Question about RAW conversion programs

.

I have been spending the last week or so investigating RAW conversion programs as I want to get involved in this area. I have a question or two that I would like to ask to clear up some specific issues so that I can go ahead and buy the software.

I am drawn to two programs. Adobe Lightroom primarily and DxO9 (only because of a weakness I perceive in LR for my camera/lens choice). The cameras that I will be taking my RAW files with are the RX100II and the Sony A65 with the 1650 f2.8, the 70300G, and the DT35 f1.8. Are there camera/lens profiles for my cameras and lenses for LR ? I cannot find reference to them. I can find them listed for DxO9. If yes on LR, then I'm pretty sure this program will work for me in respect to RAW processing.

My current method, which I would like to retain at least right now, is to bring my files into my editing program (PSE12), work them over, and then save them to my folder tree that I have created on my hard drive. Can I continue to do this using Lightroom or DxO9 ? I do not want to get involved with any "organizer" at this time.

Any comments you may have are greatly appreciated.

thanks kindly, Chris

.

Lightroom requires importation and therefore presupposes organization. So I guess you might want to rule it out.

But that would be a mistake, because Lightroom is awesome! Especially if you're working with Photoshop/Elements. You should let Lightroom be your organizer. For the most part, you'll likely be doing everything in Lightroom, and going into Photoshop only occasionally.

Lightroom doesn't care what scheme you use to store images on your hard drive. Lightroom doesn't copy or automatically move your images. It is only a database that keeps information about where the images are stored and what edits you have made to those images.

You can use any file storage scheme you want, but I do recommend you use a well thought out file storage scheme. Mine is a top down scheme starting with a master Photos folder with yearly sub folders, and inside each yearly folder are sub folders for each shoot.

My LR Library database collections follows the same scheme but I also have collections by topic. That is what is great about LR, you can have the same image in as many different collections as you want without ever having to duplicate the image.

Adobe TV - Learn Lightroom 5

B&H - Tim Grey - Organizing Photos with Adobe Lightroom - YouTube

B&H - Tim Cooper - Adobe Lightroom: The Library Module, Order from Chaos - YouTube

Scott Kelby Guest Blog - Seth Resnick - Lightroom Keywording in the Library Module

Initially images in LR won't look very good. This is done on purpose because LR opens up the image in a way that will let you have the maximum flexibility in bringing out the image you want. If you don't like that then there are other options.

You can always hit Auto in the Develop Module. In fact, that is one of the first things I usually do. If I'm not 100% happy, and I rarely am, I then tweak the controls until I am happy with the results. Auto can be a big time saver.

B&H - Tim Grey - Optimizing Photos in Lightroom - YouTube

CreativeLive - Jack Davis - The Five Step Tango Global Optimizing - Cost $29

I follow a slightly modified version of the Five Step Tango but I don't hesitate to vary my workflow it I need to do so for a specific image.

Okay, I can understand all those numbers. What I can't understand is that after applying a custom WB the white background takes on a colored tint with the Diffusers and Dacron fabric.

Five Step Tango for Lightroom by Jack Davis with Contrast Adjustment Added

1. X-Rite ColorChecker Passport Camera Calibration and/or WB then Crop

2. Auto - With a bit of tweaking this works about 50% of the time. If you don't like the results just smile and hit Undo.

3. Exposure
Clarity
Shadows
Highlights

4. Whites
Blacks

5. Vibrance
(Contrast if necessary)
Vignette

The other option is to go to the Camera Calibration panel and make one of the other Profiles than Adobe Standard the default Profile.

If your camera & lens profiles aren't included in LR then you can look for profiles that have been created by other uses by using the free Adobe Lens Profile Downloader or you can create your own profiles for you specific camera and lenses.

Adobe - Adobe Lens Profile Downloader : For Windows : Adobe Lens Profile Downloader 1.0.1

Adobe Lens profile support | Lightroom 5, 4, 3 | Photoshop CS6, CS5 | Camera Raw 7, 6

Note to OP: Sailor Blue just provided a much better, more detailed version of what I had almost completed. But, by golly, after typing this, I'll post it anyway. You can consider it as a kind of Reader's Digest, condensed version of the other good advice you're getting.
------------------------
You are already using an organizational scheme: the folders to which you currently download your photo files. I'm using the same hierarchy of folders and subfolders that I was using for photos before Lightroom existed. You'll be able to maintain your plan for folders and subfolders just as you do now.

