Skip to main content
Adobe Photoshop Family

24 Messages

 • 

4.4K Points

Sun, May 1, 2011 9:55 PM

411

Lightroom Classic and CC: Allow Catalog to be stored on a networked drive.

I'd love to make LR more multi-computer friendly. I have no doubt that there's probably database architecture issues and a host of other barriers... But I have to believe that the need for either multi-user or at at lease multi-computer use is widely desired. And yes, I know you can do the catalog import export thing but I find this less than ideal.

Responses

1 Message

 • 

102 Points

9 years ago

I work in a large commercial studio with 7 retouchers and 2 to 3 shoots going on simultaneously every day. We process tens of thousands of images a year in several different product categories. It's long past the point now that a single session, single workstation workflow is feasible. We are reluctant to move away from Lightroom simply because of the amazing feature set and great UI, but it's increasingly frustrating that we can't even share a catalog over the network.

The first step would be simply to make Lightroom network aware, not allowing concurrent connections but at least able to open the catalog on different workstations without physically copying the catalog file.

Adobe, please address this. We are on version 4 and it's the year 2012!!! Dedicate some resources to this, slap a fat price tag on the networked version, and sell it to your corporate clients that require this functionality or one of your competitors will.

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Need networking ability in Lightroom!!!.

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

9 years ago

I really want to work with Lightroom on a network, I work from a laptop and a desktop, depending on where I am.

In todays world I do not see why Adobe have not included this - I for one will not be buying Lr4 after my trail runs out.

I currently use Aperture on my laptop (Mac), and my desktop is a PC so I dont get to work on the same photos - so using Lr seemed the better idea, shame it doesnt let me do so easily as it is better than Aperture in a lot of ways.

Could a plug in be made to create a work around for making it work locally and uploading to a master networked catalog?

45 Messages

 • 

1.2K Points

9 years ago

Instead of going around with an external hard drive and having all of the problems of making sure all your copies of Lightroom are set up in the same way etc., why not just connect to your central PC using Teamviewer (or the equivalent?).

I do this all the time - I have one copy of Lightroom on a central PC with the catalog and all the images and I connect to it from any other PC or from my laptop using Teamviewer. It works perfectly.

When I'm on location I connect using Teamviewer over the web ... and as long as the broadband connection is reasonable it's as good as sitting at the central PC. And you can do all the development you want, go into Photoshop if necessary, and print, email etc., as though you were in the office.

Admittedly this is one-user-at-a-time, but it's better than lugging external drives with all of the attendant problems.

7 Messages

 • 

136 Points

9 years ago

My setup consists of a desktop machine, a laptop, and a QNAP network attached storage. The network is a gigabit network and I use two gigabit links, teamed, on both the network attached storage box and the desktop machine. Other than remote work / initial import, all the raw files and developed/processed output, lives on that network attached drive under the wing of hardware RAID.

I work on a desktop machine while at the studio and laptop while away. Laptop is often used to make adjustments on site with a client, and also sometimes to make use of time while on the road to import and apply metadata and initial presets / generate previews / etc.

I currently have to awkwardly copy things around. I would love Lightroom to natively support the concept of "taking a catalog on the road" and synching changes afterwards. As well as the notion of importing new content for an existing NAS-hosted catalog (or a whole new catalog).

For me it's not a multi-user problem or any manner of concurrent access problem. I just want to maintain a similar level of storage flexibility and portability for my Adobe catalogs as any other files (or indeed databases like MySQL) - which do not care if they are on a local drive or network share - or even backed up on optical media.

6 Messages

 • 

178 Points

9 years ago

For the photographer/consumer orientated it would be great to have the capabilities to take a subset of records on a portable device and then be able to synch up changes from the portable records to a centralized catalog whether it is stored on a local computer, portable hard disk, or a network drive - with access to the central repository for one user at a time. For now I'd be happy with being able to store and use a catalog from a hard wired network storage device.

Adobe has their work cut out for them! There seems to be several categories of access people are asking for from simple storage and access to a shared repository, syncing a portable catalog back to a central repository, to multi-users on a shared repository; to a multi-user, multiple access rights, connected to a centralized repository.

I do not think some people understand what they are asking for. There are already several great multi-user professional and enterprise digital asset management solutions available and I think many would be surprised at the cost of these.

