Best photo organizer?

dwharrison wrote:
[snip]

dwharrison said:

XMP is stored directly within the image file for JPEG, TIFF, PSD,
and DNG files, just like IPTC, except for Raw files, which are
treated as read-only since they are not documented formats. For
these files, XMP is stored in a "sidecar" file with the same
filename as the image but with an .XMP extension.

Click to expand...

[snip]

Correct, except for one tiny detail.

For some cameras, DNG is the native raw format. In those cases, the XMP can safely be stored within the raw file itself.

(Eg. take a Leica DMR raw file, which happens to be DNG, add a copyright statement or description, set some parameters in ACR, and if you are using 3.2 the XMP gets embedded in the DNG file, in the same format as the contents of an XMP sidecar file).

I suppose I am quibbling about the distinction between "DNG files" and "Raw files". DNG is also raw. Just not the NATIVE raw of most cameras.

dwharrison wrote:
[snip]

dwharrison said:

To this mix, I have added PixVue. It operates as a set of shell
extensions that makes Windows aware of Raw formats (e.g. allows
generation of thumbnails) and it has full XMP support so that XMP
can be viewed or edited directly from within Windows.

Click to expand...

[snip]

Does PixVue handle DNG files? (The website doesn't say. I convert to DNG from the card, so all my raw files are DNG files).

Recently there were a lot of posting on this forum about IPTC support in tools. Finally someone here notices that IPTC is no longer the way to go but XMP is. While some tools are slowly migrating to IPTC support (e.g. ACDSee), they should actually forget about that and focus on XMP and support IPTC in a transparent manner, only for backward compatibility with older tools.

The great advantage of XMP is its extensibility. You did mention that too. With IPTC you are limited to the few fields that the IPTC organisation have defined. With XMP you have the oppertunity to extend those fields and define almost anything you would want to store/describe for your images. A tool that calls itself a XMP editor should at least offer features to extend XMP. Only then you get the most out of it.

Right now I am not aware of any "true" XMP editor besides Photoshop. And even Photoshop offers XMP extending in a way that it is hardly usable for the average user.

The next major update of idImager contains an XMP editor. You seem to be well on the way of creating a workflow around XMP (one of the few). How would you like to beta-test the next version of idimager and test its XMP support? If you like, you can contact me at "hvz at idimager . com"

-----------------------------
Developer of idimager
Developer of Phoice
Amateur Photographer: http://hertwig.phoice.com

Barry Pearson said:

Correct, except for one tiny detail.

For some cameras, DNG is the native raw format. In those cases, the
XMP can safely be stored within the raw file itself.

(Eg. take a Leica DMR raw file, which happens to be DNG, add a
copyright statement or description, set some parameters in ACR, and
if you are using 3.2 the XMP gets embedded in the DNG file, in the
same format as the contents of an XMP sidecar file).

I suppose I am quibbling about the distinction between "DNG files"
and "Raw files". DNG is also raw. Just not the NATIVE raw of most
cameras.

Click to expand...

I had listed DNG as one of the file types that supported XMP stored within the file. I wasn't aware of the Leica situation - that any camera manufacturer was producing DNG files within the camera. So yes, it would be more clear to say that any non-DNG raw format uses sidecar files for XMP. Thanks for the clarification.

I don't work with DNG so I've never actually tested this.

So no one here is using Elements 4? Will it handle any of the exportable tags?

Did not see enough in the Elements 4 package to make the upgrade price worth it.

--
(See profile for equipment)

I was in the same situation as you not long ago. However, after downloading Idimager for free, I was amazed how quickly I learned this program. With your experience, you would find this program quite easy to learn, I am sure. Even for this inexpensive program, it offers almost any feature you will find in other organizing software. But the best advantage it the support you will get. Simply amazing!! In fact, I had a suggestion for the developer that I thought would improve the program. I understand he will be incorporating it into version 3. How many times does that happen? Also, any improvements are disturbed much faster than with other programs. Larger companies wait until they have many new changes before shoving out a new update. And best of all he doesn't charge addtional fees for major updates!

Ken

I've never been happy with photo organizers. I suggest you organize them yourself in a sensible, logical way that meets your needs and fits your way of thinking and doing. Then, use the viewer of your choice (for the price Irfanview can't be beat, imho) to view and and do minor manipulation of them.

