How do you catalog your Photos?

Adobe Lightroom Beta3 has a keyword editor in its database. It lists the keywords that have been entered into the database and you just click on the keyword and it finds the images. Beta4 will probably be released in a few weeks.

--
Jim
http://jonto.zenfolio.com
 
I am still trying to figure it out myself. Does one really need a software, or some simple logic to the folders will work? Why not to move flowers to one folder named flowers with subfolders roses/daisies, etc. and family members fo a folder "family" with subfolders such as mother/father/mother in law? Trips to landmarks or vacations can be in their own folders. Does it matter what year a picture of empire state building was taken, besides, would not that info be in exif? I figured, if I take pictures in NYC every time I go there, why can't they all be in one folder regardless of day/time/year?

As for me, I am going through analysis paralysis.
 
I use two pieces of fantastic software, Picasa and Pixvue. The cool thing about this approach (besides it's cost) is that it doesn't depend on a proprietary database. As a matter of fact, there isn't much of a database, the keywords/tags are stored on the image files themselves, so if you send the image to a different computer, it can be indexed based on the tags.

http://www.pixvue.com/

http://picasa.google.com/
 
I must say I have been using Thumbs Plus since version 3. It is currently at version 7. It is one of the best all in one solutions. It supports RAW formats, and has wide variety of options and a very in depth search function.

It also enables the following which will solve your issue in terms of finding that darned flower picture. You can store your images however you like, for example, by year, month and then date. Allow Thumbs Plus to scan through your folders to make thumbnails of all the pictures. Then you can start creating virtual galleries. IE Create a Gallery called flower and then drag and drop all the flower pictures you have into this gallery. It doesn't copy it into a folder called gallery. The picture is still where it was before. ThumbsPlus however has a stable database behind it which allows it to "remember" that you dragged x pictures into the gallery called "Flowers". In one of your pictures however you notice your god Daughter is in the picture holding a flower. So you drag and drop it in the the virtual gallery called "Family". Now you have your picture in both the "flowers" gallery and the "family" gallery all the while it is still in the original folder structure. Creating galleries is done in an explorer like window (ie with ultimate ease). If you have a large number of pictures at the already then it will take a little while to catalog all your pictures. But once that is done everytime you download pics from memory card it is a simple couple of drag and drops each time.

The best thing about this is when a new version of thumbs plus is released, you are able to import your database into the new version with no issues and your galleries remain. Also say your computer needs to be re installed or you have to migrate to your new computer because the old one is not cutting it anymore, then all you do is move your photos of course, copy the thumbs plus db file to the new PC, re-install thumbs plus on the new PC and hey presto you haven't lost a thing.

http://www.cerious.com/thumbnails.shtml

Although I am a big fan of thumbs plus, to each his own, what works for some doesn't for others. best thing to do is copy 100 photos from your collection into a temporary folder, download several different softwares and see how quickly and comfortably you can catalog those 100 photos. And once you've cataloged how easy it is to find the photo that you are looking for and then compare your results to all the rest. Sounds like a lot of work to do. But when you are looking for that flower photo, in your collection 50,000 photos you'll appreciate the couple of hours you spent in researching your catalog software.

Hope I added to the solution and did not introduce too much confusion.
Cheers,
Oz.
 
I think that's what most people do and that works fine - as long as you only want to search based on one criteria.

But what if you have a folder called 'New York' and another folder called 'LA' both containing photos of Bob and Sue. You can't easily find all pictures of Bob because they're in (at least) 2 different directories.

With tagging, and especially combining multiple tags for a search, it's much more powerful and quicker. You can immeditely find for example 'All photos of Bob AND Tracie in New York at Christmas'. You can't do that with just simple hierarchical directories.

But I must admit, it's rare that I actually need it. I'm usually just browsing through the one directory anyway. But it's nice to have on the odd occasion you need it.

Cheers.
 
I'm still working on this. Adobe Photoshop Album is pretty good, but whatever you use you still have the work of putting in the tags. If you have a photo of John and Jane by some exotic flowers in Italy for example, you can add a tag for John, another for Jane, one for the name of the flower, and another for Italy, so a search for any one will find that photo. But to go back and tag thousands of photos is going to take a while.

