Can you do a keyword search limited to within a folder and/or collection?

Now, this is my two cents review of my experience using Lightroom exclusively for two weeks now and after doing Lynda.com training on it. This is an evaluation comparing my experience with Aperture. Hope it is useful for someone.

Honestly, the more I use Lightroom the more I find myself wishing I could buy a MACPRO so I can have the horsepower to use Aperture for organizing my photos. Hear me out fr a second... I do love the LR develop module... it truly rocks! The white balance tool has no equal. And its speed is great. It runs well in a G4 while Aperture don't even load in it. You need serius horsepower to run efficiently Aperture.

I do seriously miss Aperture organizational, selection and editing tools. They just rock! Then, again, I find myself wanting to go back to Lightroom when using Aperture white balance and when I get the beach ball of death. I want to use LR develop module... it is fast, responsive and very accurate.

I have found the LR Library module has a low learning curve but is quite restricting and limiting in what you can do there. It is very basic as a DAM but useful as long as you don't have very extensive and elaborate library. I find myself wanting the flexibility I find in Aperture.

An example of restrictions: you cannot do stacking outside the Library module and only while on folder mode. You cannot do stacking while you are in a collection. You cannot delete images from the film strip but only when in Grid mode. When you flag an image as rejected stays in the grid or film strip. It should disappear.

An example of limitation: it would be nice if you can filter within a folder or collection base on keywords. I haven't found a way to do it yet with LR. That way keywording becomes a very powerful tool for filtering groups of images within an especific wedding.

For example, I use a collection for all the selected shots from a wedding. These shots are all keyworded accordingly. Now, I would like to select all the bridal shots within that collection. Why I cannot do that? The only choice I have is to create sub-collections according to image groups.

One nice feature I really like from the LR Library module is the Survey mode. It works very nice.

While Aperture Slide Show is fine, I do like Lightroom better. It is nice you can put your studio name and other info in a slide show.

While I haven't found most use for the web module in either program, it is nice that LR can do flash site and I am told that LR creates website way faster than Aperture.

One nice feature that I have found in Aperture is the "projects" paradigm. It helps keep everything neatly under one roof. All your "collections" (Albums); smart albums, web galleries, slide shows, etc. I don't think that LR has to adopt that paradigm but it could be nice if at least the collections and the folder can live hapily under one roof.

Also, I have had problems with roundtripping. It does not always keep the original file and the psd file in a stack even when it is asked to do so.

It took me a while to figure out how to import files so I can keep them organize neatly. Although Aperturte does this seamlessly and in a very locical way, I think I got it figure it out.

Adobe has to bring back the photobinder. I love the export projects from Aperture. This is a must tool for those of us that use a laptop on the field and go back to a desktop and don't want to loose all the work we have done on the road.

I think that if Adobe gets LR to work with two display and improve the Library module it will be a tough act to follow.

Apple has to make Aperture faster and more responsive, has to improve the white balance, has to get some global presets and add some more selective adjustment. One tool I do miss form the Aperture develop HUD is the ability to correct color cast in the highlites, mid tones and shadows or to set the black and white points as well as the midtones points.

Now, except for those limitations, I must say that Adobe did a really good job creating a fast and great tool and I know it will get better as they get more user feedback.

There it is... hope it helps someone considering both software.

David, I just started using LR this week, and I totally agree with everything you have written. Sadly, I'm running LR on my now old Macmini, and hopefully this summer I can upgrade to a faster Mac. The beach ball is wearing me down. But at least I can run the program on my desktop. I have Aperture installed on my dying Powerbook G4. It won't run on my Macmini. Having at least 1.5-2 gigs of RAM will make a difference with both of these programs!

Anyway, the most frusting thing I've found with LR is the keywording and folder set up. You can't filter the keywords you apply to images, and there's no smart folder feature like in Aperture that will automatically update your folders. I listed this as a problem during the bata testing stage of LR, and I simply don't understand why Adobe didn't do more to improve the folder interface and structuring possiblities. Compared to Aperture, LR is archaic when it comes to file and folder organization.

But besides that, I'm basically loving the program and learning to make use of it to get work done more quickly. Being able to create, for example, a few presets to handle a couple of hundred dark room reception photos has bee a useful time saver.

I just hope LR is end for a 1.5 upgrade in the next six months. We all need to make our voices heard about the folder and keyword issues.

As for your question, it appears that you can keyword search a folder. I selected one of my folders in the Folders section, and then did a keyword search for Bride. It gave back only the Bride images in that folder. I hope I'm understanding your question correctly.