The concern you sometimes see about importing the files into Lightroom is, I think, way overblown. Importing doesn't move any files. It doesn't even involve copying any files. Practically speaking, as far as the user is concerned, all importing does is to allow you to tell Lightoom exactly where on your hard drive it can find the files you'll be processing. (And in a non-destructive way. LR creates sequences of instructions. It will never overwrite your original RAW files.)

Here's how that helps in steamlining. (And, before I describe it... I know other people use other schemes. That's fine. It's a positive attribute that the program can be used in different ways. My way is a bit of a carryover from pre-Lightroom days.) Say I go out and shoot 100 photos. I come home and load them on to the PC. I use a separate viewer program (many people use LR for this step) to review the files. I decide to convert half of the RAW files and process them. I import into LR only the 50 files that I plan to use.

Now I can do all the great stuff that LR allows me to do. As the processing of files is completed, they are exported (in my case, as jpegs) into a subfolder that I designate. Your original RAWS still exist safely, just where you put them on your hard drive. Simple. Anyone who can operate a camera and participate in these forums easily can get the basics of importing and exporting with Lightroom.

By the way, LR has become more capable with each version. I'm fairly certain that if you begin using LR, soon you'll use it as the first (and perhaps final) step in converting and processing your files. Elements will become a sometimes, supplemental tool.

doctorxring said:

I have been spending the last week or so investigating RAW conversion programs as I want to get involved in this area. I have a question or two that I would like to ask to clear up some specific issues so that I can go ahead and buy the software.

I am drawn to two programs. Adobe Lightroom primarily and DxO9 (only because of a weakness I perceive in LR for my camera/lens choice). The cameras that I will be taking my RAW files with are the RX100II and the Sony A65 with the 1650 f2.8, the 70300G, and the DT35 f1.8. Are there camera/lens profiles for my cameras and lenses for LR ? I cannot find reference to them. I can find them listed for DxO9. If yes on LR, then I'm pretty sure this program will work for me in respect to RAW processing.

My current method, which I would like to retain at least right now, is to bring my files into my editing program (PSE12), work them over, and then save them to my folder tree that I have created on my hard drive. Can I continue to do this using Lightroom or DxO9 ? I do not want to get involved with any "organizer" at this time.

Click to expand...

I have a RX100, shoot RAW files only, and process them in PSE11. I have done the 30 day free trial of Lr 5, and decided against it. Price was not the issue. The noise reduction in the latest version of DxO looks very interesting, but I have not considered it as DxO is not a pixel editor like PSE is, and I don't want to get into using a whole bunch of programs in my work flow. Currently I just use PSE for RAW development and pixel editing, and Qimage for printing.

On camera support if PSE12 supports them then Lr 5.3 certainly will. I know the RX100/II are supported. As for your A65 you will have to confirm with others.

Based on my test of Lr I believe you are forced to use their version of the Organizer. In Elements it is optional, but in Lr it is not. The catalog/library is where you work from. It is similar to the Organizer in PSE in that it just produces a duplicate index of all your images while leaving the files in their original location in the file structure. You would be best to download a free trial and try it. You will then find out if it fully supports your A65 camera and lenses.

Why are you considering going away from PSE12? I find the Adobe Camera RAW section of it very simple and powerful. What you can't do in it, you can do in the Editor. Lr is not all that different than PSE. They both use the same underlying 2012 Process. Lr is like the PSE Organizer on steroids, and ACR with some Editor like tools thrown in for good measure. However, I think you will find it still necessary to go to PSE for the more complex edits. If you use layers in PSE, most of what you do there, can't be done in Lr.

doctorxring said:

I am drawn to two programs. Adobe Lightroom primarily and DxO9 (only because of a weakness I perceive in LR for my camera/lens choice). The cameras that I will be taking my RAW files with are the RX100II and the Sony A65 with the 1650 f2.8, the 70300G, and the DT35 f1.8. Are there camera/lens profiles for my cameras and lenses for LR ?

Click to expand...

