First go with LR 5 -getting set up?

413x · 15 Mar 2015 at 16:50

Until now i have been using photoshop and it is a hassle. In fact i have so many pics to get through its not funyy. The use of photoshop i find a hassle.
Most seem to recommend LR here and in general.

im setting up the program and was looking for clarification on library and catalog

library = actual pictures
catalog = LR database?

think it wold be best to keep both on my SSD (1TB)

this will then autobackup to server

Im guessing i need to backup both catalog and library?
Will this be excessively big for the SSDs?

How does this combination take in terms of rough size per photo?
how does LR hold edited information?
does LR effectively hold editing INSTRUCTIONS rather than re wrting the original RAW?

dannyjo22 · 15 Mar 2015 at 18:09

Everyone is different, but when I first started with LR I had so many questions on set up I just bought a Kelby book on LR and balanced it with the very short and to the point videos on here....

http://www.slrlounge.com/tutorials/lightroom/lightroom-4-guide/

That's for LR4 but the principles of setting up, backing up and importing are the same

The vids are usually on a couple of minutes long and to the point. I found it really helpful

Look down the left column for Library organisation but it's worth having a quick flick through lots of the videos.

413x · 15 Mar 2015 at 18:44

Thats really useful thanks.

i do hate starting these things wrong with organisation!
Nothing more annoying (usually) than finding a btter method and applying retrospectively!

An Exception · 15 Mar 2015 at 19:08

al4x said:
library = actual pictures YES
catalog = LR database? YES

think it wold be best to keep both on my SSD (1TB)

this will then autobackup to server

Im guessing i need to backup both catalog and library?
Will this be excessively big for the SSDs?

All sounds good as long as the backup system is frequent and works.
Depending on budget, personally I would have the catalogue and cache on the SSD and the Library on a raid 1 HDD. SSD's barely have any impact on performance in LR, and the catalogue and cache is where it has most impact.
Having the Library on a HDD raid 1 will make almost ZERO difference to performance but will protect against disk failure. This may change with LR6, as if the processing is speeded up, then storage performance will become a bigger factor.

I would also consider having the processing adjustments saved with the Raw files as apposed to the Catalogue file. This adds security in case the catalogue file corrupts. This has happened to me once. If the processing is saved with the file itself, you won't lose your processing. Also consider using DNG. If you use DNG, you can save all your processing meta data within the DNG file itself rather than a separate xmp file.

You can also compress the images when converting to DNG. This keeps quality basically the same but reduces file size by roughly 75%. If your RAW is 40mb your compressed DNG will be about 10mb.

Danthus · 15 Mar 2015 at 19:20

Can you give me an idea of your settings/workflow?

I use LR but I know I don't use it properly.

413x · 15 Mar 2015 at 20:12

An Exception said:
All sounds good as long as the backup system is frequent and works.
Depending on budget, personally I would have the catalogue and cache on the SSD and the Library on a raid 1 HDD. SSD's barely have any impact on performance in LR, and the catalogue and cache is where it has most impact.
Having the Library on a HDD raid 1 will make almost ZERO difference to performance but will protect against disk failure. This may change with LR6, as if the processing is speeded up, then storage performance will become a bigger factor.

I would also consider having the processing adjustments saved with the Raw files as apposed to the Catalogue file. This adds security in case the catalogue file corrupts. This has happened to me once. If the processing is saved with the file itself, you won't lose your processing. Also consider using DNG. If you use DNG, you can save all your processing meta data within the DNG file itself rather than a separate xmp file.

You can also compress the images when converting to DNG. This keeps quality basically the same but reduces file size by roughly 75%. If your RAW is 40mb your compressed DNG will be about 10mb.

My backup solution is whs 2011 (desktop image is written to server every night and this image is also backed up every night so effectively 3 copies of my desktop exist)

If raw files to DNG is 75pc approx file save I think I'll be able to stick everything on my TB ssds. I will see how much I have. Else over spill hdd is an option (all backed up 3x)

So writing the processing flow to both the DNG itself and LR catalog or just DNG is sufficient?
The catalog IS the processing isn't it? Or is it more than just what you can write to the DNG?
Writing this to the DNG does seem very useful!

I'm intrigued as to how it can save so much space but still be lossless?

An Exception · 15 Mar 2015 at 20:21

^^^
If you convert to DNG, file space is reduced a little but the compression is lossless.
If you convert to compressed DNG, you cannot tell the files apart from looking at them, but technically the compression is lossy. All my files end up being converted to compressed DNG because of this.

If the editing is saved to the DNG, then catalogue basically just keeps track of the other stuff like what photo's are where etc.
Personally I don't like storing thousands of hours of work in a single file.

Regarding backup, sounds good as long as it has versioning support. You don't want to backup a corrupt file by overwriting a non corrupt file on the backup location.

Vertigo · 15 Mar 2015 at 20:31

al4x said:
My backup solution is whs 2011 (desktop image is written to server every night and this image is also backed up every night so effectively 3 copies of my desktop exist)

WHS is a great backup solution for the home. I started with v1 and then moved to 2011. Have now migrated to Server 2012R2 Essentials but the principle is the same - bare metal image daily and then offsite backup of the server at regular intervals.

413x · 17 Mar 2015 at 00:09

An Exception said:
^^^
If you convert to DNG, file space is reduced a little but the compression is lossless.
If you convert to compressed DNG, you cannot tell the files apart from looking at them, but technically the compression is lossy. All my files end up being converted to compressed DNG because of this.

If the editing is saved to the DNG, then catalogue basically just keeps track of the other stuff like what photo's are where etc.
Personally I don't like storing thousands of hours of work in a single file.

Regarding backup, sounds good as long as it has versioning support. You don't want to backup a corrupt file by overwriting a non corrupt file on the backup location.

Good enough for me. I'm no pro anyway
Ah ok so you ate making the catalogue less critical - this does sound much better and I probably wouldn't have known this was an option. I agree. I don't like everything being in one file either
I'm guessing this information is small anyway add it isn't copies of the image just essential a sub routine is applied to the original Depending on what step you jump to

Top both above posts

I need an off site backup. Heaven forbid a fire destroyed my server and desktop (more likely a surge) everything not on one drive would be gone