nospam
In article <lin3rt02f2m@news1.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:

again, this isn't about me. it has absolutely nothing to do with me no matter how hard you try to spin it that way. nor does it have anything to do with me insisting that people use it. none of that is true. use whatever the fuck you want. i'm just pointing out the advantages. you are welcome to not learn anything new.

lightroom was written to increase productivity of photographers by providing all of the common tasks photographers do in one place, without burdening them with stuff they'll rarely or never use (although there are ways to do those on the off chance they do).

it succeeds in doing that.

PeterN
Yes, but not for all photographers.

nospam
nobody said all photographers. nothing works perfectly for all photographers. that's nothing more than a straw man.

lightroom is a *very* successful product, which could only happen if it excelled at what it does.

PeterN
for event photographers and folks who shoot a set of images under similar lighting conditions, it is fine.

nospam
much more than just those two groups.

PeterN
You are missing that LW is not an either/or tool.

nospam
i never said it was an either/or. in fact, i said that in the event something can't be done in lightroom, it can be roundtripped to photoshop if needed.

PeterN
And most of us here are not fooled by you "most" ----- bullshit.

nospam
it's not bullshit. you're just being argumentative (and ignorant) as usual.

most means not all. you said yourself it's not all, therefore it's most. adobe didn't create lightroom for niche applications. it's a mainstream app, and very, very successful.