LR Camera-bodies:

http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html

(both STL-A65 and DSC-RX100 II are supported in current LR5.3)

LR lenses:

http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/lens-profile-support-lightroom-4.html

(unfortunately not-so-good support)

Other lenses may be available via the Adobe Lens Profile Downloader (Google to find that for Windows or Mac, dependent on which you use), where people submit their own lens profiles they have made for sharing, but Sony/Minolta is generally not well supported (I know because I shoot Sony FF and APS-C with both Sony and Minolta lenses). From a quick check now in the downloader, I cannot find your lens+body combinations have been produced by anyone. Similar combinations are there, but I am not sure if you can edit a lens support from one body to another. If you are using PSE12, then I guess you have survived without lens profiles so far (maybe you have been shooting JPEG though). Lens-profiles are only really important for wide-angles used with architecture or other subjects where dead straight lines across all the frame are important. They are therefore more relevant also to FF bodies. One thing to note is that LR has manual adjustment capability per shot, and that is really how I have been surviving using it with my 16-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 Zeiss on my A900 (profiles for which were only added by Adobe in latest LR5.3).

doctorxring said:

I cannot find reference to them. I can find them listed for DxO9. If yes on LR, then I'm pretty sure this program will work for me in respect to RAW processing.

My current method, which I would like to retain at least right now, is to bring my files into my editing program (PSE12), work them over, and then save them to my folder tree that I have created on my hard drive. Can I continue to do this using Lightroom or DxO9 ? I do not want to get involved with any "organizer" at this time.

Click to expand...

Agggghhhhh. That "Organizer" expression again. One of the key benefits of LR is it let's you resume edits to any image at any time. Meaning you can work through shoots iteratively, revisiting and tweaking images over-and-over. You can quit LR, and re-start it at any time, and simply carry on, even days and months later - all without having to save the so-far edited images back to disk in any form. To provide you with that very powerful benefit (it's a workflow tool after-all; it is not just a RAW developer), LR needs to maintain a database of where you have got to. The contents of the database is metadata describing the edits you have made so far, and links to where on the disk the source image is, so that LR can automatically and silently load the image as you navigate and apply the edits to what you see on screen and what you export. And that quite frankly is simply it. Your navigation view into the database is via the Library Module (LR's user interface is split into workflow modules), adjustments are done in the Develop Module and the database is called the Catalog. There are other Modules for printing, for Slideshows, for photobooks, and creating gallery web-pages.

If you are going to move the source image files on your disk(s), then of course LR needs to know that to keep the Catalog database of where things are up-to-date, so you can work multiple images efficiently. That's the point of LR - it is a tool for you to iterate through multiple images. So, in order for that, LR has an interface so you can do those file moves from inside LR itself. Again, simple. LR does not sit there "organising" anything behind your back. You are in control, and it is you that does anything on your disk. You may chose to do that via LR's user interface (which of course is the best way to keep the database in sync), but you can also do it via you OS, and then manually find and Sync the moved folders - again yourself through LR's UI.

If you don't want the ability to go back and resume or try new edits at any time, consider another open/edit/save tool and don't use a database-centred always-resumable workflow tool product like LR. Personally I think the ability to re-work and re-edit is a very very key capability, for all of ranking/culling, adjustment perfecting, and experimenting with different processing treatments.

--
Mark W.
http://500px.com/Mark_Wycherley

doctorxring said:

.

I have been spending the last week or so investigating RAW conversion programs as I want to get involved in this area. I have a question or two that I would like to ask to clear up some specific issues so that I can go ahead and buy the software.

I am drawn to two programs. Adobe Lightroom primarily and DxO9 (only because of a weakness I perceive in LR for my camera/lens choice). The cameras that I will be taking my RAW files with are the RX100II and the Sony A65 with the 1650 f2.8, the 70300G, and the DT35 f1.8. Are there camera/lens profiles for my cameras and lenses for LR ? I cannot find reference to them. I can find them listed for DxO9. If yes on LR, then I'm pretty sure this program will work for me in respect to RAW processing.

My current method, which I would like to retain at least right now, is to bring my files into my editing program (PSE12), work them over, and then save them to my folder tree that I have created on my hard drive. Can I continue to do this using Lightroom or DxO9 ? I do not want to get involved with any "organizer" at this time.

Click to expand...

After importing your images into LR all Lightroom does is simply show you your images the way they would appear in Finder or Explorer. That's it.

Don't let people convince you that because you have to import your images into LR that it is any more difficult to use, or that it should be avoided, because that makes no sense.

Using LR will not only make editing your images easy but it will also save you plenty of time than simply opening and saving edits in a traditional image editing app. That's the old and slow way.

doctorxring said:

Any comments you may have are greatly appreciated.

thanks kindly, Chris

.

Click to expand...

If Lr does not support your camera lenses and DxO does, then using DxO for RAW development and PSE for pixel editing would make some sense. I think DxO is a credible product, but I just have not used it. The new Prime noise reduction is good but from user reports very slow.

.

Thank you ALL for your comments here. I appreciate this a lot. Those info links are great !

