Organising photos (folder name format, keywords, collections, etc.)

[robert1955]

Hi Robgendreau,

Thank you for your comments and info. It’s really helpful.

Generally, I can find what I am looking for amongst the chaos – I seem to have a good memory for events and dates. But I am slowed down by lack of time spent organising and “culling” (as one person described above).

I feel like, as suggested by others above, a simple folder structure of “Place or event” followed by “YYYY-MM-DD” makes sense. Then, as you suggest, “portraits” would best be marked with a keyword – or assigned to a “Collection” in Lightroom?

A few questions about Lightroom:

(1) You wrote, “Lightroom DOES have to import images. But it imports REFERENCES to those images”. So, if a RAW file is 5GB on an external drive, it does not import a 5GB file, right? It imports a “reference” which is, presumably, just a small data file? So I am not going to be using up 100s of GB of space on my computer’s hard drive?

If you import by reference, the photo file is not copied. But the place and folder it is are recorded in the cataloque file

(2) You wrote, “The advantage of Lr is that it could import all your messy folder structure and keywords. You wouldn't have to change anything in folder names; you could make hierarchical keywords or collections and collection sets that could more flexibly impart the same info, which means an ability to find those images based on searching or filtering for that info”. So, my question is, if I then use Nikon ViewNX or Bridge to organise my messy folder structures, how will Lightroom know where to find anything?

It won't easily, and you should not do any file moving or renaming work outside of Lightroom. Not in Explorer [Finder], not in Bridge [which really is a glorified browser, not in another application

My understanding, according to your comments, is that I cannot do the kind of file- and folder-organising “librarian’s work” from within Lightroom; best to use Bridge for that? I’m guessing. Am I right?

As above: no. You can do folder organising inside of Lr if you want to, but for the functioning of Lr folders are not necessary. If all of your photo's have unique names, you could put them in one folder. I still use a folder structure, with a path like data/YYYY/MM/DD. On downloading automatically get a unique name (camera+5 digits) which is never changed. Any information about location, persons, event can be added in tags. I don't spend much time on that though: just country and sometimes city (but I have gps data for most photo's I make

(3) You said, “it isn't a browser”. I think this relates to my comments above (No. 2). You mean in the way that Bridge is a browser – where everything can be organised? But, as I mentioned in my original post, I never understood the full screen “preview” function in Bridge. Unless I am doing something wrong, it is like a low resolution version [like an enlarged thumbnail] – not half as sharp as reviewing an image in Nikon ViewNX 2. So I find that ViewNX is a good place to “view” photos and show others, whereas Bridge is not. According to my limited understanding, Lightroom is good for this (as well as all the editing capabilities)?

Yes it is. I've never understood why the full screen preview in Bridge is so bad

Sorry if some of my questions seem a bit “basic”! Thanks for your help.

Basic is good. You will have to decide for yourself how much time you want to spend on organizing. IMO, the more of the boring, error prone routine stuff you can autoamte, the better

 

[Thupten]

Hi, I realised I got confused somewhere in this thread, due to suggestions of “DAM” equated with photo organisers that use an “index” instead of folders. I thought DAM was something I had totally overlooked and was ignorant about. Actually, there is a lot I need to learn, but I realise that Bridge and Nikon ViexNX2 (which I have been using for years) are DAM programs. But, yes, folders, and not indexes.

I’m going to buy the PDF of the Dam Book – http://thedambook.com. Apparently, the third edition might be out later this year.

Meanwhile, a quick question about Lightroom 5. If importing using “references” instead of duplicating files, if I were then to move the photos and folders around on the drive where they are stored (the drive to which Lightrooom is “referencing”) either by using Bridge or Finder, will Lightroom be able to track these changes? If a photo has been moved to a different folder, for example, how will Lightroom know where to find it in future?

 

[Thupten]

That seems like a heck of a job, if you didn't start organizing them from back in 2008...thats a problem.
I don't even know what advice to give besides getting an external drive and putting all of them onto that in a good order.

 

[ernstbk]

Hi, I realised I got confused somewhere in this thread, due to suggestions of “DAM” equated with photo organisers that use an “index” instead of folders. I thought DAM was something I had totally overlooked and was ignorant about. Actually, there is a lot I need to learn, but I realise that Bridge and Nikon ViexNX2 (which I have been using for years) are DAM programs. But, yes, folders, and not indexes.

