A sobering historical perspective

Question

Let me say that I am disenchanted with LR.
That said, I began thinking about companies that tried to combine programs. The one that I remember is Microsoft trying to have a single program for Word, Excel and Access. That single program is no more.
I'm struck by how poorly LR does the complete job.
iMatch as one example is easily better as a file management program. RSP is easily a better workflow converting RAW files. Qimage is undeniably the best way to print files.
So where did Adobe come with the idea that one program does all?
Vaughn

Answer 1

Insight,
I agree that it does many things poorly, but won't rehearse all that--all anyone has to do is get acquainted with the seemingly endless posts on one or more aspects of the problems.
In part the level of diaappointment stems from Adobe making the ridiculous claim that it is a one stop, do-it-all, program. That is marketing hype and nothing more. Anyone that is using it that way (at the present time) has very, very simple photographic needs or is a recent Newbie with little or no experience of other applications to be aware of what is missing or what doesn't work yet. Others who either believed that hype or simply hoped it was true are finding out that it really isn't. Unrequited expectations!
Promise? Sure, given time it may become a mature and very effective application. I too hope it does. But, excusing its shortcomings now because it is V1 is trite and meaningless. It should not have been released prematurely.
The only valid NOW measure of it is workflow comparisons using alternative, existing, established image editing and DAM software--not hype or wishful thinking. Bridge 2 is faster. ACR 4 has a more streamlined, faster working GUI, renaming, and kewording feature set. PSCS3+ACR4 ditto. IVMP as a DAM is faster and automatically updates any folder or file changes. Library won't. IdImager is a vastly better full featured DAM. All these will see, load, and allow editing of same-named images with different extensions--an absolute must for working photographers! LR won't do that. Just look at the endless threads on this ridiculous feature of LR! Just a few examples.
But, these are mature apps--or a lot more mature with far more cohesive and complete feature sets and amenable to faster, easier workflow. AND they are the alternatives that LR must be measured against--not promises!
Having said all this, my view is that the image editing and DAM apps one chooses is simply a personal choice, and that can be based on present day performance or hope for the future! To each his own!
But let's don't delude ourselves that LR is ready for serious photographic work-- by established photographers with bring home the daily bread workflow requirements or amateurs with large well established archives. It simply isn't by reasonably objective, relative measures, and that of course is why I am also very disappointed by this 'advanced beta' release that Adobe has called 'V1' Having been part of the beta process, I did not expect V1 to be this weak.