I'm going to go ahead and get on board with LR. The lens profile issue may not affect me as I have been using ACR in PSE without issue.

I'll be baaaaack !!



Chris

.

doctorxring said:

.

Thank you ALL for your comments here. I appreciate this a lot. Those info links are great !

I'm going to go ahead and get on board with LR. The lens profile issue may not affect me as I have been using ACR in PSE without issue.

I'll be baaaaack !!



Chris

.

Click to expand...

Probably too late now but, having watched it myself earlier today, I'd recommend this as a good guide to the Lightroom catalog... and how little effect it would have on whatever "organizing" scheme you currently use:


Peter

Be sure to do a free trial of Lr first to see if you are going to be able to live with the forced Organizer use. Despite what some may tell you, it is essentially the same as being forced to use the Organizer in PSE. As you know with PSE you can just go direct to the Editor, bypass the Organizer, and open files directly from their real file structure on the hard drive. No such option in Lr.

Ron AKA said:

Be sure to do a free trial of Lr first to see if you are going to be able to live with the forced Organizer use. Despite what some may tell you, it is essentially the same as being forced to use the Organizer in PSE. As you know with PSE you can just go direct to the Editor, bypass the Organizer, and open files directly from their real file structure on the hard drive. No such option in Lr.

Click to expand...

You keep repeating that LR forces one to use the "Organizer". This is false. You must import the locations of the photos you wish to process however one is free to delete those locations from the database as soon as one is done processing and exporting the results. You clearly do not understand the Lightroom catalog so you should probably either do some more research or stop giving incorrect advice.

--
http://miketuthill.zenfolio.com

miketuthill said:

Ron AKA said:

Be sure to do a free trial of Lr first to see if you are going to be able to live with the forced Organizer use. Despite what some may tell you, it is essentially the same as being forced to use the Organizer in PSE. As you know with PSE you can just go direct to the Editor, bypass the Organizer, and open files directly from their real file structure on the hard drive. No such option in Lr.

Click to expand...

You keep repeating that LR forces one to use the "Organizer". This is false. You must import the locations of the photos you wish to process however one is free to delete those locations from the database as soon as one is done processing and exporting the results. You clearly do not understand the Lightroom catalog so you should probably either do some more research or stop giving incorrect advice.

Click to expand...

The advice I am giving is correct. If you have ever used PSE you would understand. In PSE you can open the Editor and directly access your HDD file structure to open any compatible image on your HDD. There is no setup required. There is no need to even open the Organizer and be annoyed by the dumbed down interface it wants to make you use to access your files. That option is not available in Lr. It forces you to access your files using the dumbed down Catalog interface. Yes, I fully understand it is not duplicating the existing files or creating a new structure on the HDD. It is setting up a relational database structure which is linked to the existing file structure. That was the origin of Lr. The guy that developed it wanted to dumb down the interface and hide the real HDD structure to make it look more friendly to non experienced computer users. It has been described as the iTunes of images. It probably is seen to be more attractive to Mac users than PC users. Not surprisingly I dislike iTunes just as much as I dislike Lr, and for the same reasons.

So, please stop giving out incorrect advice about the Organizer/Catalog system being optional in Lr. It is the very basis of Lr and you ARE forced to use it.

Ron AKA said:

miketuthill said:

Ron AKA said:

Be sure to do a free trial of Lr first to see if you are going to be able to live with the forced Organizer use. Despite what some may tell you, it is essentially the same as being forced to use the Organizer in PSE. As you know with PSE you can just go direct to the Editor, bypass the Organizer, and open files directly from their real file structure on the hard drive. No such option in Lr.

Click to expand...

You keep repeating that LR forces one to use the "Organizer". This is false. You must import the locations of the photos you wish to process however one is free to delete those locations from the database as soon as one is done processing and exporting the results. You clearly do not understand the Lightroom catalog so you should probably either do some more research or stop giving incorrect advice.

Click to expand...

So, please stop giving out incorrect advice about the Organizer/Catalog system being optional in Lr. It is the very basis of Lr and you ARE forced to use it.

Click to expand...

No, you are not forced to use the Catalog. Using it allows one to set up a DAM but you don't have to do that. Once you show it where your photos are you have complete control of which, if any, photos you wish to import to work on. That can be one, many or an entire folder full of photos. If you select one, like you would in PSE, you can open it in the Develop module, make your adjustments and then export (aka "save") the finished image. At that point you are free to return to the Library module and delete the reference to the image. Very simple and easy to do. You make it sound complicated and onerous when it isn't.

