Andreas Kanon said:
I already have my pictures organized on the disk in a way i am comfortable with.
I do not want the application to now try and add another layer ontop of that.
Just import with the "Folder" setting and LR reflects your directory structure.
Although I use MediaPro for changes to the directory - move, copy, folder creation - when it comes to my photos, technically it is not such a good idea. Luckily it works quite well with most applications and Windows.
I have still not quite understood why so many people get upset by an additional management possibility. It is not like you lose the directory structure, nor is the DOS-style hierarchical system very efficient, let alone flexible. Granted, currently LR lacks a bit in DAM capabilities but what it does (and pretends to do) it does very well.
It has to be said over and over again s, so it seems, that LR is more than a one-task application. It will surely take some time till it is "complete", but it is already rather well adapted to a (modern) photography work-flow. Which makes it quite uncomfortable at first because we've adapted ourselves to the sub-optimal work-flow imposed by computers.
There's two more reasons in getting comfortable with LR, one deep in our psychology, the other rather superficial:
- LR must be bad because it comes from a software giant - which has squashed a competitor offering a superb program*
- LR is an all-in-one show, not the typical "modular" work-flow we are used to.
The second claim needs some explanation. The technical base of LR is modular, which was even translated into the UI, but it is very different from the way we usually experience "modules". In the past we first opened a download program, i.e. Windows Explorer, having one UI. Then wen went to a RAW converter with another UI. After making our global corrections we went over to Photoshop for local corrections and composites - another UI. This goes on to printing, Web etc. Even if, like PS, some of the applications had been incorporated into one program, the UIs and handling was quite different (think Adobe's abysmal print engine, which was conceived for pre-press work; think ImageReady, or the Web gallery module).
Perhaps
this article will help a bit about getting to grips with LR (it's not particularly about Adobe's program but ...).
*Obvious nonsense as I've claimed a few times already (come on, pixmantec a competitor to Adobe? Only someone having not the faintest notion how markets work can say that.)