-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Organizing your photos - software used, best methods and categories
- Thread starter photogizmo
- Start date
I have too many slides and negatives so scan all of them, so I made a selection of a few thousand that I scanned (some through a scanning service, most with a DSLR/macro setup). At least I don't have to discard bad images later on ;-) After going through my collection (just takes took several weeks) I discarded a lot of old slides and negative series that are no longer valuable e.g. because I have better recent images and they have no historical value.
All my slides and negatives are numbered or can be traced to the film roll number plus the image number of that roll of film. For most of the film rolls I know the date when images were taken, with a brief description of the subjects/locations. Only in the early nineties I didn't take any records, so for those I don't have a date, but I can guess what year they were taken ;-)
I'm organising my scans by subject (about 20 categories), and name them according to film/image number plus a year/month before that, e.g. 198508DIA145.36 (that is image number 36 from slide roll 145, from august 1985). The dates in the name are convenient for later use and help with sorting. Maybe one day I will write the dates or keywords in the EXIF but that's a lot of work again so might never happen. With the amount of scans I have organising in folders is pretty effective.
My scans are mostly in jpeg form, if I really need the best quality I can scan again in TIFF but for my use in photobooks, internet or small print the current 12MP jpegs are fine. The advantage of jpeg is that I can quickly view the thumbnails, with TIFF that takes ages on my slow computer (Atom 330 cpu). With 10.000 TIFF scans this systems would not work I guess...
yes, lots of work but should be worth it as scanning and correcting old slides/negatives (he shifts, dust spots, other damage) takes a lot more time than these 10 seconds.
One start to the key wording would be to go through each subject category, select all images in that category, then assign the subject name as a keyword to the whole batch. Doing the same for date would be a bit more tedious but ought to go quickly. That would at least record the work you've done in the image metadata.
I use a simple folder structure.
All my digital photos are under one folder.
Then within that I use descriptive sub-folder names like "Southern France 2013" etc.
Then for more recent photos, I use LR's star mechanism to easily filter good photos against each folder.
That is enough for me to find photos.
All my digital photos are under one folder.
Then within that I use descriptive sub-folder names like "Southern France 2013" etc.
Then for more recent photos, I use LR's star mechanism to easily filter good photos against each folder.
That is enough for me to find photos.
Last edited:
I don't need to do that for my scans as the subject folders are the 'metadata' now. This works fine for my amount of scans (a few thousand). Within the folders the images are automatically sorted by date so it is pretty easy to finds something by subject and approximate date.
Having metadata in the files themselves and searching through a catalog program like Lightroom that includes ALL my images would be nice. But I'm (mostly) a hobby photographer, I think I'd better spend my time taking pictures than cataloguing. If that means I sometimes oversee old images that I have scanned so be it ...
Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
While it shares much with Pro 6 for the PC, it is considered a different product with its own release cycles, a slightly different mix of features, and even a different pricing structure. On the ACDSee sponsored user forums there seems to be a stronger division between those who love it and those who hate it. Not being a Mac person, I could not say why with any credibility. I do believe there is a 30 day free trial available.
Maybe a visit to the ACDSee User Forums is also warranted. The culture on that forum is that nobody holds back when they like or dislike something about the products. I've never seen any personal attacks or nastiness; it's always polite there, but they DO say what they feel. It isn't a fanboy site.
Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
I can't figure out how to delete this post - Too early in the morning I guess. I'll start a new thread, I think.
--
I still like soup. . .
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7267302@N03/
--
I still like soup. . .
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7267302@N03/
Last edited:
Old shots? I'd probably put them in my scans - old family shots folder.
I don't rename the files I take except for a scheme to guarantee that I won't get identical file names when shooting with two cameras. I use the path name as metadata, and use the file name to identify the camera used and the image number thus guaranteeing no name conflicts.
You're missing the point. My point isn't that keywords are useless (they aren't), it's that path names are useful, and not using them is a waste of the most compatible bit of metadata you have available.
No name conflicts.
No, you're missing the point. I use a folder hierarchy to organize my images. I don't use the file names for each image as keywords. If I go to Hawaii, I put the resultant images in Trips - Hawaii 2013, for example. If I go on a family outing to a concert or whatever, I put the resultant images into a folder representing that event. Birthdays, holidays, airshows, whatever, they all have a spot in the hierarchy. I see no good reason at all not to do that. It takes very little time, it's incredibly useful, and it's compatible with basically everything. If you lose your keywords, you'd still have all the images in a reasonable organization.
Except that it's compatible with everything, and it's written right into the file paths by default.
The "NUTS" part is about NOT using the path name, and instead populating it with redundant (and thus useless) metadata (date, for example). To me, it's like having every book in the Library labeled "Book" - it's meaningless because it doesn't add value, and it's a waste of probably the most important descriptive piece of data about the book - its title.
I don't have a problem with people using keywording, I have a problem with the recommendation from the DAM to NOT use the path name.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Last edited:
Edward Sargent
Senior Member
I have been using ACDSee for at least 5 years and I love it.
Which I regard as a bug, not a feature. See below.
