Re: Lightroom back ups

[Karl Shah-Jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark writes:

> I don't disagree with you that maybe keywords should be, but I thought 
> nothing you did in lightroom changed the original image so that it was 
> totally non destructive.  That would >mean everything goes into their side 
> car files and hence my concern.


That was my understanding as well about it being non-destructive- and why it 
was touted as such a great program...

Maybe Picasa's style of doing things re image organizing was way ahead of 
it's time in 2002..

Lightroom came along in 2006 when hard drive space wasn't as much of an 
issue as in 2002 (750Gb drives were around compared to a max of around 120Gb 
in 2002), but Picasa's method of recreating images in a 'hidden' folder 
(either the adjusted images or the originals, whichever you decide) while it 
seemed nice initially - with fast indexing and keyword embedding making the 
program superficially very useful purely for image management and 
searching -  though it didn't seem quite so cool as the hard drive rapidly 
clogged .   This seems one of the main reasons people dumped Picasa for 
image management and the bad PR stuck

By the tme Lightroom started handling images similarly it was already 
acceptable in our collective minds.. so I expect Lightrooms image indexing 
relies on tagging back to the original file, but recreating those images in 
an altered form in seperate directories somewhere.

k