I do this on my laptop all the time as my Catalog is associated with my copy of LR on my desktop and quite often I like to edit on my laptop and then add the images to my desktop catalog. So, I import to the laptop instance of LR, work on the shots, save them and then delete the import from the catalog.

--
http://miketuthill.zenfolio.com

Ron AKA said:

Be sure to do a free trial of Lr first to see if you are going to be able to live with the forced Organizer use. Despite what some may tell you, it is essentially the same as being forced to use the Organizer in PSE. As you know with PSE you can just go direct to the Editor, bypass the Organizer, and open files directly

Click to expand...

And by opening every file, every time, you are actually wasting a lot of time in the long run. Your workflow must be a slow and cumbersome mess if you are doing that. It's an old and grossly inefficient way to handle your image files.

Ron AKA said:

from their real file structure on the hard drive. No such option in Lr.

Click to expand...

The "file structure" you see in Lightroom's Library is "real."

Ron AKA said:

miketuthill said:

Ron AKA said:

Be sure to do a free trial of Lr first to see if you are going to be able to live with the forced Organizer use. Despite what some may tell you, it is essentially the same as being forced to use the Organizer in PSE. As you know with PSE you can just go direct to the Editor, bypass the Organizer, and open files directly from their real file structure on the hard drive. No such option in Lr.

Click to expand...

You keep repeating that LR forces one to use the "Organizer". This is false. You must import the locations of the photos you wish to process however one is free to delete those locations from the database as soon as one is done processing and exporting the results. You clearly do not understand the Lightroom catalog so you should probably either do some more research or stop giving incorrect advice.

Click to expand...

The advice I am giving is correct. If you have ever used PSE you would understand. In PSE you can open the Editor and directly access your HDD file structure to open any compatible image on your HDD.

Click to expand...

And in Lightroom you simply import your images and sync them in the future.

Ron AKA said:

There is no setup required.

Click to expand...

What is so difficult about importing a file, or files, from a folder? The process is simple.

Ron AKA said:

There is no need to even open the Organizer and be annoyed by the dumbed down interface it wants to make you use to access your files.

Click to expand...

At least get the name of it right. It's called the Library.

And what about it is "dumbed down" compared to Explorer or Finder?

Ron AKA said:

That option is not available in Lr. It forces you to access your files using the dumbed down Catalog interface.

Click to expand...

It's called the Library.

What is hard about selecting your file from the same file structure in the Library as you would see in Explorer or Finder?

Ron AKA said:

Yes, I fully understand it is not duplicating the existing files or creating a new structure on the HDD. It is setting up a relational database structure which is linked to the existing file structure. That was the origin of Lr. The guy that developed it wanted to dumb down the interface and hide the real HDD structure to make it look more friendly to non experienced computer users.

Click to expand...

Once again, what is so hard about selecting an image from the same file structure in the Library as you would see in Explorer and Finder?

Ron AKA said:

It has been described as the iTunes of images.

Click to expand...

Only by people who have no idea how either works.

Ron AKA said:

It probably is seen to be more attractive to Mac users than PC users.

Click to expand...

Considering that Lightroom is considered the industry standard it is very likely there are far more Windows users than Mac users.

Ron AKA said:

Not surprisingly I dislike iTunes just as much as I dislike Lr, and for the same reasons.

Click to expand...

What reasons would those be? Are you going to say iTunes is "dumb down" too? What do you use for your music and videos? Explorer? Finder? How are they more intelligent and capable?

Ron AKA said:

So, please stop giving out incorrect advice about the Organizer/Catalog system being optional in Lr. It is the very basis of Lr and you ARE forced to use it.

Click to expand...

The only one repeatedly giving out "incorrect advice" is you.

One last time, it's called the Library, and there is nothing difficult about importing and selecting files in Lightroom. As I said, in the long run it saves you a lot of time.

miketuthill said:

Ron AKA said:

miketuthill said:

Ron AKA said:

Be sure to do a free trial of Lr first to see if you are going to be able to live with the forced Organizer use. Despite what some may tell you, it is essentially the same as being forced to use the Organizer in PSE. As you know with PSE you can just go direct to the Editor, bypass the Organizer, and open files directly from their real file structure on the hard drive. No such option in Lr.

Click to expand...

You keep repeating that LR forces one to use the "Organizer". This is false. You must import the locations of the photos you wish to process however one is free to delete those locations from the database as soon as one is done processing and exporting the results. You clearly do not understand the Lightroom catalog so you should probably either do some more research or stop giving incorrect advice.

