Is Lightroom the Only Answer?

by Ken Milburn

For those of us, including myself, who are major Lightroom fanatics, it’s easy to think that it’s everyone’s holy grail. I was recently lucky enough to be included in an email conversation between to very professional photographer friends and ASMP members, Larry Angier and Jan Pehrson. The conclusion I came to after reading this is that it’s always wise to consider all the tools when we’re trying to make our workflows as efficient as possible.
The following are all the quotes from Larry’s emails to Jan after she had written him that she was thinking of switching over to Lightroom:

“Though I have been using Lightroom since the public beta in late 2005, I still use Photo Mechanic and probably won't replace it with Lightroom any time soon.

Lightroom is a great program in many ways, especially to create web galleries and proof sheets. However, it is just too slow for adding IPTC data, renaming, sorting, ingesting, initial editing, etc. Part of the slowness is that it renders the raw data on each image and wasn't designed for massive amounts of images like Photo Mechanic.


Nigel Andrews
2007-10-11 12:27:43
I too use Lightroom for nearly all my work. But when I shoot football, I tag the good frames as I shoot, on the camera, Lightroom is unable to see which frames are tagged, Photomechanic does. So when shooting football I use Photomechanic using it's ingest feature that allows you to ingest as many cards as you can connect together (Lightroom is unable to do this). When ingested I simply select to view only tagged images. If only Lightroom could do this it would speed up my workflow no end!

2007-10-11 13:45:08
Have you submitted a feature request for this?

Nigel Andrews
2007-10-12 03:29:39
Yes, some informed people said it would be implemented in 1.1 - but it wasn't.
2007-10-12 03:47:28
I completely agree with Ken Milburn's paper. Loading and de-rushing photos into Lightroom is not fast enough.
I use Breeze-Browser Pro instead of PM for the same reasons.