It doesn't take a didicated program to organize photos any more than it does to organize ones documents, or socks and underwear!

All the best.

Original poster here. I just read that iView and Portfolio are releasing new versions of their software shortly. I really like iView but its inability to email photos was a sticking point for me. Well the new version will be able to email photos, so I am seriously considering buying it.

I almost bought Elements 4.0 (I have PSE 3.0 now), but despite the increase in speed from 3.0 it is still frustratingly slow compared to other organizers. ACDSee is annoying in that it shows Canon raw thumbnail files with the raw files - hopefully will be addressed in the next or pro version. Also, from reading support forums and reviews, a lot of people seem to be frustrated with Portfolio and ACDSee support and updates. While iView isn't cheap (hopefully they will have discounts like they have with Media Pro 2.6), for something I use practically every single day it may be worth it. Can't wait to try it out at the beginning of November.

I think Mario at photools should release the next version of iMatch soon before a lot of the current users start using these new tools and possibly switch. As an iMatch owner, if the program was updated and had a better UI, I would seriously consider sticking with it.

Peter

Stude said:

I've never been happy with photo organizers. I suggest you
organize them yourself in a sensible, logical way that meets your
needs and fits your way of thinking and doing. Then, use the
viewer of your choice (for the price Irfanview can't be beat, imho)
to view and and do minor manipulation of them.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with you. It's a matter of quantity and needs with your pictures. If you have the time to browse thousands of pictures looking for a particular content that's OK. But I think that my computer can do this quicker than me and better (of course you have to catalog correctly first)

Stude said:

It doesn't take a didicated program to organize photos any more
than it does to organize ones documents, or socks and underwear!

Click to expand...

If you compare socks with pictrures why not, but in my case I have far more pictures than socks !

--
CP 5700, D70s
FCAS Member
Visit my gallery at :
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/fox67

Fox67 said:

If you compare socks with pictrures why not, but in my case I have
far more pictures than socks !

Click to expand...

And even then, I keep losing socks...

I generally use Bridge but find the fact that you cannot search photos by IPTC keywords (a boolean search, for example) rather frustrating and it somewhat defeats the purpose of cataloguing software like Bridge IMO.

That's why I'm giving iView a long hard look, though it might be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in my case. Can anyone recommend any (preferabley free) software that allows boolean searches of IPTC data?

Just to clarify... I don't mean to suggest you cannot search metadata in Bridge, just that the Find function is kinda clunky and I find it somewhat limited (I cannot search within just the "location" tag, for example).

RobertE said:

Hi Peter,

Most professional photographers will use and recommend iView
MediaPro (although this is mainly a Mac thing). Most amateurs will
recommend IMatch.

Click to expand...

So, comparing the two above and maybe also including Adobe Bridge: What are the main differences, and why is it that professionals prefer iView and amateurs iMatch?

I'm also looking for a tool that supports IPTC (and/or XMP), and deals properly with NEF files and supports a workflow where Nikon Capture can be used as well. In addition, it must be based on open standards -- some of the the PC's here in the house runs Linux, and I'd love to be able to use the same image database from all PC's. Either through wine or by writing small scripts/programs to extract information from XMP files.

Rgds,

-- Per.

I don't know that amateurs prefer iMatch - I would guess that amateurs prefer PS Elements, Picasa, etc. iMatch has a complicated user interface and a lot of adbaced features. It is the last program I would recommend to an amatuer who was relatively new to digital photography, but an advanced amateur may like it.

I really hope an update to iMatch is released soon.

Peter

Thanks for the reply.

So... the userinterface of iMatch is a bit complicated, I take?

More differences? Anything iMatch cannot do? Looks like it supports NEF writing also.

peterm1 said:

I really hope an update to iMatch is released soon.

Click to expand...

What is missing? I had a look at the two, and it seems that iMatch does most of what I would think I need... but I can easily have overlooked something that is already in one of the other programs.

-- Per.

Well, everyone has different needs, but iMatch is quite full featured. I don't like how it can't display thumbnails for my Casio EX-Z750 video files, but that is just a small specific need that can't be met. I suggest trying it out.

Peter

This is a great thread. Anyone found any interesting internet sources for head to head comparisons of these organizing programs?

Which program is best for just FAST viewing with the ability to do basic categorization?