What is your System for managing/storing your files?

[JPAlbert]

I have a "media" partition on my internal SSD (Mac Mini m4).

For photos, I organize "by camera".
(such as Canon 77d and EOS R)
I have that as my "top level" of folders.

In each, I put any photos shot on a particular date into its own folder, example:
2025.05.23 House
... with a word or two added for reference as to what's in it.

The number of photos in each folder isn't great -- can be as few as 1 or 2, or 100, etc.

I prefer doing it this way because I don't want any individual app "taking over" and storing pics where I don't want them. Apple's photo editing software does this. Once you've "imported" a pic into Photos library/database, try and "find it" in the finder. Photos will "bury it" deep within its own database...

 

[ishwanu]

I process photos in temporary working folders on a local SSD. When processing is done, they get moved to permanent storage on a NAS so they can be accessed by other devices in the house. The folder structure is by year and month. I use a standalone DAM to apply keywords automatically or manually, and also run face recognition. The DAM can then logically classify and search all photos in any ways I want without disturbing the chronological folder structure. The computers and NAS are periodically backed up to portable drives that are kept both onsite and elsewhere.

Sounds like a winner to me.
What DAM?

IMatch.

Do you keep Metadata in the individual files and in the DAM?

The added metadata is stored only in the DAM for the time being. That's what allows instant searching when I want to find something. Someday I'll write all the metadata back to the files, after I've made an appreciable dent in generating it for the 80,000+ image collection.

I have used Thumbs Plus for about 20 years but it is currently gone. :-(

If I ever want or need to move to a different DAM, that will of course necessitate writing all the metadata to the files.

 

[Michael Fryd]

I process photos in temporary working folders on a local SSD. When processing is done, they get moved to permanent storage on a NAS so they can be accessed by other devices in the house. The folder structure is by year and month. I use a standalone DAM to apply keywords automatically or manually, and also run face recognition. The DAM can then logically classify and search all photos in any ways I want without disturbing the chronological folder structure. The computers and NAS are periodically backed up to portable drives that are kept both onsite and elsewhere.

Sounds like a winner to me.
What DAM?

IMatch.

Do you keep Metadata in the individual files and in the DAM?

The added metadata is stored only in the DAM for the time being. That's what allows instant searching when I want to find something. Someday I'll write all the metadata back to the files, after I've made an appreciable dent in generating it for the 80,000+ image collection.

I have used Thumbs Plus for about 20 years but it is currently gone. :-(

If I ever want or need to move to a different DAM, that will of course necessitate writing all the metadata to the files.

Make sure you export the data to the files before a software update renders your DAM unusable, or a software bug introduces corruptions into old parts of the database.

If you are on a Mac, you can store the metadata in the files, and the Finder acts as a built-in free DAM. You can search many metadata fields.

One of the things I like about programs like Photo Mechanic Plus , or the Finder, is that the master copy of the metadata is kept in the image files themselves, and the program keeps an internal, index to the data. One always has the option of rebuilding the index, either in the original program, or any other program that supports standard file formats.

 

[ishwanu]

I process photos in temporary working folders on a local SSD. When processing is done, they get moved to permanent storage on a NAS so they can be accessed by other devices in the house. The folder structure is by year and month. I use a standalone DAM to apply keywords automatically or manually, and also run face recognition. The DAM can then logically classify and search all photos in any ways I want without disturbing the chronological folder structure. The computers and NAS are periodically backed up to portable drives that are kept both onsite and elsewhere.

Sounds like a winner to me.
What DAM?

IMatch.

Do you keep Metadata in the individual files and in the DAM?

The added metadata is stored only in the DAM for the time being. That's what allows instant searching when I want to find something. Someday I'll write all the metadata back to the files, after I've made an appreciable dent in generating it for the 80,000+ image collection.

I have used Thumbs Plus for about 20 years but it is currently gone. :-(

If I ever want or need to move to a different DAM, that will of course necessitate writing all the metadata to the files.

Make sure you export the data to the files before a software update renders your DAM unusable, or a software bug introduces corruptions into old parts of the database.

IMatch is among the most robust and well-supported DAMs available, which is why I chose it. Of course, I still keep periodic backups of the database for at least a couple of months.

