 

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

The coffee cup was meant to be humorous and related to the idea of wanting Lightroom to make the coffee as in earlier post. As we have already had this discussion on at least two if not more previous occasions, I was surprised you were asking for re-re-clarification as I am sure you know all that and it is very easy for a man like yourself who clearly loves the technical side of everything to test it in any case. You don't really need me to clarify that.

 

From previous and current conversations, your objections to not using Lightroom because it doesn' t keep tabs on files changed outside the program feel somewhat like you might be cutting off your nose to spite your face but it feels like I am flogging a dead horse here and my proverbial arms are extremely tired so I will stop now. Each to his own once again.

 

 

Oh it's ongoing humour. Sorry my mistake. Maybe I'm too sensitive to fully appreciate it. As you said yourself.

 

On 22/01/2021 at 15:32, MDM said:

It is very easy to misunderstand and/or be misunderstood online.

 

Indeed.

 

Mark (the unorthodox dead horse with a blue face and no nose who raises storms in teacups using a copy of LR that can't make coffee).

 

PS. That is meant to be humorous, but also to illustrate a point.

 

 

[MDM]

57 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Oh it's ongoing humour. Sorry my mistake. Maybe I'm too sensitive to fully appreciate it. As you said yourself.

 

 

Indeed.

 

Mark (the unorthodox dead horse with a blue face and no nose who raises storms in teacups using a copy of LR that can't make coffee).

 

PS. That is meant to be humorous, but also to illustrate a point.

 

 

 

You are not the dead horse Mark. I have no wish to flog you either literally or figuratively.  The ongoing conversation about why you don't like using the Lightroom catalog is the dead horse in this case. We have gone over and over this one before and nothing has changed. So to put it bluntly it is not worth talking about any more in my opinion. 

 

EDIT: Point taken but just to be clearer: unorthodoxy (balanced) can be considered as a compliment, I am blue in the face, the non-storm was in a coffee cup and there is no expectation that Lightroom will ever make coffee. 😎

Edited January 24, 2021 by MDM