I’m going to buy the PDF of the Dam Book – http://thedambook.com. Apparently, the third edition might be out later this year.

Meanwhile, a quick question about Lightroom 5. If importing using “references” instead of duplicating files, if I were then to move the photos and folders around on the drive where they are stored (the drive to which Lightrooom is “referencing”) either by using Bridge or Finder, will Lightroom be able to track these changes?

NO !

If a photo has been moved to a different folder, for example, how will Lightroom know where to find it in future?

You have to correct the reference. It is bad practice to manipulate the organization of your storage from outside Lightroom, and it can be really akward to do it from inside LR.

 

[Thupten]

If you import by reference, the photo file is not copied. But the place and folder it is are recorded in the cataloque file

[...]

It won't easily, and you should not do any file moving or renaming work outside of Lightroom. Not in Explorer [Finder], not in Bridge [which really is a glorified browser, not in another application

[...]

As above: no. You can do folder organising inside of Lr if you want to, but for the functioning of Lr folders are not necessary. If all of your photo's have unique names, you could put them in one folder. I still use a folder structure, with a path like data/YYYY/MM/DD. On downloading automatically get a unique name (camera+5 digits) which is never changed. Any information about location, persons, event can be added in tags. I don't spend much time on that though: just country and sometimes city (but I have gps data for most photo's I make

[...]

Yes it is. I've never understood why the full screen preview in Bridge is so bad

Sorry if some of my questions seem a bit “basic”! Thanks for your help.

Basic is good. You will have to decide for yourself how much time you want to spend on organizing. IMO, the more of the boring, error prone routine stuff you can autoamte, the better

Hi Robert,

Thank you for this information. I posted something a few minutes ago reiterating one of my main questions which you answered, and then saw your reply.

So, if I start using Lightroom. I should not do any file moving etc. outside of LR, but –– can I organise the photos+folders I have FROM LR?? In short, does LR also have "Bridge-like" capabilities for files not imported but only "referenced" in LR? As far as I understand, it doesn't.

As for Bridge's preview – glad it's not just me doing something wrong! Very strange Adobe haven't fixed that.

Thanks again!

Thupten

 

[Thupten]

Thanks, ernstbk!

Good to know. However, I am losing interest in Lightroom....

 

[KCook]

Hi, I realised I got confused somewhere in this thread, due to suggestions of “DAM” equated with photo organisers that use an “index” instead of folders. I thought DAM was something I had totally overlooked and was ignorant about. Actually, there is a lot I need to learn, but I realise that Bridge and Nikon ViexNX2 (which I have been using for years) are DAM programs. But, yes, folders, and not indexes.

I’m going to buy the PDF of the Dam Book – http://thedambook.com. Apparently, the third edition might be out later this year.

Meanwhile, a quick question about Lightroom 5. If importing using “references” instead of duplicating files, if I were then to move the photos and folders around on the drive where they are stored (the drive to which Lightrooom is “referencing”) either by using Bridge or Finder, will Lightroom be able to track these changes?

NO !

If a photo has been moved to a different folder, for example, how will Lightroom know where to find it in future?

You have to correct the reference. It is bad practice to manipulate the organization of your storage from outside Lightroom, and it can be really akward to do it from inside LR.

This will hold true for any DAM. ACDSee (the DAM that I use) makes it a breeze to copy or move files around various folders and volumes. So I always launch ACDSee and perform any file moves with it. That guarantees that the DB will be updated, no further effort on my part.

If it is important to you to move files around ad hoc, then forget DAMs and cook up some sort of log sheet for your file system.

Kelly

 

[DFPanno]

Photo Mechanic

 

[Thupten]

This will hold true for any DAM. ACDSee (the DAM that I use) makes it a breeze to copy or move files around various folders and volumes. So I always launch ACDSee and perform any file moves with it. That guarantees that the DB will be updated, no further effort on my part.

If it is important to you to move files around ad hoc, then forget DAMs and cook up some sort of log sheet for your file system.

Kelly

Hi Kelly,

So ACDSee uses "indexes"?

Not sure what you mean by a log sheet? Do you mean keeping track of changes by writing down details so that I can point LR, in my example, in the direct of where to find things that have moved?

 

[Moti]

Thanks, ernstbk!