Yes, I will try that.

I fully agree with you in your assessment. I am sure there is a lot going on in both companies trying to outdue each other in cleverness. That is good news for all of us. If Apple improves Aperture and it's very good develop HUD to match the performance of Lightroom I'll be doing whatever it takes to buy my MACPRO! Now, if in the other hand, Adobe improves it's library module to match Aperture flexibility and versatiliy I may stay with Lightroom.

I expect to see a Aperture 2.0 and a lightroom 1.5 very soon. The games has just begun and I think this two programs will be the talk of town for the near future displacing Photoshop!!!

On the organizational side of the house, the best one I have seen is iView MediaPro. I'm finding that I am probably going to be using LR to do all my conversion and tweaking to produce a master set of hi-res JPEGs and from that point on, I'll be using MediaPro or Bridge for additional PP, filtering and cataloging, etc. The little round selection dots in MediaPro for every possible meta-data item or folder or flag or keyword or [whatever] is amazingly flexible and super fast.

Yesterday I had to trim my LR library because I was getting the spinning beach ball of death WAY to often -- like every 2-3 minutes and it lasts for 45 seconds. Once I reduced everything down to just a couple of folders, it was absolutely flying again. Not a good sign.

don't forget its still v1, aperture was so bad they offered 200 back to anyone that bought it when it came out. there will be changes made, theres no question.

what I want is a heiarchial structure for develop presets. have one folder have all the B&W, one for sepia etc

That is true, but I would expect that Adobe, knowing precisely what happened with Aperture 1.0, would have avoided the same pitfall.

They had the benefits (they are the first to admit it) of all the criticism that Aperture received and some was heard but apparently ignored some too. I'll guess that is all part of the process.

After hearing from the LR developers that Adobe almost scratched the project until Aperture came out, makes me wonder now if Adobe forced the release of LR before it was really up to the designers goals. For sure it took a long time for the final release of LR.

Well, LR is now out and is the talk of town. At the beginning it was all roses, but I think reality check is settling in as to what are the short comings fo LR.

Thera are both out now and they both present the future for now.

PS. Iview media Pro is easier to use because is just a DAM, It basically based on the same folder paradigm of LR.

It could be a good solution once you are done adjusting your images in LR and have the final ones you will be using for the album. They can be exported as jpg and thenorganized in Iviewmedia Pro for use in the page layot software of your choice. Good idea! A cheap alternative for Windows users could be Picasa.

In an Apple machine using Aperture it would be unnceessary to use a second solution as you can export the jpgs and incorporate them back as part of the same "project".... oh men, I want my MACPRO!!!

IView media pro Part II
You could create a LR Library for each wedding but that would defeat the usefulness of the DAM features of LR. But if you don't care for it that would be a solution. Do your jpg and import them back into LR. Once you are done you can back up that specific library and erase it. That way there is no problem with keywording and you can keep everything within one library folder which makes it easier to back up.

That way, it may work sort of like Aperture "project paradigm" and the "export project" feature of Aperture. I sort of like this solution... men, I love OSP!! you guys get my brain juices going!!! this is sort of having the cake and eat it too.

One nice thing about Aperture is that you can export a whole project (wedding) after you are done with it, with everything you did in it, and save it to a DVD or a HD and erase the project Aperture and you don't loose any work you have done. That is why LR has to bring bacl the "Photobinder" feature.

Totally agree here. Part of the goal of LR and Aperture was/is to create almost one solution workflow for photographers. But LR fell short on the DAM side even after almost a year (plus?) beta testing. But I know this is only version one and I do expect upgrades to come very soon. Having to bring in yet another solution to get the job done is not good for the bottom line, which is where I'm focusing. How to get nearly all I need to get done in as few applications as possible. With that said, I think it's going only get better and better in the next year with these two applications.

Yeah, just starting some serious testing of Lightroom this week. The one thing that kept me away during the beta and perhaps now the final is the DAM side of it. It's just a little confusing to me but I think part of it is because I am trying to make it work the way I want and I may just need to change my workflow a little to accomodate. One problem I do have is that has been mentioned already is the ability to take work off the main computer via a portable HD or the like, edit the pictures at a different location, and then easily reintegrate back into the main project. I have two main computers that I work from and I haven't fully figured out a way to do this seamlessly yet. But I'm still green to lightroom so some of my problem may have solutions I just haven't figured out yet.