I'm not sure what happens if you move a photo from the directory where it was when you tagged it to a different one. It's a good idea to have a sensible directory structure to start with.
 
I beg to differ. I have been using the thing for more than three years now and have finally decided to drop it and switch to either Extensis' Portfolio or Iview. In the process, I will lose all the information stored for near 10.000 photos.

This loss is related to the same problem which has plagued my experience with this program: it is obviously an engineer's script written for engineers. No comprehensible help, tutorials or support of any kind. Very limited and kriptic fora, very slow replies by developer (one can see this is a cathedral buit by a single man: it is huge in its conception but it goes well beyond the builder's capacity) etc. If you don't beleive me, check out the forum and keep in mind that fora ARE THE ONLY ONLINE HELP AVAILABLE. What you see is what you'll ever get. If you understand the threads, well, lucky yo. As an example, the whole damn thing is written in a dialect of one of the worst programing languages ever, called saxbasic! (now really!) And all the author has to say about it is "you can allways learn something new" Of course, there is no documentation around on this probably interesting if somewhat obscure speech.

Double check before you get engaged in this, because again, there's not an explanation on how to export your data to any other commercial application. A capability that the program developer claims it has but it doesn't, at least not written in a human language, that is. I will be glad to take back my words when anyone points me from here to a link showing this.

Don't beleive that trying any program will show its flaws during a 30 days trial preiod. I am slower than average, I reckon, but it took a couple years for me to run accross tasks which required to script into the program. Then it was kind of late...
 
I'm still working on this. Adobe Photoshop Album is pretty good,
but whatever you use you still have the work of putting in the
tags.
Yes... There no way around that. Only you can decide which tags to add to which pictures. You CAN select multiple images, and then drag a tag over it, so it can be done quite quickly.
If you have a photo of John and Jane by some exotic flowers
in Italy for example, you can add a tag for John, another for Jane,
one for the name of the flower, and another for Italy, so a search
for any one will find that photo. But to go back and tag thousands
of photos is going to take a while.

I'm not sure what happens if you move a photo from the directory
where it was when you tagged it to a different one. It's a good
idea to have a sensible directory structure to start with.
If you're using Photoshop Album, then you really should forget about the directory structure. Your tagging IS your directory. A dynamically created one...
 
I beg to differ. I have been using the thing for more than three
years now and have finally decided to drop it and switch to either
Extensis' Portfolio or Iview. In the process, I will lose all the
information stored for near 10.000 photos.

This loss is related to the same problem which has plagued my
experience with this program: it is obviously an engineer's script
written for engineers. No comprehensible help, tutorials or support
of any kind. Very limited and kriptic fora, very slow replies by
developer (one can see this is a cathedral buit by a single man: it
is huge in its conception but it goes well beyond the builder's
capacity) etc. If you don't beleive me, check out the forum and
keep in mind that fora ARE THE ONLY ONLINE HELP AVAILABLE. What you
see is what you'll ever get. If you understand the threads, well,
lucky yo. As an example, the whole damn thing is written in a
dialect of one of the worst programing languages ever, called
saxbasic! (now really!) And all the author has to say about it is
"you can allways learn something new" Of course, there is no
documentation around on this probably interesting if somewhat
obscure speech.

Double check before you get engaged in this, because again, there's
not an explanation on how to export your data to any other
commercial application. A capability that the program developer
claims it has but it doesn't, at least not written in a human
language, that is. I will be glad to take back my words when anyone
points me from here to a link showing this.