Click to expand...

So, please stop giving out incorrect advice about the Organizer/Catalog system being optional in Lr. It is the very basis of Lr and you ARE forced to use it.

Click to expand...

Once you show it where your photos are you have complete control of which, if any, photos you wish to import to work on.

Click to expand...

Not required in PSE. Nothing to set up. You just select the file from the existing file structure.

Ron AKA said:

miketuthill said:

Ron AKA said:

miketuthill said:

Ron AKA said:

Be sure to do a free trial of Lr first to see if you are going to be able to live with the forced Organizer use. Despite what some may tell you, it is essentially the same as being forced to use the Organizer in PSE. As you know with PSE you can just go direct to the Editor, bypass the Organizer, and open files directly from their real file structure on the hard drive. No such option in Lr.

Click to expand...

You keep repeating that LR forces one to use the "Organizer". This is false. You must import the locations of the photos you wish to process however one is free to delete those locations from the database as soon as one is done processing and exporting the results. You clearly do not understand the Lightroom catalog so you should probably either do some more research or stop giving incorrect advice.

Click to expand...

So, please stop giving out incorrect advice about the Organizer/Catalog system being optional in Lr. It is the very basis of Lr and you ARE forced to use it.

Click to expand...

Once you show it where your photos are you have complete control of which, if any, photos you wish to import to work on.

Click to expand...

Not required in PSE. Nothing to set up. You just select the file from the existing file structure.

Click to expand...

And you select it from the existing filesystem in LR. And if you have several shots taken in the same lighting etc. you can import them and apply all the same base settings to them at once and save them all at once and then delete them from the library all at once. It's not rocket science and certainly no reason to be resistant to using LR.

miketuthill said:

Ron AKA said:

miketuthill said:

Ron AKA said:

miketuthill said:

Ron AKA said:

Be sure to do a free trial of Lr first to see if you are going to be able to live with the forced Organizer use. Despite what some may tell you, it is essentially the same as being forced to use the Organizer in PSE. As you know with PSE you can just go direct to the Editor, bypass the Organizer, and open files directly from their real file structure on the hard drive. No such option in Lr.

Click to expand...

You keep repeating that LR forces one to use the "Organizer". This is false. You must import the locations of the photos you wish to process however one is free to delete those locations from the database as soon as one is done processing and exporting the results. You clearly do not understand the Lightroom catalog so you should probably either do some more research or stop giving incorrect advice.

Click to expand...

So, please stop giving out incorrect advice about the Organizer/Catalog system being optional in Lr. It is the very basis of Lr and you ARE forced to use it.

Click to expand...

Once you show it where your photos are you have complete control of which, if any, photos you wish to import to work on.

Click to expand...

Not required in PSE. Nothing to set up. You just select the file from the existing file structure.

Click to expand...

And you select it from the existing filesystem in LR. And if you have several shots taken in the same lighting etc. you can import them and apply all the same base settings to them at once and save them all at once and then delete them from the library all at once. It's not rocket science and certainly no reason to be resistant to using LR.

Click to expand...

This article is a reasonably honest evaluation of the catalog system used by Lr. The issues with it are the very same as the Organizer in PSE. The difference is that in PSE you don't have to open the Organizer. In Lr you are forced to create a catalog just to open Lr. And if you are not careful in your setup, all your edit data is stored in the Lr catalog file instead of in the XMP files. Sorry, but the care and feeding of the Lr Catalog is a significant issue. For some, all the extra hassle is worth it. For others the existing HDD file structure is just fine. I'm in the latter camp. There are some nice features in Lr such as automatic chromatic aberration removal, but for me the hassle of the Catalog keeps me from being tempted. Each user needs to make up their own mind, which I why I suggested doing the free trial download to see. I did, and didn't like it.

And to be clear, it is not that I don't understand it. I do understand exactly what it is doing, and that is why I don't like it.

.

Thanks for spelling this out Ron. That's why I asked this question in my OP. I have been iMac since 2006. But I despise iPhoto because of similar issues. I want a clear shot going both ways from my HDD folders. I import my files directly off my SD card just like it was a drive. I edit the files in PSE and then rename and save the edited file to my HDD folders. I do not use the Organizer in PSE12. I browse my saved edits with an image browser. I am not a big volume shooter. I have been shooting JPG, but want to get involved with RAW processing.

I need to think this over and right now I'm having second thoughts about LR. I was hoping it was set up like PSE12 where I could ignore the Organizer.

.