Does Anyone NOT Use Software to Organize Photo's?

[Hotelfive]

I'm getting the sense that I'm the weirdo here. I recently came from a PC where I kept all of my photos organized in a single folder on my desktop called "My Photos". I then had folders inside this folder to maintain my organization (ie "Holidays", "Camping Trips", etc). I have a fairly large library of photos (over 27,000) and found this the best way to keep them organized.

When I switched to Mac I thought Id try Aperture for its Library and organization abilities. I tried it and I just don't like it. I also tried Lightroom and have the same feelings. I find that it is much easier to just have well organized folders on my desktop and to access and view / organize my photos from there. I don't like how in Aperture or Lightroom the files and libraries need to be synced etc after changes have been made to files that have already been edited. I find I never really know which version of my photo is where (and I do understand how these programs deal with Versions and masters etc).

I dunno am I the only one who finds it easier to do it this way?

--
My Website: http://www.elmsphotography.ca

 

[mr645]

Back when I stopped using film, 2000, there was no real software to organize image. I use one array to store image by event type. Example, one array is weddings, and on that array each event is stored by clients last name.

 

[Conchita]

I've never used any kind of DAM software. I just don't see the need. With folders and keywords I can find whatever I want. To me versioning is offset by the fact that none of these manufacturers (and I include Apple) is trustworthy to offer an exit routine when they decide to discontinue the software. I don't trust 'em--I've been left high and dry too many times in the past with a ton of work stuck in software that's dead now.

 

[MrsNikon]

While I love Aperture, one never knows what the future will hold and that is why I make a copy of my cards and backup on RAID before I even import into Aperture ... probably overkill but storage is cheap.

 

[Snapshott]

I just try to use good keywords. Then I spotlight on my mac to find them. If you use this with you current method it may work for you.
--
Snapshott

 

[graybalanced]

I've never used any kind of DAM software. I just don't see the need. With folders and keywords I can find whatever I want. To me versioning is offset by the fact that none of these manufacturers (and I include Apple) is trustworthy to offer an exit routine when they decide to discontinue the software. I don't trust 'em--I've been left high and dry too many times in the past with a ton of work stuck in software that's dead now.

The standard exit routine is to write keywords and other metadata back to the file, not keep it in the database. If you do this with IPTC keywords, any app can read them (even the OSs that have keyword find functions) because it's a standard. If you do this with develop data and it's one of the Adobe apps like Lightroom, another Adobe app like Camera Raw can pick up those develop instructions.

 

[Conchita]

Right, but I can do this (write metadata keywords) with lots of different programs without a dedicated program.

 

[Calxoddity]

I use Aperture, not because the folder-based management option totally sucked, but because I can post-process and manage my images from one location.

I used to use Nikon ViewNX and PSE 6. Versioning was a bit of a pain but manageable for the most part. MY folder structure was fairly tight but searching for the right image was a bit problematic sometimes.

I still use folder-based management structure on my work laptop, where I have part of my collection replicated. Comparing my home iMac and Aperture with my work laptop and ViewNX plus PSE6 - there's no comparison. Managing my images through Aperture is faster and easier. Folder structures by comparison are so one-dimensional.

I'm not the least bit worried about the alleged fear of my images being sucked into a vortex if Aperture ever gets discontinued. The images will still be there, with or without Aperture.

Regards,
Calx

--
Calxoddity
'Turning up in the oddest places...'

 

[Art Jacks]

I am pleased that it is not only me who prefers the independent approach to file management, I understand all of the supposed advantages of the searching functions etc but how hard can it be to find a folder titled ' Jane's wedding April 2009 ' or ' Holiday April 2010 ' ?

I make an event folder, in this I usually make three sub folders, titled originals, Tiff and jpeg, I make my adjustments to the originals and save copies in the appropriate sub folder, all files relating to that particular event are stored together and easy to find in case any further adjustments etc are needed. All this or course is backed up on an external HD, I would question one thing from the OP's initial post, the storage of a large folder on the desktop, I have used a Mac for 4 years and have no idea if this affects performance but I do know there was a slow down on my old Windows machine, I keep all current folders etc simply in the default document file.
--

A selection of my images can be found at http://www.photo-genesis.net follow the galleries link then select the Jacks gallery

 

[graybalanced]

I am pleased that it is not only me who prefers the independent approach to file management, I understand all of the supposed advantages of the searching functions etc but how hard can it be to find a folder titled ' Jane's wedding April 2009 ' or ' Holiday April 2010 ' ?

Whatever works for you is fine, and no one should tell you you're wrong if it's working for you. There are other people who have more demanding file location requirements, and they need the power of a flexible front end that can search in many different ways.

Just the other day I was trying to apply the correct amount of noise reduction to 400 images from a single event, as quickly as possible. I was able to use my DAM software to instantly select all of the ISO 800 images and apply one amount to them, then instantly select all of the ISO 1600 images and apply a stronger amount to them. Got all that done quickly in like 4 steps. If I was stuck in the folder paradigm this would have been much more of a chore. It's also been great to do things like analyze how different lenses perform, simply by using the EXIF search filters to show me images from specific lenses, at specific focal lengths, etc. In other words, for me, folder organization alone is not sufficient, and keywords are not enough either. But again, I can't say you or anyone else is wrong if you don't care about the additional power.

I have also found great speed and convenience from the rating and flagging features in DAM software. Frankly, a lot of what I like about DAM software over folders is sheer performance. The speed advantage from using DAM tools properly to cull, rate, organize, and process is, well, I could probably use a slower machine with a great DAM to beat someone processing on a much faster machine with no DAM and just folders.

And if the program dies one day, who cares, as long as the metadata is being stored in the files themselves, independently from the app's database, I can feed it into another database.

I would question one thing from the OP's initial post, the storage of a large folder on the desktop, I have used a Mac for 4 years and have no idea if this affects performance but I do know there was a slow down on my old Windows machine, I keep all current folders etc simply in the default document file.

On the Mac, it is best to avoid storing large numbers of files on the desktop itself. It can and will slow down performance. If you simply throw all those desktop files into a folder on the desktop, so that there is only one item on the desktop, that's fine.

 

[DiploStrat]

... I don't like how in Aperture or Lightroom the files and libraries need to be synced etc after changes have been made to files that have already been edited. I find I never really know which version of my photo is where (and I do understand how these programs deal with Versions and masters etc).

No reason that you have to use Aperture or anything else if you don't want. May even be cheaper not to use Aperture, depending on how you value your time and what you need for organization, etc. If you have something that works for you, don't change. (Other than getting that monster folder off the desktop.)

But, for the record, there is no need to "sync" Aperture files and libraries. Not sure what you are trying to do, but you may have been misinformed. Clearly you do not understand "masters" and "versions" in the Aperture context; these words have a very special meaning. (See also: Virtual Copy in Lightroom)

All the best.

--
DiploStrat ;-)

 

[Hotelfive]

Thanks for the feedback everyone.. I should clarify that yes I have one folder on my desktop that I dump my images into (into organized sub-folders). So my desktop only has actually 1 folder on it for my pics....will this still slow it down?

My issue with Aperture is that I tend to edit and re-edit photo's a lot. I find it works fine for me if I do an edit of batch of pics and then export them as versions to the appropriate folder. My issue is when I go back to that folder sometime down the road and re-edit some pics or even add pics to that folder...it seems that sometimes the library in Aperture does not pick up the addition or change to the image in the folder (sorry if Im not explaining this correctly haha).

I'm curious because I can see the advantages of being able to flag and tag photos for easy location, identification etc...

--
My Website: http://www.elmsphotography.ca

 

[Alpha Doug]

I may be misunderstanding this, but it seems you are editing a picture in Aperture, then exporting it to put in a folder in your folder hierarchy, then you go back into Aperture and re-edit a picture, and expect the resultant edit to show up automatically to "update" the image you exported and manually organized. This won't happen. It is a total misunderstanding of how programs like Aperture and Lightroom manage files. I think the problem is that you, like many photographers, got used to adjusting or editing your images and then saving the final result as a JPEG. In Aperture and Lightroom there is not need to save your final result as a physical JPEG. The only time you do that is if you need to re-size an image for upload to a site or burning to DVD. And some of that can be done internally also. First, it is important to understand that you can "Add" images to your Aperture/LR Library either by importing the into a managed space on your hard drive, or an outboard drive, where the program will totally take over managing all your file, and you never, ever touch them manually unless you want to "export" some files for a special purpose. You never ever export them just to archive them. Or you can "add" them to the Library by "reference". In that case, the program just builds a link to the files in your existing folder hierarchy. But it still allows you to sort, rate, search, edit, and organize images as if they were in the internal Library. I think the hardest thing for folks who are used to managing all their files manually to comprehend is exactly how a digital asset management database driven program actually works. There are at least 3 or 4 threads a week from folks who have no earthly idea of how these actually work, but who are convinced the do know. More study is in order. Watch tutorials, read manuals, read books.
--
Only my opinion. It's worth what you paid for it. Your mileage may vary! ;-}

http://www.dougwigton.com/

 

[DiploStrat]

Hotel,

Just to dog pile on Doug's comments. You are fighting the program. If you will forgive a cheap shot, a not uncommon reaction on the part of long time PC users.

Aperture and Lightroom are powerful programs designed to do what photographers (which I am not) need, not what computer geeks (which I am) want to do. You can do all of this stuff by hand, as you are, or you can relax and let the Mac do it automagically. I do everything you have described; only with half the work and disk space.

As always, YMMV.
--
DiploStrat ;-)

 

[KE_DP]

You mentioned keeping all images in a folder on the desktop.

The recommended way of saving your images in OSX is in your Home(user)-Pictures folder.
There you can make a sub-folder(s) or just use it all.

AFAIK, OSX appreciates LESS on the desktop. OS9 didn't care, but OSX does in my understanding.

Once you have your "happy photos" folder - in Home/Pictures - drag it into the doc to give you a fast access point. You may also drag it into the Finder/Places list as another shortcut. If you use other Launchers, it can be added there as well.

Nothing wrong with saving files in "Name" and "Date" based folders. I keep all my Client work in one area using this, and just save the associated Lightroom and Photoshop files in those folders as well as the downsized versions for web etc...

--

• Karen

http://www.karenengelphotography.com

 

[paul2009]

Sorry but what is RAID?

While I love Aperture, one never knows what the future will hold and that is why I make a copy of my cards and backup on RAID before I even import into Aperture ... probably overkill but storage is cheap.

 

[graybalanced]

Those are good suggestions. By taking advantage of shortcuts/aliases, there is no need to keep the actual photos folder on the desktop at all. You can keep the photos in the Pictures folder and use a shortcut/alias on the desktop. Or, as mentioned, in the Dock, or in the Sidebar. Whichever is most accessible to you throughout the day. (For example, if you drop a shortcut to your photos folder in the Sidebar, it's also available in the Open and Save dialog boxes in all your apps, from your scanning software to Photoshop.) This gives you multiple access points to your photos without actually having to store any actual files or folders on the desktop, yet they're still just one click or double-click away.

Once you go down that road you may start to see the benefits of "virtualizing" your files and not being so slavishly bound to the 30-year-old "only files and folders" desktop metaphor. From there is it only a short step to understanding the benefits and power of the fully virtualized organization of a true DAM, where the front end interface is shaped for photography instead of photography being shaped to a desktop metaphor that was designed for corporate office work.

Or, maybe you'll still be convinced that files and folders are all you need.

You mentioned keeping all images in a folder on the desktop.

The recommended way of saving your images in OSX is in your Home(user)-Pictures folder.
There you can make a sub-folder(s) or just use it all.

AFAIK, OSX appreciates LESS on the desktop. OS9 didn't care, but OSX does in my understanding.

Once you have your "happy photos" folder - in Home/Pictures - drag it into the doc to give you a fast access point. You may also drag it into the Finder/Places list as another shortcut. If you use other Launchers, it can be added there as well.

Nothing wrong with saving files in "Name" and "Date" based folders. I keep all my Client work in one area using this, and just save the associated Lightroom and Photoshop files in those folders as well as the downsized versions for web etc...
--

• Karen

http://www.karenengelphotography.com

 

[DCSteve]

Why does OSX care where the folders are?

 

[Hotelfive]

So sorry, I just want to make sure I have this correct.....I have now moved my "My Pictures" folder from my desktop onto my dock. Is this better than leaving on my desktop?

--
My Website: http://www.elmsphotography.ca

 

[Ted Wilson]

The Dock doesn't really hold anything. They are just alias's/shortcuts to the actual file. If you move the folder to the Pictures folder and then add the folder to the dock for easy access then you will keep the desktop folder clean and still have easy access to your images.

So sorry, I just want to make sure I have this correct.....I have now moved my "My Pictures" folder from my desktop onto my dock. Is this better than leaving on my desktop?

--
My Website: http://www.elmsphotography.ca

--
Ted W.

Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
genius, power and magic in it. - Goethe