That’s why image organizing programs offer ‘Albums’ or ‘Collections’ – effectively, these are ‘virtual containers’ for photos perhaps stored in many different locations.ĭxO PhotoLab has long offered ‘Projects’ in its PhotoLibrary panel, which are effectively albums under another name. What you also need is some way to separate out collections of images for a portfolio, for example, a web gallery, a client or just for your own interest. It shows exactly what’s in your folders at any one time.īut this has its limits. This is more likely to suit users who are happy to organize their images in folders and know where to look when they need them. At hearts its PhotoLibrary window is a simple file browser, albeit with additional search and filtering tools. Lightroom does not offer a constant ‘live’ view of the images stored in your folders.ĭxO PhotoLab 6 does. You have to import images into the catalog, and while you can move, rename and edit images within Lightroom and it will keep track of them perfectly well, if you move, edit or rename images outside of Lightroom, it will lose the link to the image file(s) until you manually reconned them or synchronize your folders. Lightroom Classic works with catalogs, or databases. It depends on your approach to image organization. PhotoLab 6 offers better RAW processing and noise reduction than Lightroom Classic and more extensive local adjustment tools, but with the improvements to the PhotoLibrary in PhotoLab 6, can it also do the same job as an image cataloguing tool? Are PhotoLab 6’s image organizing tools now good enough to tempt users away from Lightroom Classic? Image credit: Rod Lawton PhotoLab vs Lightroom Classic for image organization is an interesting question.
0 kommentar(er)