-David

Aperture users... I was looking for a way to rename photos, can't find it. If it's so DAM good (hahah), why can't I rename--or am I missing something?

Also, is there a way to open the original file (if it's a JPEG or TIFF, etc.) in Aperture? The only thing it would do is duplicate the file I wanted to open. In Lightroom, you can just open the original if you desire. Just curious.

To the first one, you can do a "batch change" feature to change names to multiple images or you can use the Batch rename from the automator.

To the second one, why would you need to do that? If I need to see it I just do show package on the Aperture Library and find the image, or I can export the master. I can also so a spotlight.


Now, for the Lightroom question... After three weeks I still trying to understand how to get Lightroom to place the file where I want when I import them. Everytime I try LR puts it anywhere but where I want. Sometime it creates a Folder tree sometime it does not. I think they try to be so flexible that it actually it creates more work. I have ended creating an independent library for each wedding.

Also, why I cannot do a keyword search just based on one folder or collection?

Is there a way to eject my card in LR without having to move LR out of the way to eject the card?

And last but not least, the "stacking" feature in LR is a mess. You can only do them in the Library and only on the "Folders" cannot do it while on a collection, reducing the usefulness of collections. ANd I am constantly answering "warning" messages from Lightroom about meta data been changed by a mysterious "other program", I am beginning to feel like I am running Windows Vista instead of MAC OSX. Also, when roundtripping, sometime you do sometime you don't get stacking. What's up with that.

Yes, Aperrture is a much better DAM than LR and it also has a much better integration with MAC than does LR.

So far, I like the develop module a lot, but as soon as I get my MAC PRO I may go back to Aperture.

David,

When you are importing your images are you getting a choice of Copy at import? I was having trouble with this at first and when I chose to manually select a folder (instead of the CF Card) I was able to have more options upon import. Another thing I've discovered is if you choose the folder in Lightroom that you want to be the parent folder, then click to add-it should put in the location you want.

This is a big improvement from LR Beta in which "folders" were called "shoots". That was a big headache.

Not very DAM friendly to go out to the automator...

I have frequent need of just opening the original and making a quick edit (especially if I'm at a JPEG or TIFF level). Your workaround is basically confessing that you can not edit the original from Aperutre. In LR, you right-click on an image and say "open" it asks you if you want to edit the original or copy--simple.



That's nuts. I guess I don't understand your confusion. Under the import dialogue, you have:

File Handling: from here you can either import images from your harddrive in their current location (meaning, it leaves them wherever they are and just builds thumbnails for them -- like Bridge).

You can copy files to new location, in which case, you tell it where by clicking the 'choose' button just below the file handling drop-down. Obviously, this will copy the files to whatever destination you select. Not terribly misleading.

You can also move photos to a new location. Again, you select the location by clicking the 'choose' button. In this mode, you can move images from one place on your HD to another.

The last option 'copy photos as DNG and import' converts them to DNG files and imports them to the location of your choosing.

There is also the backup option, which will duplicate each image and place it where you like.

The rest of the options in the import dialogue pertain to file naming and info.

You can. When you do a keyword search, it will filter the entire library and show you results in each of your folders/collections/or keywords. Are you sure you're using 1.0?

Sure. Pull it out of the reader and stick another one in.



Personally, I don't use collections or stacking, so I don't have much to say here.


You mean cause you can email or order books? I'd agree that'd be handy, but the fact that you can't select 20 pictures and simply adjust all their brightness with a single click(LR: select images, play with quick develop, done.); or that you can't open the original; or that you have no functioning presets makes me think of LR as the better DAM. Again, I don't use stacks or collections (I use keywords for most things), so those things may be amazing in Aperture...



Between the develop mode, the quick develop mode, and the presets, I'd have a hard time going over to aperture. I own both, and have tried to use both, but Aperture seems to resist some of the simplicity that LR offers...

Let me give you two situation to see if anyone can make sense of it:

Situation #1:
I created a folder structure outside LR. A folder called "weddings 2007" inside that folder I created individual folders for each wedding/ event. Inside each wedding I created a folder for "engagement negatives" and one for "wedding negatives".

I just want to have a "parent" folder called "weddings 2007" that groups all my weddings under one "umbrella".

Now, back to LR. I import images and tell LR to copy them to the proper negative folder. What I would like to see in the Folder panel of Lightroom is exactly the same folder structure that I have created.

But, after I import the images, I don't see the folder structure I have created but just a single folder with my images.

