Reading mode: Light Dark

Cataloging software alternatives

Go to last post
M

MRHAL

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
402
Reaction score
53
Location
US
Could you forum members please advise me to alternatives besides LR, that supports the following :

1) Windows file structure based

2) Hierachical keywords

3) Easy and fast workflow for tagging/keywording

4) Calendar view

5) Easy interface for searching using combinations like

("John" OR "Jenny") AND (NOT "Joan") AND "MAY" AND "2002"....

6) All source-files (RAW files as well as JPEG:s) totally untouched, so that all keywords are kept in separate catalog file and not written into source file metadata

7) Possiblilty to export contents of catalog file to standardized format readable by other cataloging software in case I would like to switch.

8) Fast to display search results

9) Slide show based on search results

10) export collection of images based on search results to a destination folder.



Thank you in advance for yor time.

Regards

HAL
 
Boolean searches (the "OR" & "AND"s ) add considerable effort to the programming I guess. Offhand, I don't know of any, but otherwise, you seem to be describing both ACDSee 17 and ACDSee pro 7.
 
I would suggest that you take a look at Media Pro from Phase One: http://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-Software/Media-Pro.aspx

Media Pro has quite a history; it started out as iView Media and was the undisputed leader in Digital Asset Management. It was then acquired by Microsoft and rebranded as Microsoft Expression Media (part of the Microsoft Expression Suite). However development languished and it was eventually sold to Phase One which again rebranded it as Media Pro. Ever since Phase One acquired the software they have talked about integrating it with Capture One, which I think would be a mistake.

There are several other DAMs available although certainly not as many now as there were in the past. Take a look at this list: http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/flow-catalog-compare.html

IDImager is another good choice for strictly a DAM; although I think the product was renamed Photo Supreme.

Another excellent resource is Peter Krogh's forum: http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php
If you're unfamiliar with Peter Krogh, he is the author of "The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers " which is regarded as the "bible" on the subject.
MRHAL said:
Could you forum members please advise me to alternatives besides LR, that supports the following :

1) Windows file structure based

2) Hierachical keywords

3) Easy and fast workflow for tagging/keywording

4) Calendar view

5) Easy interface for searching using combinations like

("John" OR "Jenny") AND (NOT "Joan") AND "MAY" AND "2002"....

6) All source-files (RAW files as well as JPEG:s) totally untouched, so that all keywords are kept in separate catalog file and not written into source file metadata

7) Possiblilty to export contents of catalog file to standardized format readable by other cataloging software in case I would like to switch.

8) Fast to display search results

9) Slide show based on search results

10) export collection of images based on search results to a destination folder.

Thank you in advance for yor time.

Regards

HAL
Click to expand...
 
It doesen't have to support boolean search explicitly. Could be some other form of GUI to obtain the same.

I just want to be able to filter out images for instance where any one of my family members appears alone vs appears together with any of the others. That would require some sort of negation support in the search criteria as well as AND/OR in some way.



Regards

HAL
 
Well, you still might want to consider testing one of the ACDSee titles. I'm thinking appropriate keyword searches coupled with selective use of the sorting or grouping facilities could get you most of the way to where you want to go. (a k.w. search with a sort forward or backwards or a grouping, might do it)
 
Thank's for your answer,

Can I be absolutely certain that ACDSee does not change my originals?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it sems that many think that writing keywords and various other things into the metadata portion of the file is a good thing as for compatibility with other software.

But I would not like this to happen at all. I know that RAW-files are never changed, but I have a mix of RAW as well as JPEG:s as originals, and for JPEG:s, if the software shall be able to write this metadata into the file it has to either change the original file or create a new file which creates duplicates. None of which seems right to me.

So the keyword-metadata, and if the software should support image adjustment as well, has either to be written into a separate catalog file common for all images, or as a separate individual sidecar file for both RAW:s and JPEG:s.

Do you know what ACDSee uses for this data?

Regards

HAL
 
It stores that information in the database, however, you have the OPTION of copying that info to the file itself, which is useful for for backup and moving data to other photo management applications. In such a case, it would reside in both places. But I believe the search function always uses the database version.

There might be a way to force the search to use the file ebedded data but I don't know it, I'm not a big search guy, I'm a pretty low volume photographer and simple sorting and grouping seems to be all I need. I know the search basics, but the more advanced search stuff is not something I normally do.
 
suddie1215 said:
IDImager is another good choice for strictly a DAM; although I think the product was renamed Photo Supreme.
Click to expand...
It wasn't renamed — it was replaced. Despite long-standing promises of a new update being in the works, IDImager was suddenly discontinued, with no advance notice, on September 18, 2012. Support for IDImager was also discontinued as of September 18.

Photo Supreme reportedly is a somewhat simplified DAM product — IDImager has virtually everything, with all of complexity that suggests.

I've used IDImager for years. I've also got a license for Photo Supreme, but until the day comes that I upgrade my computer, I can't use it. Unlike IDImager, Photo Supreme doesn't run on Windows XP. So I'm in no position to give any comparison.