2 Messages

 • 

72 Points

9 years ago

I think one important use case is the one user, multiple workstations over network.

When you do have multiple workstations (license allows 2), the workflow Adobe wants you to use is to haul an external HDD and its PSU across these workstations. This is very tedious and prune to data loss!

Such external HDD needs to be backed up regularely. To my experience this HDD is backed up too seldom since it needs to be manually connected to the workstations.

These workstations already has a Gb network with a central NAS which in turn backs up its contents offsite. Today the LR backup is made manually from the external HDD to the NAS. When remembered.

I don't mind much about simultaneous access to LR, but I think its a major drawback that you can't store the catalog directly on the NAS even with one client. If I could store the catalog directly, it would be stored in a reliable storage with proper backup compared to the external HDD.

3 Messages

 • 

92 Points

9 years ago

Lightroom 4 cannot access catalogues saved on a network! Our university catalog needs to be on a network so that the photographer and his assistants can access the SAME catalog. SOLUTIONS?! We need one fast.

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
Catalogues on network.

42 Messages

 • 

768 Points

You should read the comments here. A bit of searching would have saved you some anguish.

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

9 years ago

I too would like to see some form of shared capability with LR4. While the product itself is awesome, I still feel gimped in that in order for My wife, daughter and I to centrally store images in a unified catalog, I have had to build a separate machine to manage everything. While one employee of Adobe indicated that there is the ability to put everything on an external drive, that seems archaic in today's world. Most households maintain more then a couple of computers, most have a desktop, laptop + tablet.

This kind of integration would be a great leap forward in functionality for a lot of people and I would personally be willing to purchase it as a premium update.

14 Messages

 • 

570 Points

9 years ago

Excellent comment and directly to the point of this discussion.

The bottom line is that customers need a truly multi-user Lightroom that work over home and professional networks. Properly implemented, more than one person could concurrently access the database...that's what it is at its heart...while maintaining integrity using record-level locking. And customers in this case mean everyone from professional photographers in work groups to small business and family networks.

The only problem I see is that Adobe so far has given excuses as to why it would be difficult to achieve...but has left no hint that they really have decided to do so no matter how long it takes.

42 Messages

 • 

768 Points

9 years ago

Rodney,
What Adobe have said is that it is hard, and it is. Lightroom is a single user application, like MS Word is, and getting to a multi-user configuration involves architectural changes that would either make it MUCH more resource hungry (adding a multi-user database engine would make the memory usage go up sharply) or require them to produce a separate high-end application that in all probability would be relatively expensive. It looks like they are approaching this problem through Revel/Carousel, and we might talk about whether this is the right way to do it, my own view is that it is probably not, but that's a different conversation.

Your second paragraph seems to be complaining that Adobe have not given a commitment to spend unlimited time and money on giving you what you want. It seems unlikely that you will get that.

14 Messages

 • 

570 Points

9 years ago

A word processor is indeed a single-user application. But that is dictated by the type of work being done. When Word users work collaboratively the normal workflow involves sending the file to others via email for review and comment. At the end of that workflow, the owner of the file merges the comments to produce the final document.

Lightroom is right now a single-user implementation only because that is the way Adobe implemented it. The problem is that two or more people cannot work with the same catalog concurrently. If I want my partner to look at a photo or set of photos, I have to physically move the external drive to her computer. Then while she is working, I have no access to the catalog! Although editing a photo is a single-user function, using the catalog is not. What is needed is for the catalog to be make multi-user so we can both work concurrently. For Adobe, that means that they will need to implement some sort of record-level locking so that two or more users don't concurrently try to change the same file. But that's not so hard if a decent database underlies the application. It's been done for decades.

I think the comparision to a word processor is invalid. Lightroom is better compared to a database. The information stored in Lightroom are data about each image in that catalog. The original photos are linked to by Lightroom but the photos themselves are not contained within the catalog. Users generally only work on one photo at a time, so some sort of record-level locking could be used to ensure there is no conflict which would result when two people both tried to change the same record.

Since I'm not privy to Adobe's internals, I don't know whether a shared catalog version of Lightroom would then become much more memory intensive. I suspect that the additional overhead is manageable. That is an issue Adobe would have to evaluate when determining whether or not to do this. But there are lots of other database systems out there that work quite well on client workstations with "normal" memory. In any case, the whole hardware environment is shifting over to 64-bit systems (my desktops are 64-bit, and it is great that Adobe produces 64-bit applications that can use my available memory.)

