Like Iceland, my "team" all pack cameras, and believe me, they are not afraid to use them! My youngest daughter Ana boasts an older model, 2.5 megapixel Kodak camera, and she especially likes shooting the road zooming by, and her knees. My wife shoots a lot of MPEG video clips with her Sony 828. My oldest daughter forgot her digital camera and she went out and bought a disposable film camera. She gave it up very quickly when she realized she couldn't immediately see her shots. I loaned her a Panasonic point-and-shoot Digilux and she's happy again.

The point here is, at the end of the day, just like in Iceland, I fire up the computer and download everyone's files into my laptop. I place everyone's shots into a separate folder with a date and their name. It's a simple, somewhat organized, shoebox style digital asset management system.

Where does Lightroom fit in? It does, but not immediately.

I don't want to import everyone's photos into my LR library. Hey, nothing against my daughters' creative attempts, but my library is already large enough. And my wife's video clips wouldn't import anyway. I could have created separate Lightroom libraries for each photographer. But then, since only one library can be open at a time, every time I wanted to view one of their files I would have to quit LR, and open the appropriate library. That's awkward at best.

This experience highlights both some of Lightroom's current limitations and its strengths. I could have just as easily opened my images from Bridge into Photoshop, but I didn't. I would have liked to import video and maintain multiple libraries, but LR's work environment is so satisfying I wouldn't consider using anything else. I'm confident LR will soon have these additional capabilities. I'll be patient, which here in the Southwest where time is etched in stone, is easy to do.