--
The open-source LightZone Project: http://lightzoneproject.org/
 
Last edited:
I am not sure I understand the difference between a cataloger and a browser that can view all folders at once -- so this might be a browser, but FastPictureViewer looks like it can do all those things except maybe 6 (write meta-data to separate file) and the slideshow. I haven't downloaded it yet, but there is a free trial. Take a look, I would be interested in your feedback.

Why would you not want the metadata stored with the image? I currently use PhotoMechanic and wish that it's interface with Lr didn't require xmp files. I think I'd rather have everything in one image file, DNG is an option, but I don't hear people using it much.

jan
 
The essential difference between a database/catalog and a browser is that a database/catalog allows you to manage files even when they are offline. So for example, you can save images to an external hard drive and then disconnect it from your computer. A database/catalog will still allow you to view previews of your images and edit metadata; then when the external hard drive is reconnected it will update your files. On the other hand a browser can only work with files that are online i.e. a connected hard drive.

janeenadamsmartin said:
I am not sure I understand the difference between a cataloger and a browser that can view all folders at once -- so this might be a browser, but FastPictureViewer looks like it can do all those things except maybe 6 (write meta-data to separate file) and the slideshow. I haven't downloaded it yet, but there is a free trial. Take a look, I would be interested in your feedback.

Why would you not want the metadata stored with the image? I currently use PhotoMechanic and wish that it's interface with Lr didn't require xmp files. I think I'd rather have everything in one image file, DNG is an option, but I don't hear people using it much.

jan
Click to expand...
 
Two different things. Breezebrowser, FastStone, and the earliest versions of ACDSee are all image browser applications. ACDSee gradually added database functionality to acquire cataloging capability and now does a pretty fair job of straddling that line, offering image browser speed without sacrificing the cataloging functions.

--
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:
I don't know what would lead you to think I'm confusing image browsers with web browsers; nothing I said would indicate that.

Glen Barrington said:
Two different things. Breezebrowser, FastStone, and the earliest versions of ACDSee are all image browser applications. ACDSee gradually added database functionality to acquire cataloging capability and now does a pretty fair job of straddling that line, offering image browser speed without sacrificing the cataloging functions.

--
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/
Click to expand...
 
janeenadamsmartin said:
Why would you not want the metadata stored with the image?
Click to expand...
Well, the answer is twofold :

a) There is a risk, even if it's miniscule, that changing the original source file will make it corrupt.

and if that happens :

b) Adding keywords or batch editing a large number of files simultaneously, makes a lot of changed files for the backup system to handle, which takes longer time and also in itself involves a greater (but small) risk of malfunction.

May be I'm just paranoid, or should change my backup process.

Regards

HAL
 
Just curious.
Why you don't want LR to be part of the consideration as it seems to meet your specifications admirably?
 
Thank you. That does seem like a good feature. I could probably do without for right now, providing I am not missing anything else. Photomechanic does an excellent job of the front end work of tagging, culling, keywording. But for me to use Photomechanic as a browser, I not only have to be connected, but I have to have the contact/folder sheet opened. PM will then do it's search on the opened contact sheet/folder. (Lightening fast, I might add, but if I knew all the folders in advance, I'd be fast, too!)

I love PM, and I know they will come out with a top-rate catalog feature, but it's been several years of "almost there," and no results. In fairness they have now said it has no planned release date. But my photo collection is getting bigger and as I am getting better, I want to find old photos and play with them a bit -- fix them up, surprise someone with a calendar or book, etc.

I will check out FastPictureViewer -- are there any other features of a catalog program that are worthwhile? I suppose it would only work for exported Lr photos...

jan
 
goanna said:
Just curious.
Why you don't want LR to be part of the consideration as it seems to meet your specifications admirably?
Click to expand...
Oh, I am considering LR as well, but I'm also considering DXO for RAW conversion, and if I decide to go down that route, I figured there may be alternatives to LR for the catalog part as well.

Otherwise it would feel like paying twice for the same thing (RAW conversion).

But it may turn out to be the best solution anyway.

Though I'm a bit hesitant to the LR style of importing images into virtual collections. I would probably have to rely on LR for my backup process too.

And a few years from now Adobe may change to a subscription model for LR as well. And I definetly don't like the idea of a software that stops working if I dont't continue to pay annualy (with years of keywording work locked into their database). It once had Photoshop album which got discontinued....

So there has to be a significant upside for me to choose LR over other software.

Regards

HAL
 
I'm curious about what you mean by this comment: "Though I'm a bit hesitant to the LR style of importing images into virtual collections."

"I would probably have to rely on LR for my backup process too."

Except when initially importing files into Lightroom where you can choose an option to "Make a Second Copy To:" and save copies of your files to another location, Lightroom does not backup image files so you can't rely on it for backups of images that have been edited. It only backs up its own catalog/database.

MRHAL said:
Oh, I am considering LR as well, but I'm also considering DXO for RAW conversion, and if I decide to go down that route, I figured there may be alternatives to LR for the catalog part as well.