What am I doing wrong? I thought it was said that LR would respect your folder structure? Do I have to create the folder structure from within LR?

I agree with Kevin that the import dialog is quite clear and descriptive, yet, I haven't been able to come up with a consistent way of creating an import workflow. It is osrt of frustrating. I must say that Aperture in that respect is easier.

I think I need a book that goes beyond merely explaining its feature and goes into actual workflows.

+1

My presets list is getting VERY long. Some specifically for Raw....heaps of cool ones for Jpeg.

It takes me so long to scroll down to the history.. ha ha ha ha

Is there any other way to organise them....other than alphabetically?

If you name them


bw effect 1
bw effect 2

etc., it will group them according to alpha... But, there's no way (yet) to implement folders... I'll pass that thought along.

Kevin, I am using LR 1.0.

give you an example...

I am at a folder for a wedding (actually I want to be able to do it from within a collection). I want to have a "filter" within that folder only that will show me the bride images using the keywords just for that wedding.

How do I do that? So far I don't see how to do that, except from the keyword tag in the left panel and that gives me those images from my entire library with the kw "bride" and not just from an specific folder.



Sorry, I am on a MAC, and I don't like my MAC chewing me out for not ejecting the card properly. The warning is there for a purpose and my images are too important to challenge Apple wisdom in its warnings.

As far as your Aperture question... I normally don't need to go find the "master" because if I want to work on it I would do it from within Aperture itself. Don't forget that one of Aperture goals is to be the center of the workflow and not just a raw converstion or a catalog tool. The idea is that if I go round tripping to any external editing software (not just PS), Aperture will track the image and keep it organize within my project.

But if I don't want Aperture to track it, I just export the master, and as far as Aperture is concerned, a jpg, raw file, a tiff file, or psd, all are masters.

I think a lot of people don't get what Aperture is trying to do becasue they are trying to "make" Aperture work like LR or Bridge or many other fine software, but it does not work that way. The same thing happens with some Aperture users trying to have LR work like Aperture. It cannot be done. One os a phillip screwdrivr while the other is a flat tip.

I was one of them. What I did was to get into the "Aperture way of thinking" so I could understand the why and not just the how. I am trying to do that right now with LR, but it has been harder than it was with Aperture.

No, Aperture is not a better DAM because it does books, or whatever else, but because the way it manage the library. I will use that argument of yours next time someone tells me that LR is better because it does flash website or because of the print module.

Overall, Lightroom gets an "A" for its simplicity and an "A+" for its develop module. The quck develop, I could care less for it, but Aperture has a HUD anywhere you need it so an Aperture user has no need for a quik develo as a LR user may. But it gets a "C-" for its Library module. I have spent so much time trying to figure it out so I can have a workflow, that is not funny.

I think Aperture gets a "B+" for its develop "HUD", but a "A+" for its library module. Where Aperture needs much improvement is in its overall speed performance, there I give them a "C-".

I like some of Aperture features better than LR and some of Lightroom better than Aperture too. If I didn't, I would not have spent $200 buying LR!

No problem.

I'm assuming when you're importing them, you're selecting the option "put into one folder" and then just dumping them all into the folder you created for that wedding on your harddrive.

So, you've got a structure like this:

2007/weddings/wedding1
wedding2
wedding3
etc.

When you import them in to LR, all that shows up on your folder tree is wedding1 (or whatever folder you dumped them into). Right? The problem is, there are no images in the other folders that are nesting the wedding folders that have the images. So LR doesn't see them yet.

So, what you need to do, is create the folder structure in LR (which will create real folders in your finder, wherever you want them) and then move your weddings into those folders (best to do that step in LR, but it can be done otherwise).

OR, simply put a single image in each folder and drag the whole structure of folders into LR to have it import the whole mess in the proper order. Once the structure is in LR, you can remove or delete those photos you stuck in the tree to help LR find everything.

Just know that once the structure has been identified in LR, changes made will also be made on the finder (e.g. moving files, renaming directories, etc.)

Hope that helps.


\

Yes, it does. Thanks.

When I import I do exactly what you are saying.

I haven't ready every post in this thread, but in order for me to get the parent folder inside LR, I have to import and set up my folder in an external drive and then import from there. Without the parent folder, it's difficult to manage sub-folders within a parent folder for each client. This is not a problem with Aperture or even iPhoto.