Don't beleive that trying any program will show its flaws during a
30 days trial preiod. I am slower than average, I reckon, but it
took a couple years for me to run accross tasks which required to
script into the program. Then it was kind of late...
Wow. I don't have time to respond to this message in every detail right now (I am away from IMatch) but suffice it to say that it is wrong on so many fronts. Just a few quick comments:
  • IMatch is not a "script written for engineers". It's a large, complex software application with hundreds of features. Most importantly, it's fast, stable and rock solid.
  • IMatch has an extensive manual, hundreds of pages long, available, online and in the application.
  • IMatch has an extensive starting tutorial giving an overview of the application.
  • IMatch manual and scripting engine and outside tutorials (created by users) all explain the scripting language, give examples of uses, and full syntax and documentation.
  • Scripting language is a variant of Visual Basic. You may not like the language but it's far from difficult to learn or use. In addition, you have the advantage of the large body of knowledge on Visual Basic. I have in the past simply lifted whole chunks of freely available Visual Basic code into IMatch scripts without a single edit being necessary.
  • Support is excellent. You write an email to the appropriate support email and Mario writes you back, usually within a day or two.
  • Forum is excellent. You ask a question and either Mario himself or any of several competent and helpful users, scripters, and advanced users write back with advice and in some cases, fully coded scripts for specific needs.
  • There's also a fully independent website with a list of all currently available scripts. http://www.brogger.us/scripts/
Bottom line: there's absolutely no reason to lose 10,000 images worth of information. None. If you want to export it, do it. I don't know what you need, how your information is organized, etc. I can't do it for you. You want to export the data? Read the manual, read the forum, look at the MANY available export scripts or built-in function and try it. Still confused? Ask on the IMatch forum.

Now, I am not saying IMatch is a simple program or always intuitive to everyone. That's highly personal. Also, managing digital images is not a simple topic. There are simply too many different types of files, too many formats of metadata, and, most importantly, as many ways of organizing information as there are users. Similarly, Photoshop gives you the power to edit your digital image in a million different ways, and as a result, it is anything but intuitive to use for a beginner. However, a lot of people use both of these programs b/c they offer tons of features and are reliable. If you like a different program, then go ahead and use it. But you are doing a disservice to everyone by coming here and spreading this kind of misinformation.

I have tried most of the DAM programs and NONE was perfect. They all had strengths and weaknesses but I found IMatch the most intuitve as well as the best in terms of power, speed and stabilility. Also, it scales extremely well with database size. All this for a very reasonable price (in comparison for example with IView or Portfolio or, of course, Photoshop).

-Alex
 
I prefer to rely on the Windows file system rather than proprietary software/database. My methods have evolved over the years but my current approach is to create a folder using the date and subject for example "20060920 New Zealand". I then create a "RAW" folder within it and copy the RAW files into that. The processed files end up in the root directory. I might also create other folders for "WEB" (reduced to 900 x 600) and perhaps "Best".

I have experimented with storing a description in the file properties but neither Windows nor many applications make this very convenient. One exception here is FotoStation which allows bulk editing of the file caption and can print the caption with the photos. I think that this is much better than using a database because the caption etc stays with the file and even survives some conversions.

I am hoping that Vista will improve on XP in this regard. XP was a step forward but there is room to improve the captioning and cataloging of photos within the file system.
--
**** Campbell
http://www.pbase.com/dickcampbell19
http://users.bigpond.net.au/RACampbell
 
I downloaded IMatch and gave it a try yesterday - pretty good.

But after about 20 mins of testing I realise it's no match for ACDSee in one important respect - speed. That's quite important for me.

When browsing through a directory of photos quickly there is quite a delay between photos (and I've got a new Laptop with 1GB RAM etc). I'm not sure if it's just because ACDSee preloads the next and previous images into memory, but ACDSee is definitely way faster. It looks quite nice, but for this reason alone I think I'll give it a miss.

Cheers.
 
I downloaded IMatch and gave it a try yesterday - pretty good.

But after about 20 mins of testing I realise it's no match for
ACDSee in one important respect - speed. That's quite important for
me.

When browsing through a directory of photos quickly there is quite
a delay between photos (and I've got a new Laptop with 1GB RAM
etc). I'm not sure if it's just because ACDSee preloads the next
and previous images into memory, but ACDSee is definitely way
faster. It looks quite nice, but for this reason alone I think I'll
give it a miss.

Cheers.
You are talking about slideshow display?
How slow are you talking about? For me, I can get 0.5-
Are these jpgs or Raw files you are browsing?

The slide show will go faster if you change the following settings in options/preferences:
Display: Turn off sharpening
Color Management: All off


Slideshow: Use low-res preview images for suitable formats (applies to Raw - i.e. it shows the embedded jpg preview).

IMatch also started pre-caching images into memory recently.

All the same, You might still be right. I just didn't want you to miss on those options.