Good to know. However, I am losing interest in Lightroom....

If this is the only problem you have with Lightroom, you shouldn't lose interest. If you move the file within Lightroom, which is very easy and straight forward, there is nothing further to do because Lightroom will automatically index the new location. If you do it outside Lightroom, you just have to point to the new location, which is also very easy.

Moti

 

[KCook]

This will hold true for any DAM. ACDSee (the DAM that I use) makes it a breeze to copy or move files around various folders and volumes. So I always launch ACDSee and perform any file moves with it. That guarantees that the DB will be updated, no further effort on my part.

If it is important to you to move files around ad hoc, then forget DAMs and cook up some sort of log sheet for your file system.

Kelly

Hi Kelly,

So ACDSee uses "indexes"?

Not sure what you mean by a log sheet? Do you mean keeping track of changes by writing down details so that I can point LR, in my example, in the direct of where to find things that have moved?

ACDSee uses a private database (DB), just like LR or any other DAM. Some folks prefer to refer to this private data store as an "index". If we want to get very technical on this software, there are different styles. Some would be called an "index", some would be called a "database". From the viewpoint of the user, the distinction is moot, they do the same thing. Key concept to keep in mind here is "private". The LR program can work only with its own DB, not those of any of the other DAMs. Holds true for every DAM.

By log sheet I meant a text file or spreadsheet where you hand enter your file organisation and any subsequent file moves. In other words, do by hand what a DAM does automatically. LR will NOT read any such log sheet on its own. You will have to perform the LR Import for the image in its current folder.

Kelly

 

[Carey Brown]

Let me preface this by saying I use Lightroom and love it.

DAM systems all store information about your images in a database, and that database is proprietary. One DAM program cannot read the information from another DAM program.

LR expands on the DAM theme by also storing "edits" in the database. The advantage of this is that any edit is "non-destructive", no physical manipulation of the image file takes place. The disadvantages are: 1) if your DB gets corrupted you're screwed, and 2) any edits may not translate to another DAM program should you change your mind later. Choose which DAM program you want too use carefully, it may be incredibly hard to change later once a significant investment in time and effort has been applied.

Some DAM software allows you to export some of the DB information to a file. In the case of RAW files, it would probably be in the form of an XMP file. For JPG files it may actually update the meta-data (exif/iptc) in the file itself.

WARNING: not all DAM software will allow you to export any of the DB information. One I tripped over was Faststone. I edited some keywords in Faststone but could not export it out so that other programs could read it; a task that LR does effortlessly.

XMP files aren't the universal standard that you'd like them to be. The structure of XMP files is specified, and SOME of the fields are specified, but programs like LR are allowed to insert their own proprietary fields into an XMP file. Other programs, when they encounter a proprietary field, may choose to ignore it. LR edits are stored in proprietary fields. Your XMP files generated by ACR will more than likely be readable by LR because they both come from Adobe.

A side note about DNG: Without going into depth about the pro's and con's of DNG files, be aware that DNG suffers from the same limitation that XMP files have and that is a program can store proprietary data in the DNG that is ignored by other programs.

 

[DaveOl]

On my desktop computer ( Win 7 Pro ) My pictures are all in order by date. I have make a couple of additional folders like flowers, travel, etc.

On my laptop with Win 7 though they are listed in separate files for some reason and you can only open one at a time and see the images in that one.

 

[ernstbk]

Thanks, ernstbk!

Good to know. However, I am losing interest in Lightroom....

You should not. Maybe you should adapt the way you organize your assets. It is sometimes worthwhile to re-organize before going into Lightroom but best is to keep it simple because LR provides means to organize your photos without moving using (smart) collections.

 

[yardcoyote]

Most of my images are boring or repetitious. And that's not counting the ones that are just plain bad. Out they go.

Nothing stays that isn't useful, beautiful, or a historical document. In the latter category go lousy photographs that prove you saw something amazing, and decent but artistically null shots of new babies, great grandmothers and puppies growing up.

 

[robert1955]

Hi Robert,

Thank you for this information. I posted something a few minutes ago reiterating one of my main questions which you answered, and then saw your reply.