Also, I discovered tonight that you can save Quick Collections, which is good because otherwise you can only have one Quick Collection at a time. I actually had two sets of quick collections from two different clients. It seems like Adobe wants you to work only on one project at time, instead of having model projects with all kinds of parent and subfolders for each each project. Your really have to put some thought into setting your folder structure when using LR. Anyway, the saved Quick Collection is put into the Folders Section. You can then of course slide it into its parent folder if you like. So DAM is present in LR, just need to beef it up some.

Lastly, I highly recommend Scott Kelby's upcoming on Lightroom. Sounds like he's going to have some very specific workflow strategies for wedding photogs. It's due to be published next week.

I agree. It is there, but the old style way of thinking about "folders" structure. I must say I liked the original "Shoot" concept or even the "project" paradigm more than the "Folder" paradigm. Is just two different approaches to the same problem of organizing images and I just happen to appreciate Aperture better.

They got to beef up and make more flexible the Library module.

Actualy, I am looking foward to see what happens in both, Aperture 2 and Lightroom 1.5. I think we will see a more definitive direction from both companies about their way of thinking about DAM.

I guess I don't understand the quick collection hang-up. I look at it as just that - a quick collection. I want to email a few things, I do the quick collection and then export to email.

If you're having quick collections for multiple clients, that doesn't seem to be a quick collection.

LR has five billion ways to isolate images: keywords, star rating, pick/reject, folders, collections, etc. Quick Collection is just yet another way to sub-set or isolate your images.

Clearly, with both of you having difficulty, Adobe can improve on their file management. I'm confused about why it seems to frustrate folks, though. I've attached a snapshot of my folder structure. I import my jobs according to date, rename the folders to include the date and the job (i do this on import -- you guys know you can rename the import folders, yes?). They automatically come in under the proper year folder, and these folders are mirrored on my harddrive exactly like you see them here.

Next I use the Collections very rarely and I use the Keywords to organize sub-sets of photos that I want to show prospects. Are you guys doing something terribly different?

Click to view attachment

Also,

On the text filtering... I click on a folder that has 150 images. I type "lisa" in the text filter, suddenly, only the images that have 'lisa' in the filename are showing in the folder (about 20).

Someone said there was no way to do this?

[quote name='swan' date='March 19 2007, 08:50 AM' post='99631']
I guess I don't understand the quick collection hang-up. I look at it as just that - a quick collection. I want to email a few things, I do the quick collection and then export to email.

If you're having quick collections for multiple clients, that doesn't seem to be a quick collection. /quote]

Swan, I've only done two projects in LR so far, but after working in Aperture 1.5 and iPhoto for several years, I guess I just got used to an easier and more fluid folding system than in LR.

So far, unlike what you're doing, I've been making parent folders for each client and then putting child/project folders in those. Those sub-folders are like say 5star photos, sets of photos for a slide show, etc.

What I want to do—and I what I did in Aperture—is create sub-folders based on the keywords I assigned to a client's photos. These folders would be exported and burned to a DVD for my clients. I haven't done that yet in LR, but I'm hoping that it will work the same way.

As for collections, I've been using it in different ways as well, but I also just like to use it to put together a collection of say favorite photos and then Save the Collection which turns into a Folder that I can put into a parent folder if need be. But like I said, Aperture and iPhoto lets you do folders like these on the fly.

I do have to say on the plus side, however, that LR runs pretty smoothly on my 1gig Macmini. I can't even put Apeture on that machine. So that's a big plus for LR, unless until I upgrade to a faster computer.

Kevin, let me give an example of what happen to me today.

(I can only see the first image, cannot se the rest)

I have a folder called Weddings_2007. It was created from within Ligtroom.

This morning I wne to import 776 photos from a wedding that were already on my HD. I pressed Import and selected to copy them inside Wedding_2007 into a "new folder" called by the names of the couple. After LR imported the images, I went to look for them and, behold, they weren't inside the "Wedding_2007" folder as I told LR in the Import dialog. LR did import the images and did copied to a folder by the name of the couple but in the orrt directory of the HD instead of the folder I told LR.

I think it wold be nice that if I selected a folder in the left panel and press "Import" LR would import the images into that folder, but it does not do it for me.

That is what it has been frustrating for me so far. As you said, it should be simple enough, but no matter what I try, LR does something else... If I am doing something wrong or I am misunderstanding the way LR work, I want to know...

When I import in Aperture it goes where I tell them to go or the stay put where they are, but my import experience so far is a lot easier in Aperture than in LR, and I want to be the same.