Good luck!
-Alex
 
No not the slideshow. I just meant manually scrolling through photos (just by using the mouse wheel to go from one picture to the next)

Yes IMatch only takes less than a second or so for each photo, but ACDSee blitzes through them (several in 1 second). I don't mean when I'm studying each photo in detail of course, because then I would want to look at each one more than 1 second anyway. I mean when I'm rapidly scrolling through looking for a picture a few ahead.

May not be a big deal for some, but it slows me down a lot and gets frustrating after a while. ACDSee is just more snappy. But otherwise it looks like a good alternative.

Cheers.
 
Hi,

some tips regarding display performance:

In IMatch you can view images in the slide show, or in the "Preview" window on the left. When you switch to the preview window, and then navigate among the thumbnails on the right, IMatch waits for about 1/2 second before it loads the image into the preview.

This allows the users who prefer to work with the keyboard during the intial culling process after a shooting or while sitting with a client to freely navigate without waiting for the preview view.

But since you see all the thumbnails, you can directly jump to an image by just clicking on it.

Tip: Use rather large (e.g. 300x300 pixel) thumbnails for your database, and then configure one of the level-of-detail modes to show the thumbnails at 100%. Having 300x300 previews of a folder is pretty good and usually allows to find an image real fast.

Tip: You can use the blue arrow button on the left of the toolbar to hide all secondary windows so you see only the thumbnails. Even you use very large tumbnails, you should get 3x2 or 4x4 á 300 pixel on a screen.

By switching to another log mode with smaller thumbnails you can immediately view about 50, 80, 100 or more thumbnails at once, which is a big help when you work with folders with hundreds of files.

Even for a folder with thousands of images, the thumbnail window scrolls as fast as you can scroll the mouse or more the scroll bar. If not, make sure that your virus checker does not constantly scan the IMatch database files. This happens quite often and the effects are dramatic.

The performance of the preview window on the left (Ctrl+4) and the slide show (Ctrl+F12) depends on several factors, including things like color management (costs about 300% performance), if you use dynamic display sharpen or things like high-quality resampling in fit-to-screen mode.

If you don't apply a color-managed workflow or you don't care for color accuracy, turning these features off will boost the performance a lot while viewing your images. To get a display performance, color accuracy and image quality comparable to ACDSee, turn all these advanced options off in IMatch.

If you work with RAW files, enabling the off-line caching will allow IMatch to cache previews of your images on disk, which is several times faster than loading the RAW image each time you click on a thumbnail. Even for large 16 MP images the display time drops down to a second or so.

But this will of course require more disk space, which may be a problem if you have more than 100,000 or 150,000 images managed in IMatch. Hence IMatch gives you full control over which images to cache, which size and quality you want. On a per-folder level. Other applications just do that, in the background. In IMatch you have the choice.

What often slows things down is displaying metadata information. IMatch may have to extract and parse the IPTC and EXIF data embedded in your images when you show this information below the thumbnails or in the property window (EXIF, IPTC oder User tabs).

Extracting EXIF data or IPTC data from an image and making sense of all the information can take longer than loading the actual image data - especially when your image file format uses EXIF maker notes or proprietary metadata fields.

For better performance, please use the cached XMP metadata to define what you see below the thumbnails and in the property windows. IMatch keeps copies of this data inside the database, and must not access the original image to retrieve the information every time you display it.

For faster navigation in the slide show, make sure you enable the film strip window ('S' key). Here you can scroll almost instantly even when you view hundreds of images in the slide show. You can toggle the film strip window to show below or on the right so it won't interfere with your image display (Press 'S' several times).

The info window in the slide show ('I' key) also allows you to display customized information gathered from EXIF and IPTC and XMP. Here again IMatch will access the original data in the file when you display EXIF and IPTC information (may take a second or more to extract that information). Use XMP variables in the info window template and also the tooltip templates for best performance.

Of course you can also turn all these features off to gain more speed. For most users 1 image per second is fast enough for culling and viewing, though. IMatch caches images shown in the slide show, so going back is instant. IMatch does preload the next image(s) in sequence in the slide show, but reading the pixels, doing proper resampling, color management, metadata extraction can take some time.