If you are on a Mac, you can store the metadata in the files, and the Finder acts as a built-in free DAM. You can search many metadata fields.

I'm a Windows user, and IMatch is for Windows only. Windows search comes nowhere near what can be done with a real DAM.

One of the things I like about programs like Photo Mechanic Plus , or the Finder, is that the master copy of the metadata is kept in the image files themselves, and the program keeps an internal, index to the data.

That is of course an option with IMatch, and is the way most users do it.

One always has the option of rebuilding the index, either in the original program, or any other program that supports standard file formats.

Again, like IMatch.

 

[J A C S]

I have two main folders: one for RAWs, and one for JPEGs.

They have parallel structures: like Originals/2025/2025 08, for the RAWs this month, and simply 2025/2025 08 for the JPEGs. The year is repeated on purpose. I may add a word to remind me where most of the pics were taken that month, like 2024/2024 05 Paris. No more subfolders.



All that lives on OneDrive, accessible on any other device. Just in case, I back it all up on a portable hard drive once every few months using sync software. I watch carefully what is being erased, typically JPEGs I have reprocessed.

 

[Carey Brown]

Hi,

My wife is getting more into photography and we want to figure out the best way to store and manage all the image files. I'm hoping some of you wouldn't mind sharing the process you use from getting the files off the SD card, where you work on them, where you store them when you're done, how you back them up, etc.

I know some people use USB hard drives, Cloud storage, NAS devices, or a combination of all of those. We don't want to experiment and find al the way that don't work well, so we're looking to learn from others who have a good system.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can share what you do!

Every photo should have a unique ID and that ID should be a part of the file name.

DAM software has been a godsend for the searching of thousands of files by keywords, so no need to get tricky with your file names for the purpose of searching, use keywords instead. (Many reasons, too long to list).

For a unique ID most people go with a time stamp of when the photo was taken: YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS(+optional description).

This would then lead to a fairly simple and straight forward folder structure:

\Archive\YYYY\MM\<file that starts with time stamp>

I do shoot some video and found mixed them in with the stills to be awkward - I'm either working on one or the other - never both. So I also have:

\Archive\YYYY\MM_video\<file>

I used NAS for a while but I found it too slow. Now I just buy however big an internal hard drive I need so that I can keep everything photo related under one root folder. Currently I have a 12TB drive which also has some other non-photo stuff on it. It's fast enough to do my editing from.

For backups I have a hard drive dock and a couple of fast, large capacity, hard drives with no enclosures. I swap drives every few weeks. I use backup software that supports versioning.

I make sure the DAM software I'm using writes the keywords and other meta-data out to the image files instead of just keeping it in a proprietary database. (I use Lightroom Classic)

--
Photos at http://inasphere.com

 

[Guy Parsons]

If stuff gets "lost" then seeking it by looking for the appropriate thumbnails could be a pain.

I use the old Picasa for that, it can slew quickly through folder after folder easily and can change the thumbnail size with a slider.

FastStone Viewer for more intricate fiddles within a folder for testing whether an image has some promise.

The added text that I do may look like this, it is an early grab as now the year also has the major items like Japan or Singapore as well as the individual month has Japan, then each day folder gets more description like below, Easy to use Windows to search for names when done like that.

[ATTACH alt="Part of my "Cameras" folder."]3676047[/ATTACH]
Part of my "Cameras" folder.

Plus a handy diary done when on trips also helps zoom in where to start looking.

 

[a_c_skinner]

This is an important point. Whatever you use it is important to use a system that will be of use if your software or system simply disappears.

 

[ROUSSEL_Photographer]

This is an important point. Whatever you use it is important to use a system that will be of use if your software or system simply disappears.

YES : i did make a yearly list of all folder + caption, when i was shooting news. I am kind of retired at the moment.