The trouble with using pathname *and* keywording is that they have very different roles in managing a large image library. pathnames refer to a logical location in the file system and in the backup. I use pathnames to manage where images are located in my filesystem and backup.
Keywords tag image content. Image content is a complex matter with questions of who, what, when, and where. That's what keywords (and other metadata handles so well) describe, and which I want to editable and maintainable. I don't want changes I make in keywords to require me to move images around, rename paths or files, or worse, keep multiple versions of an image or filename alieas in order to include it in several places in the keyword hierarchy.
Your library analogy is an interesting one. Books in well run library are actually located by unique ID, not title. You can search catalog by title, subject, author, keyword, all kinds of other metadata, of course, and then you're given a unique ID (i.e., filename) and location (i.e., pathname) where to find it. By separating the physical location from the content description, librarians make their catalogs far more usable than if they were to simply place books on the shelf by major subject. I prefer to organize my images as a library with real catalog, rather than as a massive Barnes and Noble bookstore with subject headings hanging from the ceiling.
The DAM book points out the limitations of using pathnames to encode image content, and recommends separating the two functions. This strikes me a generally good advice for the reasons mentioned above. Imho you're way off base to dismiss these distinctions out of hand as 'crazy' or 'nuts'. What you do may work for you, but it wouldn't work for me for the typical use cases I've described in other posts on this thread.
With regard to robustness, EXIF metadata and keyword features are supported by essentially all photography software these days. The are minor compatibility issues, of course, but they're on par with what you'd have with file and pathname conventions among major operating systems, too. It's no big deal to use keywords, and I think you're too cavalier in dismissing the benefits.
This is false. Use the root name ("My Pictures" or whatever) to locate your images. Use the subfolders to give some identification to the contents.
Funny...the Dewey Decimal system is exactly the type of topic hierarchy I'm promoting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dewey_Decimal_classes
In essence, the DAM book recommends against doing exactly this, and instead using something like publication date, which is already stored inside the front cover of each book anyway.
This is one thing the DAM book has caused that's harmful. Folder names have nothing to do with "physical locations". They are metadata, like all other metadata, except much more universally used and accepted. The physical location is stored elsewhere in places such as a "File Allocation Table" (FAT) or the modern equivalents depending on OS (MFT, and such).
Yes...very bad advice, and based on a wrong understanding of path names (which are just metadata).
There's no problem with keywording your images that are also in folders, same as being able to search for Title and Author even though the books are already in the Dewey Decimal categorical hierarchy.
And have almost no OS support to speak of (some can read some of this, and display it for a single image).
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Beachcomber Joe
Senior Member
I use Lightroom to manage my images including importing, creating a backup, keywording, and rating. My file structure, which started with scans in my film days, is year, month and event. I frequently use collections within Lightroom when working on specific projects. My LR catalog backs up every time I exit the application and is also backed up to external drives as part of my normal backup routine.
Like most pros these days, I can't imagine not using Lightroom for image management and initial processing of RAW images.
Like most pros these days, I can't imagine not using Lightroom for image management and initial processing of RAW images.
Well, in this thread I've attempted to explain my own views in a number of posts, tried to be helpful to the OP, tried to constructively extend the conversation by posing some typical (at least for me) use cases, and tried to explain why some (including me) would take issue with your blanket dismissal of the DAM book.
But it's obvious that this discussion with you is deteriorating. (In particular, I take exception to your 'This is false' sentence starting off your reply. Read again.) You're making absurd analogies and statements of fact (for example, regarding OS and software support for EXIF data). Keywords are, in fact, well accepted ways to organize image libraries.
I'd just encourage readers looking for guidance on organizing their image libraries to look for good materials and references. Find what works for you, nothing wrong with simplicity. Among them
http://www.adobe.com/designcenter-archive/lightroom/articles/lir1at_keywords_02.html
http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/imagedatabases/filenaming.html
http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596523589.do
You can have the last word.
Jeff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jck_photos/sets/
But it's obvious that this discussion with you is deteriorating. (In particular, I take exception to your 'This is false' sentence starting off your reply. Read again.) You're making absurd analogies and statements of fact (for example, regarding OS and software support for EXIF data). Keywords are, in fact, well accepted ways to organize image libraries.
I'd just encourage readers looking for guidance on organizing their image libraries to look for good materials and references. Find what works for you, nothing wrong with simplicity. Among them
http://www.adobe.com/designcenter-archive/lightroom/articles/lir1at_keywords_02.html
http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/imagedatabases/filenaming.html
http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596523589.do
You can have the last word.
--
Jeff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jck_photos/sets/
Last edited:
happypoppeye
Senior Member
Just put them in folders by event/trip/etc ...I never understood why you would need software to organize your photos ...event folder/jpeg folder/tiff folder
Last edited:
Osvaldo Cristo
Senior Member
Me too!
I cannot understand why you need a sophisticated data base for personal pictures... really.
It looks the story I learned on 1980 at the university: For the space program Americans spent millions of dollars to develop a pen to write in zero gravity and space vacuum. Russians used a pencil.
Regards,
--
O.Cristo - An Amateur Photographer
Opinions of men are almost as various as their faces - so many men so many minds. B. Franklin
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum