Originally posted by Oakland Rob I tend to agree. I expect that since PhilRich's workflow involves organizing by folder and by browser (Bridge) it's necessary to do more culling initially. Lr is designed to deal with tons and tons of images, with all sorts of batch operations and tools for sorting and finding, and hence culling at that point isn't as necessary. Bridge can do some of that but not as efficiently. Just shows that we're all different: I'd find culling and managing like that in Bridge a huge waste of time. Exif already includes date, camera, and lots of other info so I'd find adding that via file or folder names a waste of time too.
Nevertheless, I do find Lr and Bridge both are not as good as FastRawViewer for picking shots to edit by a long shot. Only good for RAW of course, but it much better for choosing worthy keepers than the Adobe software. And fast.
Yeah. Also I'd always much rather keep the raw files. They are much smaller than PSDs... for example my last batch of photos had roughly 0.8-1.3 GB per PSD. Madness. Raw files are much more efficient. Plus you can use Lightroom to compress them even further, without losing quality (and much further when sacrificing a tiny bit of quality... you can still process them like any other raw file though).
I do sort by camera and year, because otherwise filenames would duplicate... and I don't always use Lightroom to browse through them.
Oh yeah, and sometimes I'm in the mood for editing, sometimes not. I don't want to be forced to do it.
Besides, I recently looked through old photos, that I already processed. They were processed with an old Lightroom version. I was curious, so I set the processing version to the latest in Lightroom, and suddenly the quality was significantly better. I did have to adjust the settings, but the raw processing has improved a lot. By processing the photos now, and only keeping the PSD or TIFF, you're throwing all that away.