If you work only with JPEG files and have no color managed workflow, ACDSee is still the fastest program around for viewing this file format. Especially the normal version without color management is very fast when rendering JPEG files. But IMatch comes real close.

-- Mario M. Westphal - Author of IMatch
photools.com - Digital Image Management Solutions
[email protected]
http://www.photools.com
  • I do not monitor this forum on a regular basis.
  • Please contact me via email for a timely answer.
 
Was thinking of getting CS2 as my post processing program. Does it have any cataloguing abilities such as Elements 3 and 4 has?
Thanks
 
As I said, the manual doesn't cover very basic aspects of the application and it sends the reader to unspecified users' fora and unknown scripts.

Imatch manual and scripting engine give nothing of the sort you say it does. It even encourages the user to go ahead and learn Saxbasic, stating "it is always fun to learn something new"! Well, probably for a programmer, but I happen to be a photographer and intend to remain one. Besides, if I want a new hobby I'd rather choose it myself than find it's something I need in order to use a product I paid for.

Simplicity is part of the problem with VB ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_basic#Weaknesses ), using a language that is not object oriented to build an object oriented program is another, but the main problem here is Why should I ever need to program anything to perform the most basic functions in a program I acquired?

One should never forget that Imatch is a copyright program. You say it's cheap. Maybe you don't value your time much or else you are forgeting to factor it in the calculation. Portfolio, Cumulus, Iview, etc. might be more expensive in dolars, but they sure are finished products. You might like them or not, but you won't end up working for a Mario guy. And BTW, did somebody notice the steep price curve as he issues new versions with functionalities that his competitors had incorporated long ago (XMP, mainly)?

I find your loyalty to this program touching. Why is it you go out of your way to compare it favourably with its competitors? How saying that the other programs are not perfect either could help people who asked specifically about this one? How on earth can anyone compare, as you do, a program with 2300 users (registered people in the forum) with Photoshop?

Regretably, your intention to silent disent is less than cute. What kind of authority do you think you have to state "you are doing a disservice to everyone by coming here and spreading this kind of misinformation"? On the contrary, I am giving everybody the benefit of my experience, which happens to differ from yours.

Can you live with that, is it ok for you to be part of a community where you can't bully people into silence with your insults? Because in fact, you didn't provide much in the way of facts. Your opinions notwithstanding,THERE IS ONLY ONE EXPORT SCRIPT IN THE LINKS YOU GAVE, AND THAT, TO ACDSEE ONLY.

Bottom line is: my time is valuable. If I want to become a programmer I cooperate with some other code writers on an opensource project (WHICH IS FREE FOR USERS) If I want to take pictures, then I am a photographer and don't have time for scripts. In any case, I don't buy a program to find out that I have to rely on a "comunity" of users which share bug-ridden (thanks to VB) scripts.

Have you ever wondered what will Mario tell you the day when when you address him, afer having pasted one of those chuncks of code you use and got all your pictures and the rest of your harddrive erased by a bug/virus in it? I bet it will be something like "did you back everything up before doing that?" and "well you know, I can't possibly take responsibility on any script circulating out there, can I?"
 
sekS_Word,

I have no reason or interest in silencing dissent - you can use whatever program you want and you can post your opinions. That is certainly helpful. However, misrepresenting facts is not. Especifically, as I pointed out, many of your facts were wrong. For instance, in your original post, you stated, among other things, that IMatch has no "No comprehensible help, tutorials or support of any kind. Very limited and kriptic fora, very slow replies by developer". Now, these are very strong statements. Are they right? No, they are shockingly WRONG. All of them. Do I need to repeat myself? Read my post again. Or, better yet, click the Help button on IMatch: First line - Contents (hundreds of pages). Second line - Tutorial (58 pages). Support - About IMatch, "[email protected]". Forum - average of 30-50 posts/day, many from Mario himself. Slow replies - Not my experience. These are the facts. Comprehensible help? Just tell us how many comprehensible or comprehensive manuals do you own? Photoshop? Microsoft Office? IMatch's is better than I would expect for this kind of product and the forum is always available and invariably helpful in answering questions.

