Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Nanny software

Jul 16, 2012 9:14 AM

Hi,

 

I'm sorry if I am going to be less than professional, but I'm upset about Lightroom and wanted to vent. I've been using Lightroom since v1, and until 4.x I was able to move (not copy) files off memory cards by using import from filesystem on the SD card drive. I am well aware about that some/most users prefer copying from memory cards because they see risk in a move process and would like to format cards in their camera . I've read numerous discussions, no need to rehash. To make it short: I as well as a number of other users don't feel that way, let us move our files off cards.

 

So in 4.x both import from memory cards and file system has been combined, leaving me with no way to move pictures from a memory card to my harddisk and LR library. I thought representing my removable disk as a harddisk folder through symbolic link would do the trick, using the Windows command "mklink /d c:\sdcard k:", but the LR developers went through lengths to enforce their nanny rules to determine that c:\sdcard is really an card in disguise. I wish these developers would direct their investigative energy in providing face recognition instead.

 

 

So I wondered whether our frieds of Picasa also went though the policing effort to detect symbolic links to sd cards:

screenshot.jpg

What, they let you delete files of the SD card explicitly after import? No big police action?

 

I expect you to respond that LR is a professional program while Picasa is not, and that some/most professionals don't do it that way. My expectation of a professional program is to let the user to do whatever the hell they want, not nanny them. They are the professionals, after all (Don't try this at home disclaimer included).

 

I hope this makes sense to you, except I bet there is a senior developer/architect in the LR developent team who feels very strongly about this and imposes his/her opinion on every user.

 

Sincerely,

Alex

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 16, 2012 9:19 AM   in reply to alexkpremiere

    My expectation of a professional program is to let the user to do whatever the hell they want, not nanny them.

    Lightroom has never let users "do whatever the hell they want". Lightroom has always imposed restrictions on workflow, some workflows are either impossible or difficult in Lightroom that are simple in other programs. There are many people who want LR to allow file-browser type organizing, and so on, and are angry that they cannot have this in Lightroom. Face it, Lightroom is what it is, and probably on this issue and the file-browser issue, its unlikely to change.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 16, 2012 9:24 AM   in reply to alexkpremiere

    So you reckon other professions accept a definition of professionalism as being able to do whatever the hell they want? Most professions would include adherence to best practice.

     

    Anyway, enjoy your venting, but this train left the station long, long ago.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 16, 2012 9:42 AM   in reply to alexkpremiere

    If it's a card, it's a card - regardless of symbolic links or other ways to try and obscure the fact. It's better that Lightroom recognizes it for what it really is.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 16, 2012 12:17 PM   in reply to alexkpremiere

    Gosh, that's such a clever idea....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 6:35 AM   in reply to alexkpremiere

    I guess I do not really understand your problem. I always download images first, but if I still have the card in the reader when I go to import, the card shows up under "Devices", and LR4.1 tries to import from there first. I have to point it to the copied files for my import. What difference does it make if LR sees a card as a device or a HD/file? You can still import/copy/move them from the card.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 11:44 AM   in reply to alexkpremiere

    Lightroom's concept is to be streamlined, so it doesn't cater for sub-optimal workflows.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 12:10 PM   in reply to alexkpremiere

    Let's face it, Alex, Lightroom imposes restrictions on what you can do, or what you can do easily. There's no other way to look at this. If you don't like the restrictions, then by all means use some other software. I don't see any point in you continuing to rail against "nanny software", because it is what it is.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 12:41 PM   in reply to alexkpremiere
    What's more astonishing is that Adobe Photoshop goes through lengths to allow absolute freedom of using the picture manipulation features in any combination you want. No nannying here. I guess the elite team in Adobe got the message, the secondary product teams will understand it eventually, too.

    Yes, and to obtain software that doesn't nanny you, Adobe puts huge amounts of effort into creating this software so it has every feature that everyone could ever want (except, it doesn't really, you can read the suggestions for new features that are submitted to Adobe), and then Adobe extracts premium price for this software to compensate them for the effort of developing it.

     

    Adobe also made a conscious decision not to put that much effort into LR, and to limit the features that are included, and thus, they wisely said, hey we can't charge anywhere near what Photoshop costs, we'll position the price of LR appropriately. And is the LR development team (the secondary product team you are referring to) getting the message? I think they are. They are seeing huge sales for this product, and huge upgrade sales, telling them that by-and-large, they have done good things. That doesn't mean everyone is happy, but I doubt they will understand the message that you say they will eventually understand. I think they understand the message that lots of sales are good things, keep going the way you were going, even if someone uses the disparaging term "nanny" to describe that software.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 12:25 PM   in reply to alexkpremiere

    alexkpremiere wrote:

     

    This is like saying that Photoshop doesn't allow any out-of-focus areas in your pictures.

     

    How dare you judge my workflow?

    I don't see why I shouldn't. Too often bad practice gets excused with "it's fine if it works for you" or YMMV.

     

    BTW lousy analogy.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 2:59 PM   in reply to alexkpremiere

    It is HIGHLY LIKELY that there would be some (albeit small) percentage of scenarios when there would be data loss in this scenario.  And if it happens one out of a million times, then data loss could well happen tens or hundreds of times a year, by people who either accidentally chose that option, or didn't know what it did.

     

    So then Adobe has a high support load, and people say the product loses data, when in fact it's not their "fault," but that doesn't really matter.  In the world of computing, yes sometimes the average person DOES need to be protected from doing stupid things.

     

    Fine, so you say "But I'm an expert, and I know what I'm doing, and I'm going to show all the Windows tricks I've tried to outsmart Adobe... look!"  That time would be better spent setting up a quicker shortcut in your camera to format your card.  But keep at it, Don Quixote.  Lightroom's sole place in the universe isn't to serve your whims.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 3:03 PM   in reply to CatOne

    CatOne2,

     

    Well put.

     

    Hal

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 23, 2012 4:42 PM   in reply to alexkpremiere

    So since there is no business reason to prevent this feature, there is only a subjective one, to impose one's preferences to everyone.

    No, Alex, not on everyone. Only on the willing. We all have choices. You have the choise of using a different piece of software and then you can do a "move" from your camera card as much as you'd like.

     

    But I agree with you, Lightroom imposes its preferences. It's obvious you don't like it, and I think its a good thing. You're going to continue to complain about it, and I think I'm done with this conversation.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 24, 2012 12:18 AM   in reply to CatOne

    CatOne2 wrote:

     

    But keep at it, Don Quixote.  Lightroom's sole place in the universe isn't to serve your whims.

     

    Actually the odds that the LR engineers will enable this user's wish is about nil. A flawed workflow is NOT something the engineers want to have happen (as the OP has found out–they are willing to go above and beyond to keep people from doing what they shouldn't). At this point, the OP must really be considered a troll–he know's there's zero chance of getting what he thinks he wants and is just taking up bandwidth...

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points