 

[Hans Z]

I've gone from you a laborious procedure with an hierarchy tagging system with the help of the excellent Digital Asset Management tool iMatch and have also used the less powerful Lightroom management tools. But over time I found it is good enough to have the automatic naming of files according to date & time with a running number. Nowadays all my files are stored in Apple iCloud, where I use the semi-automatic tagging built-in to make it easier to find files again. Old files were saved in JPEG while new files are saved in HEIF format. I create virtual catalogue according to themes like a trip to group images. The few RAW files I save are in the DNG format. Video files are saved with similar naming structure but in HEVC format.
My advice is to keep the naming and organizing to a manual minimum and use the built-in meta data as much as possible to automatically group images. Remember that very few people outside yourself will be interested in your photos. If you store images in your home, remember to have off-site storage too, as your own files can be infected by malware/viruses, or a fire destroys all your equipment.

 

[martinhb]

My simple system on a Windows PC:

1. I create a folder for a year
2. In that folder are folders for each month
3. Each month gets a folder for each date that I go out and shoot
4. The date folder will have a folder for raw files (I keep the jpgs at the date level)
5. I have a separate folder where I copy "keepers" by subject
6. I back up weekly and I >ADD< new folders to an external drive which mimics the year/month structure
7. I back-up the keepers on an as needed basis
8. It is easy for me to find images by subject by browsing my keeper folder using FastStone

Year/Month/Date structure

Keepers structure

Like Leonard, I don't keep anything in the cloud.

I have three external "My Passport" drives. I rotate two every other week and keep one in a bank vault that I swap into rotation ever 6 months or so.

I usually don't keep raw's around, I process them to jpg and dump the raw.

I agree with this method as its very similar to one I have been using over the past 14 years or more.

Advantages are its simplicity & can work on any system. On the Mac I use colour tags to grade those photos worth editing. File sorting includes these tags so it's possible at anytime later quickly & easily sort & review any of the which I had previously favoured at any date period.

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

For a unique ID most people go with a time stamp of when the photo was taken: YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS(+optional description).

...

I find there is a very useful advantage of using a sequence number (YYYYMMDD-SEQN) rather than a timestamp in my filenames. When discussing images from a shoot with a client, we can refer to images by simply the sequence number. My client can tell me that they want prints from images -023, -049, and -050.

I find that being able to refer to images by a short simple number makes communication easier. Sure, we could use 6 digit time stamps, but I think it's easier to use smaller numbers.

Of course, this is simply my personal preference.

 

[Philip Eihuyar]

...

For a unique ID most people go with a time stamp of when the photo was taken: YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS(+optional description).

...

I find there is a very useful advantage of using a sequence number (YYYYMMDD-SEQN) rather than a timestamp in my filenames. When discussing images from a shoot with a client, we can refer to images by simply the sequence number. My client can tell me that they want prints from images -023, -049, and -050.

I find that being able to refer to images by a short simple number makes communication easier. Sure, we could use 6 digit time stamps, but I think it's easier to use smaller numbers.

Of course, this is simply my personal preference.

This sounds like an additional and -as you say- useful way to relate to a client from a photoshoot. It requires an agreement and understanding of that procedure in your images taken (before the photoshoot?). The question I have, is, is this common for professional photographers to do or do most clients just want images that they have in their mind catogorised differently? And is this sequence number an automatic feature in the EXIF data? Or where?

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

For a unique ID most people go with a time stamp of when the photo was taken: YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS(+optional description).

...

I find there is a very useful advantage of using a sequence number (YYYYMMDD-SEQN) rather than a timestamp in my filenames. When discussing images from a shoot with a client, we can refer to images by simply the sequence number. My client can tell me that they want prints from images -023, -049, and -050.

I find that being able to refer to images by a short simple number makes communication easier. Sure, we could use 6 digit time stamps, but I think it's easier to use smaller numbers.

Of course, this is simply my personal preference.

This sounds like an additional and -as you say- useful way to relate to a client from a photoshoot. It requires an agreement and understanding of that procedure in your images taken (before the photoshoot?). The question I have, is, is this common for professional photographers to do or do most clients just want images that they have in their mind catogorised differently? And is this sequence number an automatic feature in the EXIF data? Or where?

I use Photo Mechanic to ingest the images. For location shoots, it ingests from the card. For studio shoots, the camera sends every image to my computer via FTP, and Photo Mechanic ingests it from the FTP folder.