Otherwise it would feel like paying twice for the same thing (RAW conversion).

But it may turn out to be the best solution anyway.

And a few years from now Adobe may change to a subscription model for LR as well. And I definetly don't like the idea of a software that stops working if I dont't continue to pay annualy (with years of keywording work locked into their database). It once had Photoshop album which got discontinued....

So there has to be a significant upside for me to choose LR over other software.

Regards

HAL
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Doug. I tested IDImager a few years ago when transitioning from iView Multimedia Pro after its acquisition by Microsoft and I found it to be a very powerful program. Its a shame its been dumbed down but looking at the developer's website it appears they have changed their focus to "apps" rather than entire programs.

Doug Pardee said:
suddie1215 said:
IDImager is another good choice for strictly a DAM; although I think the product was renamed Photo Supreme.
Click to expand...
It wasn't renamed — it was replaced. Despite long-standing promises of a new update being in the works, IDImager was suddenly discontinued, with no advance notice, on September 18, 2012. Support for IDImager was also discontinued as of September 18.

Photo Supreme reportedly is a somewhat simplified DAM product — IDImager has virtually everything, with all of complexity that suggests.

I've used IDImager for years. I've also got a license for Photo Supreme, but until the day comes that I upgrade my computer, I can't use it. Unlike IDImager, Photo Supreme doesn't run on Windows XP. So I'm in no position to give any comparison.

--
The open-source LightZone Project: http://lightzoneproject.org/
Click to expand...
 
Hi Hal

Just a couple of thoughts below
MRHAL said:
goanna said:
Just curious.
Why you don't want LR to be part of the consideration as it seems to meet your specifications admirably?
Click to expand...
Oh, I am considering LR as well, but I'm also considering DXO for RAW conversion, and if I decide to go down that route, I figured there may be alternatives to LR for the catalog part as well.

Otherwise it would feel like paying twice for the same thing (RAW conversion).

But it may turn out to be the best solution anyway.

Though I'm a bit hesitant to the LR style of importing images into virtual collections.
Click to expand...
If by this you mean LR's Representation of the Windows file system, then on a well managed file structure the "virtual structure" becomes a non issue and has no downsides other than that you should not move things around outside of LR.
MRHAL said:
I would probably have to rely on LR for my backup process too.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by this but the only back up options available within LR is during import (make second copy to---) and a regular backup of the catalogue.
MRHAL said:
And a few years from now Adobe may change to a subscription model for LR as well.
Click to expand...
It is my firm opinion (along with many others and stated by Adobe) that where LR (and Elementss) sits in the Adobe System, it and Elements will always (yes I know "always" is a long time) remain available as it is currently.

In any case, for that matter for all we know the other software houses may one day head down the subscription path also.
MRHAL said:
And I definetly don't like the idea of a software that stops working if I dont't continue to pay annualy (with years of keywording work locked into their database). It once had Photoshop album which got discontinued....

So there has to be a significant upside for me to choose LR over other software.

Regards

HAL
Click to expand...
Anyway

Good luck with your search. It will be interesting to hear of your final decision.

Cheers

Graham
 
goanna said:
Hi Hal

Just a couple of thoughts below
MRHAL said:
goanna said:
Just curious.
Why you don't want LR to be part of the consideration as it seems to meet your specifications admirably?
Click to expand...
Oh, I am considering LR as well, but I'm also considering DXO for RAW conversion, and if I decide to go down that route, I figured there may be alternatives to LR for the catalog part as well.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
One more thing, do you have an issue with LR as a RAW converter, as many (including me) think it is excellent and one of the best available. Admittedly I have never used DXO so cannot comment on its abilities compared to LR.
goanna670956 said:
goanna670956 said:
Otherwise it would feel like paying twice for the same thing (RAW conversion).

But it may turn out to be the best solution anyway.

Though I'm a bit hesitant to the LR style of importing images into virtual collections.
Click to expand...
If by this you mean LR's Representation of the Windows file system, then on a well managed file structure the "virtual structure" becomes a non issue and has no downsides other than that you should not move things around outside of LR.
goanna670956 said:
I would probably have to rely on LR for my backup process too.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by this but the only back up options available within LR is during import (make second copy to---) and a regular backup of the catalogue.
goanna670956 said:
And a few years from now Adobe may change to a subscription model for LR as well.
Click to expand...
It is my firm opinion (along with many others and stated by Adobe) that where LR (and Elementss) sits in the Adobe System, it and Elements will always (yes I know "always" is a long time) remain available as it is currently.

In any case, for that matter for all we know the other software houses may one day head down the subscription path also.
goanna670956 said:
And I definetly don't like the idea of a software that stops working if I dont't continue to pay annualy (with years of keywording work locked into their database). It once had Photoshop album which got discontinued....

So there has to be a significant upside for me to choose LR over other software.

Regards

HAL
Click to expand...
Anyway

Good luck with your search. It will be interesting to hear of your final decision.

Cheers

Graham
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top