So, if I start using Lightroom. I should not do any file moving etc. outside of LR,

Yes, that is the idea. If you change a location (folder name or similar) and then select a photo that has been moved, you get a dialogue to find it. If you then point Lr to the place where the photo now is, The program is smart enough to adapt the locations of all photos that you moved the same way, But it cannot do that for name changes and if you made changes to the folder hierarchy you will have to do it on a folder basis. So it is not impossible, but I'd strongly advise against it.

but –– can I organise the photos+folders have FROM LR??

Hope I understand your question correctly, but you can do the standard folder operations (naming, creating, deleting folders) in Lr. You can also move (drag and drop) , image files (accompanying xmp files included) between folders.

In short, does LR also have "Bridge-like" capabilities for files not imported but only "referenced" in LR? As far as I understand, it doesn't.

As for Bridge's preview – glad it's not just me doing something wrong! Very strange Adobe haven't fixed that.

Thanks again!

Thupten

 

[Thupten]

Hello,

Thanks for the many replies during my recent absence from this forum. I’ll answer the replies and info received one by one.

Recently I found a video named "Get Your DAM Workflow Under Control with Peter Krogh” which has been helpful. Working my way through it. Limited time!

Very helpful.

 

[Thupten]

By log sheet I meant a text file or spreadsheet where you hand enter your file organisation and any subsequent file moves. In other words, do by hand what a DAM does automatically. LR will NOT read any such log sheet on its own. You will have to perform the LR Import for the image in its current folder.

Kelly

Hi Kelly, Thanks for the further explanation. Okay, I’m going to make a spreadsheet as I begin to re-organise all my folders (before getting into Lightroom).

 

[Thupten]

Let me preface this by saying I use Lightroom and love it.

DAM systems all store information about your images in a database, and that database is proprietary. One DAM program cannot read the information from another DAM program.

LR expands on the DAM theme by also storing "edits" in the database. The advantage of this is that any edit is "non-destructive", no physical manipulation of the image file takes place. The disadvantages are: 1) if your DB gets corrupted you're screwed, and 2) any edits may not translate to another DAM program should you change your mind later. Choose which DAM program you want too use carefully, it may be incredibly hard to change later once a significant investment in time and effort has been applied.

Some DAM software allows you to export some of the DB information to a file. In the case of RAW files, it would probably be in the form of an XMP file. For JPG files it may actually update the meta-data (exif/iptc) in the file itself.

WARNING: not all DAM software will allow you to export any of the DB information. One I tripped over was Faststone. I edited some keywords in Faststone but could not export it out so that other programs could read it; a task that LR does effortlessly.

XMP files aren't the universal standard that you'd like them to be. The structure of XMP files is specified, and SOME of the fields are specified, but programs like LR are allowed to insert their own proprietary fields into an XMP file. Other programs, when they encounter a proprietary field, may choose to ignore it. LR edits are stored in proprietary fields. Your XMP files generated by ACR will more than likely be readable by LR because they both come from Adobe.

A side note about DNG: Without going into depth about the pro's and con's of DNG files, be aware that DNG suffers from the same limitation that XMP files have and that is a program can store proprietary data in the DNG that is ignored by other programs.

Hi Carey, I appreciate the information you provided and your helpful comments / word of caution. This is something that had crossed my mind a few times in the past when considering Lightroom. I did find that Adobe Bridge would read (some, maybe not all) metadata from Nikon ViewNX2, and vice versa, but I understand that Lightroom is far more sophisticated so there are no doubt many limitations in software compatibility. I do find the limitations of digital quite annoying. So, investing a lot of time in Lightroom is quite a commitment. Future generations looking for family history, for example, might miss a lot of detail by not using Lightroom 40 years from now! Is it all worth the time and effort, I wonder? But, at least LR is ahead of the Faststone software you referred to.

As for DNG, I guess it is still better than a RAW file from an old camera that is (maybe one day) no longer supported? At least there are fewer types of DNG than types of RAW file?

Thank you!

 

[Thupten]

Thanks, ernstbk!

Good to know. However, I am losing interest in Lightroom....

You should not. Maybe you should adapt the way you organize your assets. It is sometimes worthwhile to re-organize before going into Lightroom but best is to keep it simple because LR provides means to organize your photos without moving using (smart) collections.

Hi ernstbk, thanks. I am going to spend time re-organising my photos and folders first, before getting into using LR. This might take me quite a few months due to lack of time, but it’s good to have a plan and to know what I’m working towards.