As part of the ingest, Photo Mechanic renames the images to YYYYMMDD-SEQN, and adds any metadata that is common to the whole shoot. Photo Mechanic keeps track of the next sequence number to be used. Photo Mechanic can also take a folder of existing images, sort them by capture time, and rename them to my standard.

Once I have the image, I can do a first pass through the images, and mark the ones the client shouldn't see (For instance shots of grey cards). Photo Mechanic then produces a website of watermarked images, which I upload for the client to peruse.

If I didn't want the client to know that some images had been removed. I can renumber the images I want to show the client.

For simple studio shoots (like a headshot), the client can immediately review the images with me using Photo Mechanic and choose the one they want.

 

[tbcass]

Hi,

My wife is getting more into photography and we want to figure out the best way to store and manage all the image files. I'm hoping some of you wouldn't mind sharing the process you use from getting the files off the SD card, where you work on them, where you store them when you're done, how you back them up, etc.

I know some people use USB hard drives, Cloud storage, NAS devices, or a combination of all of those. We don't want to experiment and find al the way that don't work well, so we're looking to learn from others who have a good system.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can share what you do!

I use multiple USB hard drives (I have 5 of them). I upload to my second non boot drive in my computer and then copy to my other drives. All the photos are in folders based on year and month and within each of those folders I have sub folders named for the place taken or the event. Within those folders I have folders for RAW and a separate JPEG folder for the RAW images that I have processed. This may not be ideal for every body but it works for me. As of now I have folders of photographs starting in January 2003 when I bought my first digital camera. I also have a separate folder for all the photos I have taken since the mid 60s from film that I have scanned.

--
Tom

 

[tbcass]

My simple system on a Windows PC:

1. I create a folder for a year
2. In that folder are folders for each month
3. Each month gets a folder for each date that I go out and shoot
4. The date folder will have a folder for raw files (I keep the jpgs at the date level)
5. I have a separate folder where I copy "keepers" by subject
6. I back up weekly and I >ADD< new folders to an external drive which mimics the year/month structure
7. I back-up the keepers on an as needed basis
8. It is easy for me to find images by subject by browsing my keeper folder using FastStone

Year/Month/Date structure

Keepers structure

Like Leonard, I don't keep anything in the cloud.

I have three external "My Passport" drives. I rotate two every other week and keep one in a bank vault that I swap into rotation ever 6 months or so.

I usually don't keep raw's around, I process them to jpg and dump the raw.

My system is similar to yours except I keep all my RAW files.

--
Tom

 

[dcstep]

Sorry, late to the thread.

I have 9TB of image files, which is easily handled with a 16TB, USB HD, with daily backup to Backblaze.com I've been doing this a few years and I've had drive failures. Both at the laptop level and external HD level.



Two years ago I had a failure of my USB external HD with over 6TB of files. I discovered the problem around 8 on a Thursday morning. I spoke with Backblaze customer support for a few minutes, to confirm the death. I paid $180 deposit and receive an 8TB Monday morning. I transferred the data to a new drive and sent the loaner back to BB and my $180 was refunded before the week was out.



I've had laptop failures, with several hundred GB of data. I recovered those files overnight with my high speed WiFi at home.


I tried keeping HDs in two locations for a while, but I just didn't keep them in synch. You want to painlessly synch daily, or at least as often as you're creating new files. You want off-site and you want that off site to be redundant.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Like Leonard, I don't keep anything in the cloud.

I have three external "My Passport" drives. I rotate two every other week and keep one in a bank vault that I swap into rotation ever 6 months or so.

I usually don't keep raw's around, I process them to jpg and dump the raw.

My system is similar to yours except I keep all my RAW files.

Yeah. Discarding RAW files is like throwing out your negatives. I've gotten much better results now out of 10-year-old RAW files than I could when they were just taken.

 

[Mark_A]

.. Thanks in advance to anyone who can share what you do!

My Photos/

Incoming/

2025/

250805 South Cerney Steam Extraveganza/

Darktable exported/


Mark_A

 

[grsnovi]

except I keep all my RAW files.

But Tom, they're so big and I so rarely want/need to return to one that I have already processed.

Maybe if I was a better photographer and I sold prints?