David, I had the very same problem when I did my first import into LR. That's why I import to my external hard drive first, and have LR import from where they are. However, with the that option I can't have LR make duplicate copies to another locaction, so I have to do that myself.

Also another issue I had today: If I correct an image in PS, I of course I get a JPEG copy of that image when I save it back to LR. However, when I go to export it, LR exports and copies the PS JPEG image, so I end with two of the same images in my fodler. Plus, I have to remove the RAW copy from the collections so that I won't get that copy.

So basically, I really need to think out more carefully about how I can streamline the process even more. It should be easier.

I think you hit the nail in the head... I think that our main problem is that we are use to (or spoiled by) the "streamline" approach that Aperture takes. We got use to think the "Aperture way" and now we have problem "getting" Lightroom way of doin things.

Maybe instead of trying to organize it "my way" I should have allow Lightroom to do it its way and go with flow.

Kevin, is there a way that when I import from a folder within a HD that when LR save to the new location I don't end with the folder imported in?

For example, if i want to import images that are in a folder called "New Images" and I want LR to copy the files into a new location call "2007" can I keep it from importing the folder called "new Images" into the "2007" folder? I just want the images from the folder called "new images" into the folder called "2007".

I just downloaded the trial of LR. And would like to find out if LR can just open up images from a folder on my HD w/o having to copy them to the LR folder. It seems silly to have to recreate a new system for management. In bridge I would just navigate to my folder, view images and work in ACR. I am shooting raw and have the sidecar data applied to the orgional file/folder when editeing in LR which is good and I think it would make more sense if I could just use my normal folders instead of LR. So I guess i am asking if can I open LR and navigate to my orgional folder like I did in bridge to open the images...

I am liking LR so far but the floder management seems off to me.

Edit: If I look at the libaries and click "All Photographs" I can see all images in all my folders in My Pictures...but I want to see my folders for each event in My Pictures.

Edit 2: is there a way to see what mode I shot in (M, AV etc)?

Jason,

Absolutely. You don't have to copy or move anything. LR needs to index whatever folders you have that you want to see, but you don't need to copy them. Just import them from their existing location.

If you want to see the mode you shot in, over on the right side, in library mode, look at the metadata column. There is a drop-down that shows the different sets of metadata you can view. Select "all."

K



I just did it and didn't have any problems.
Import, select the folder
"Copy photos to new location and import" option
Copy to: (select path of where you want them to go)
Organize: select "into one folder" and don't select anything on the subfolder option.

and away you go.

Jason,
The LR folder management really irk me too when I first tried to use it. But I think the revelation came for me when I found out that you can edit the folder path by double-clicking on it in the import dialog window. (See attached IMG)


For your second question, if you want to see individual folders, in the Library module, expand "Folders"
instead of "All Photographs."

You have to also keep in mind that the way LR works when it comes to folders is not like how Bridge works. LR needs to index the location of the photos. Once it has done that, you want to move and delete within LR so that LR is aware of the changes.

-David

Very important... Lightroom is not the same as Bridge. Seems simple enough but a very profound statement. Lightroom try to be a D.A.M. and although it has many D.A.M. like feature is far from being a complete D.A.M. solution. But, don't take from me... read what Martin Evening says in his "The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book: The Complete Guide for Photographers" in page 57, "Managing the Library":



So true! So true! This is an admission of LR shortcomings as a D.A.M. So the answer to so many people about LR capabilities as a D.A.M. comes right from the mouth of one of the elite members of the Adobe Photoshop Dream Team.

I think that is one of the main difference between Lightroon and Aperture. As it has been said many times before, Lightroom main goal was "simplicity" while Aperture goals was "complete solution".

I do think we are going to see more aperture-like features in Lightroom 2.0 mainly becasue I thing Adobe realize that "simplicity" needs to be balance with being a complete solution. LR strentgh as a potential great D.A.M. is that it is fully accessible to any software and that is a great foundation from where to build and I expect to see great things.

P.S. anyone interested in what may be of LR 2.0 (they are already talking about it) should download the "Adobe Lightroom Beta, podcast #29.

I don't want to downgrade LR because I do really like its simplicity, and I also realize that LR and not Aperture is only available to Windows users. But again, I can't say enough about the smart folders features of Aperture. It simply makes digital management so much faster and effecient. I hope this type of feature is added to LR because I like LR's color correction and preset features better than I do in Aperture.

Thanks for the info...now what makes LR better or more useful than bridge/ACR?