Moving on - I have no vested interest or loyalty in IMatch. If something better comes along, I'll certainly consider switching. I have several times in the past discussed specific weaknesses and strengths of the various programs. As a result, I frequently test new programs and versions. I put the time and effort to test out these programs and find out what worked best for me. In the end, as a complete package, I still consider IMatch to be the best, for ME, at this time.

Some weaknesses, for example, that I find in IMatch: - Steep learning curve; - Some features hidden in UI or confusingly named; - No Native Versioning. These are legitimate concerns and need to be addressed. I am particularly interested in having that last feature implemented in IMatch.

Now, other programs are stronger in these aspects but have weaknesses that are, on the balance, more debilitating to me. Picasa, for example, is easy to use/learn, but has some incredible limitations (such as rigid requirements on directory structure display, and inability to display selected pictures from multiple folders) and horrendous support (then again, it's free). Idimager has got lots of potential but as of now it's still too buggy, slow at categorizing (in my hands) and I find the UI more complicated than IMatch's (all these are being addressed and may improve in the future). On the other hand, it has versioning and terrific support (2nd to none). IView and Portfolio cost 3x time as much as IMatch. IMatch upgrade was very reasonably priced, I think, especially for users who hadn't paid a penny in years(!) (by comparison upgrade for Iview is $120!) - and I am not really sure if they are more powerful (certainly reviewers for one, don't think so, look, for example, at Luminous Landscape review). In the end, it doesn't matter - use what you like. I tested them and liked IMatch better. Your needs might be different from mine and so be it.

IMatch's strengths as I see them: very extensive feature set. Among other things, it offers the power of dynamic categories, very solid performance with increasing database size, and it works remarkably fast (for example, categorizing with N different categories is remarkably fast and easy). These are key things for me. Even if an application is hard to learn, if the investment is worth it in the end in terms of power and stability, then I am willing to make the effort (same is true for Photoshop). For me, IMatch, once you learn to use it, is extremely powerful and efficient. My time IS valuable and I work through cataloging images in IMatch very quickly. Scripting is also a plus for me - not a negative. It gives me the freedom to customize the application to my needs. You invest a little effort in programming or asking for a script, and you'll reap n fold benefit in productivity.

In any case, I am not trying to convince you. I just want to present the facts and my opinions (both con AND PRO) fairly for the benefit of all. Let's try to help each other rather than spread invective. Please feel free to come here and tell us what features you like in your new program after you have switched, and we will certainly appreciate it and consider them ourselves. Certainly none of the DAM applications I've tried is anywhere near perfect and different programs are appropriate for different people.

Lastly, there is no reason to lose all your data. What - you want a button on IMatch that says "Transfer data from IMatch to IView"?! Sorry, that doesn't exist. Do you know any other DAM application that does that? You need to find out what format(s) your target application wants. Probably several would do. I'm sure one is IPTC. Use one of the many IPTC writing scripts in IMatch (All Purpose IPTC Writer)(Imatch to IPTC) to write the IMatch data to IPTC in the images. Make sure to backup everything before you do that, of course. Then, go to your target program, load up your pictures and import all the data from IPTC. You'll probably have questions. Ask the forums. It's really not that difficult. There's no 5 min solution either. But you certainly will save time compared to re-creating all the information in your new program.

Incidentally, your comments about copyrights and open-source and bugs in VB - why should Mario be responsible for bugs that I bring in via scripts obtained on the web? It's my responsibility to keep my data backed up and safe - from scripts and from the web and from N viruses out there. Even if you don't agree with that - you are aware that IView was bought my Microsoft, right?

Good luck,
-Alex
 
On a win32 machine, Thumbs+. Whole heartedly recommend it. I've been using that since v2, it's excellent. You can store the files anywhere, and you can even store the data in a sql server so as to use Thumbs+ as a front end to let multiple people manage the data. (If you're really ingenious you can back-end a web-photo-gallery by the data in the sql server).

On the Mac side, I use iPhoto. Though I've been experimenting with using Aperture lately. It gives you far more information from the EXIF about the photo then iPhoto does. Which I'm finding very nice when trying to figure out what about a particular shot went right, or more often wrong.

98% of the time I'm in iPhoto. The other is Aperture. I only use Thumbs+ when I'm forced to work in a Windows environment.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top