Lightroom frustration

Lightroom doesn't quite hit the target as a DAM yet. And it isn't quite as useful as Photoshop/Camera Raw for RAW processing. I'm on record as being somewhat skeptical about the principal LR enthusiasts, as they almost all have a vested interest (books, DVDs) etc, and I find it unlikely that they're really as deeply into LR as they say they are in their real work.

However...as far as I can see, there isn't anything better. There are alternatives, and all have their pros & cons. LR 1.0 is a leading RAW converter with some interesting extras tagged on - but it doesn't really match the marketing hyperbole. For DAM, iView MediaPro is, or possibly was, a much better solution, apart from one major, major flaw - it can't handle versions - and one less major flaw, that it is all a bit clunky and old fashioned. The versions limitation can be worked around in a very clumsy way using multiple catalogs, but the potential for screwups is all too high, and iView's rather arcane terminology doesn't help. The worst thing about iView is that since acquisition by Microsoft, the priority appears to be rebadging rather than investing into turining it into a real competitor. The future does not look promising for "Expression Media" as a pro tool.

There just isn't really a solution yet. I've invested in LR in the hope that it will improve. The fact that is is sickeningly overhyped does not blind me to the fact that it has an excellent engineering and product management team behind it. Aperture is, in theory, better, IF you like it's non-workflow approach (I do), if you have a Mac (I do) and if you have the patience of a saint (I don't) and can put up with it's very limited range of RAW format support (I can't). Great concept though, but somehow it doesn't seem that Apple is nimble enough to turn it into a winner.