I don't care how they do, it. I do care about support for networking the application. AND I maintain that this is needed by home users as well as photogratphic professionals who work with more than one person. How they decide to price it is their choice...but I sure hope they don't decide to jack up the price significantly.

You interpret my comments to mean that I'm asking for Adobe to give a committment to spending _unlimited_ time and money to give us what we want. All I'm asking is that Adobe commit to evaluating the problem and then to tell us whether it is likely to be done or not and in what timeframe. When I said "no matter how long it takes" I meant that I recognize this might take a while to achieve. I didn't mean they should not be fiscally responsible.

42 Messages

 • 

768 Points

9 years ago

I'm not disagreeing with you that it would be nice. It would just be a different product and I've suggested both how I think they might be approaching it.

Having worked with a multi-user text editor, I can tell you that it is possible and it does save all that having to copy documents or fragments of documents around (in much the same way that people sometimes say they want to share photos in Lightroom) but as a piece of software it was a fair bit more complex than just whacking a copy of Word on a desktop machine.

Photos can be located on shared storage for your partner to look at, its only the catalog that needs to be local. I suspect that photos can be in two catalogs at the same time with the photo and XMP sidecars on shared storage (its an experiment I will get around to in the next couple of weeks: virtual copies would be invisible, it will be interesting to see how that turns out).

There have been comments from Adobe staff about the issues and complexity involved in this and references to experiments done in the past, so they have said that they have been looking at it. If it were as simple as people keep saying I suspect we would have it now.

4 Messages

 • 

212 Points

9 years ago

Greg,

I work on single user documents shared on a network resource all the time. That is all many of us want. I don't want two people editing a photo at once. I bet there are requests for that, but for the most part, we are looking for a shared catalog. Editing would still be done as a single user.

Your example of a word doc is right on. We share them on a network, edit them locally off the network, and others can use it too. Why can't we do that as seamlessly in LR?

42 Messages

 • 

768 Points

9 years ago

It looks like you can treat an image just like a word document. Getting someone else to import and open a particular raw file on a shared storage device with their copy of Lightroom does work and opens the associated XMP so they they can edit the file (assuming that you have LR writing XMP files). What we cannot do is share collections, keywords, flagging and rating. Sharing the catalog would be much nicer, there is no doubt of that: keywords, ratings and I suspect virtual copies would be available too, but the simplest form of sharing, the kind that we do with Word documents, looks like it works.

Employee

 • 

166 Messages

 • 

3K Points

9 years ago

While I can't speak for when or how this turns into an actual Lightroom feature, I can say that the team is acutely aware of the constraints and awkwardness of multi machine (and device) workflows for Lightroom.

Honestly, providing a better answer to multi-machine (and now device) workflows been in the running for every version of Lightroom so far and has just tended to get pushed aside by other features. That said, (and to be clear here this isn't my call, so this isn't any kind of promise or claim about what will or won't be in the next version, so don't go reading it as such), I've pointed to this thread on more than one occasion to promote my position that this feature's time is (over)due. :o)

Note that even if I did know what is or isn't going to be in the next version (and I honestly don't), I couldn't tell you here anyway, so the only reason I say this is to make it eminently clear that (a) we are watching this thread and (b) we're not satisfied with the existing multi machine workflow options either. Most of the team are active users of the product and want many of the same things you all do.

9 Messages

 • 

232 Points

Adobe is so close to revolutionizing the workflow process with Lightroom, Adobe Creative Cloud, and Revel. I really hope that there is a plan for more integration and seamless workflow.

Organizing, editing, and sharing are what it's all about.

It would be absolutely fabulous if we could download photos from camera to one program______ (you fill in the blank).

Step 2: pick out our favorite photos on either Ipad or Computer.

Step 3: Tag, rename and organize files and have an automated Backup option like Lightroom.

Step 4: Then chose to edit photos on Ipad or Laptop or Desk computer without duplicates that sync across the board.

Step 5: Once photos are edited then share them across what ever avenue we want be it email, Revel, Muse, Facebook, ect.

This would be a perfect workflow.

You guys are SOOOOO Close. Keep rocking it! We are headed in the right direction!!