[Clem Nichols]

If I use Lightroom, is there any reason at all to fool with the organizer section of Elements? Won't Lightroom do everything organizer does and then some? I know that Lightroom links directly with CS3. Does it also link directly with Elements editor? My computer has the Vista Home Premium OS, and I typically import my pictures directly to the Windows Photo Gallery. Am I correct in thinking that this is the only place the 3+ MB's are actually on the hard drive, and the "images" in the Elements organizer or in Lightroom are actually only links to those images? In other words, if I have a 4MB image in Windows Photo Gallery and have the same image in both the Elements organizer and the Lightroom catalog, I'm not taking up 12 MB of hard drive space am I? I realize this represents a whole series of questions, and do sincerely appreciate anyone who takes the time and trouble to clear up some of my ignorance.

CN

[GaryML]

If I use Lightroom, is there any reason at all to fool with the organizer section of Elements? Won't Lightroom do everything organizer does and then some? I know that Lightroom links directly with CS3. Does it also link directly with Elements editor? My computer has the Vista Home Premium OS, and I typically import my pictures directly to the Windows Photo Gallery. Am I correct in thinking that this is the only place the 3+ MB's are actually on the hard drive, and the "images" in the Elements organizer or in Lightroom are actually only links to those images? In other words, if I have a 4MB image in Windows Photo Gallery and have the same image in both the Elements organizer and the Lightroom catalog, I'm not taking up 12 MB of hard drive space am I? I realize this represents a whole series of questions, and do sincerely appreciate anyone who takes the time and trouble to clear up some of my ignorance.

CN

I never used the Elements Organizer much. Lightroom does everything that Elements Organizer does and does it better. There is no reason to bother with the Elements Organizer once you start using Lightroom for this function.

I don't use Elements at all any more. I do think that you can send an image to the Elements editor from within Lightroom. If not, it is a simple matter to simply save in in Lightroom (use "export" to incorporate editing changes to RAW files) and then manually open it with the Elements editor.

Neither Lightroom nor Elements makes a duplicate of the image file when importing. Lightroom does create a thumbnail cache and will save a copy of the editing changes in an index file. Elements maintains an index file and makes the changes to image file itself when editing (which is a disadvantage as compared to Lightroom). I don't know what the Vista Photo Gallery does, but it is unlikely that it makes a duplicate of the image file. You should decide what system you want for organizing and maintaining your photo library and then stick to it, so you don't end up with outdated and incorrect indexes in the various programs.

[khardur]

actually, you can easily set Elements to save in a version set with the original, so you don't have to make changes to the original image file itself. Not arguing your point about Lightroom doing things better, but I couldn't stand the interface that much that I never thought twice about using it after the 30 day trial.

[GaryML]

actually, you can easily set Elements to save in a version set with the original, so you don't have to make changes to the original image file itself.

That's true; I forgot about that feature. It duplicates the original file so you are storing multiple copies of the same file which increases the disk space used. With the Lightroom approach of saving the editing as a list of the applied instructions, very little extra storage space is needed.

[khardur]

You could easily be a politician, with that spin on it
My finalized saves are jpegs, because that's what most of the printing places take. (along with TIFFS) I haven't seen any that take RAW files, nor would I want to upload such beasts for no gain.
So my finalized jpegs take up much less space than keeping all the RAW files around does. (and no, I don't nuke them, I archive them, in case I want to do something later - but they don't waste space on my HD either)

I really wanted to like Lightroom, but the fear that one small corrupt file or one small corrupt folder could destroy a whole lot of post processing work made my stomach churn. If I've got a final copy of the post-processed image on hand (that any number of other programs can read) just makes me feel better.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Elements is better, hardly. Just for me and my workflow, this is what I've got and I like the way it works, that's all.

[Clem Nichols]

Thanks, Dan & Gary for helping enlighten me.

CN