Please recommend an image reference system.

[fidget]

Finally my collection of digital/scanned images has increased to the point that I can't find images that I recall taking. Without a database system I can only rely on memory and keep a directory of "promising" images.
I like to keep the images in chronological order in folders created when uploaded from the camera.

Can you recommend some software that can attach simple descriptions of a few key words to each image and then search them out?
I'd found a couple in the past, notably ThumbsPlus and a feature of an image browser (Imagic4). It represents quite an investment in time and effort, so your experiences will be most welcome...

Dave.

 

[degruyl]

It may be more program than you are interested in, but I use lightroom to manage my images. In fact, I don't even think about where they are on disk anymore. It works well with raw files (and scans), allows for fairly complicated non-destructive editing, and lets you further work on the file in the program of your choosing.

The filing system almost requires that you work with keywords, but that is not a bad thing. The interface is robust and easy to work with.

Of course, you are pretty much stuck with the system once you start relying on it, so be cautious before buying. Take advantage of any free trials or what-have-you.

 

[Jockos]

I second on Lightroom.

Personally I don't use all of the fancy features, but you can flag the pictures, color code them and give them a 1-5 stars rating. Also, there's a keyword system, which is searchable in the library function.
Further, you can group images, stack them and do all sorts of editing.

 

[shadowfox]

Lightroom 3 (or newer).

* hmm... I'm pretty sure I've typed the above somewhere in this forum recently...

 

[filmtwit]

Lightroom or Aperture.

 

[Phantomas]

Here it is - I use the most unpopular Image browsing software. It's....

Adobe....


Bridge...


🙂

I tried and couldn't get along with LR, although I do see advantages and would also recommend it. I just got used too much to Bridge+Photoshop combo and found the library system uncomfortable (mostly due to working and transfering files between a couple of machines). But do give LR a try. It's also excelent/straightforward for RAW editing.

 

[Matus]

I would be curios too for the very same reason. The thing is - one is actually looking for some kind of database thing. Once you will choose one you will be "stuck" with it (like iTunes). Not necessarily a bad thing, but something to watch for.

 

[Stelios]

One more vote for Bridge. I don't like how Lightroom and Aperture "import" images and create databases, because I don't know where the actual files are and I am a bit of a control freak (maybe I don't understand how they work). Bridge and Photoshop work fine for me. It just works with the actual folders I have created on my computer.

Oddly enough I am very happy using iTunes for my music but then it's probably because I know where the files go...(?) I could never do that with iPhoto,Lightroom etc...

 

[Jim-st]

One more vote for Bridge. I don't like how Lightroom and Aperture "import" images and create databases, because I don't know where the actual files are and I am a bit of a control freak (maybe I don't understand how they work). Bridge and Photoshop work fine for me. It just works with the actual folders I have created on my computer.

Oddly enough I am very happy using iTunes for my music but then it's probably because I know where the files go...(?) I could never do that with iPhoto,Lightroom etc...

Lightroom puts files wherever you tell it to in the Import screen. No mystery about that, IMO. iTunes, on the other hand, puts files where it sees fit, and iPhoto is a complete nightmare to find anything using any other software.

You can also import your existing folder structure into LR, and it won't mess with your files. I'd suggest you download the trial version and give it a try - I think you get 30 days, and there's nothing to lose really

 

[Stelios]

Yeah, I did try it, I just wasn't patient enough I suppose. I got lost in the menus. I tried a quick tutorial but still. It's not the software really, I'm just used to the way Bridge works. iPhoto on the other hand IS a nightmare.

 

[j j]

Both Aperture and Lightroom will places files wherever you wish and in whatever folder structure you wish.

 

[haempe]

One more for Lightroom.
Good for photo management and very good for fast first corrections.

 

[Griffin]

I somehow got suckered into Picasa. I'm quite happy with it, but you can't do raw files. There is some good basic editing which is all non-destructive. You can put your photos wherever you like and it will scan your folders (the ones you tell it to) automatically. And its free!

 

[whitecat]

Lightroom!

 

[SteveM]

You've got some pretty good recommendations for Lightroom/Bridge. I use them, but its interesting that you mentioned ThumbsPlus. It doesn't come up that often. I've been using it for over a decade and it has some nice features. Here are some that I like:

- very cheap
- works from your normal file locations with an explorer-like interface
- has tags, searching, full control of image info
- pretty good image editing tools built in, including easy resizing
- creates galleries for custom slideshows
- very short learning curve

I don't do heavy image editing so it suits my needs well. If you need an interface to Photoshop, the Lightroom/Bridge combo is probably a better route to go.

Steve

 

[f16sunshine]

IMO Aperture 3 has the easiest to use library and import/export utility.

Keep masters on your external or wherever you want and hold only previews in the library,
keep masters in the library,
locate and re-locate masters easily,
flikr/fb upload. It's all a piece of cake.

All that said LR3 has the same capability but not as simple to use for a long time Aperture user.
Also, I like the edit "brushes" available in A3 much better than what Lightroom offers.

I would say however that if you use a mac A3 has other benefits when it comes to compatibility with iTunes, iPhoto, iPhone, etc... Other than that it's up to personal preference or maybe price.

Trials for both Aperture3 and Lightroom are available free as downloads. Check them both out and see which you prefer.

 

[ChrisN]

Lightroom. Here's my system (from an earlier post):

First, each negative is assigned a code that describes and controls the physical arrangement and storage of the negatives. In my case I number all rolls serially, and negatives within the roll serially. My most recent roll is therefore coded BW147, and the negatives are numbered _n, so the 10th negative is fully described as BW147_10. All my negatives are stored in plastic sheets held in binders, all in numerical sequence.

To locate a particular image requires a catalog. Library book catalogs are typically for Author/Title, and for Subject Headings. This gives you three access points - the name of the author, the title of the book, and the subject headings (which are assigned from a controlled list of headings - a thesaurus). With modern technology we also have access via free-text keywords (your typical google search).

For my negatves I assign keywords (subject headings) from a growing list, which describe the technical attributes (camera. lens, film, developing), locations, persons, and the subject matter (eg cloud, tree, architecture, etc). I try to be generous and describe the content of each image with enough keywords to achieve both exhaustivity (describe all aspects of the image content) and specificity (describe the specific content of the image).

The software I use allows me to search by each of these keywords, and logical combinations of keywords (eg camera type = "Leica M4" AND Location = "Darling Harbour").

I use Adobe Lightroom as my catalog, and I think this is its most powerful feature, after it being a good RAW converter for the digital stuff. I scan all my negs at low res, and only scan the best at high resolution, for printing. The catalog allows me to quickly retrieve a negative for scanning at high resolution when desired. Lightroom gives me a powerful and flexible catalog, linked to a small surrogate for the negative (the digital image is the surrogate) and the link to the location of the physical negative.

If you have read this far you have probably guessed that I once took training as a librarian. The funny thing is I never worked in a library after receiving the qualification, but the training has been handy in other ways.
__________________

 

[Godfrey]

Lightroom or Aperture.

I use both, but much prefer Lightroom for image processing workflow. I use Aperture, reading finished work from Lightroom by reference, for its slide shows, book production and integration with other Apple software.

 

[tstermitz]

I agree with both of these comments, but in the end, I chose Lightroom.

I tried and couldn't get along with LR, although I do see advantages and would also recommend it. I just got used too much to Bridge+Photoshop combo and found the library system uncomfortable (mostly due to working and transfering files between a couple of machines). But do give LR a try. It's also excelent/straightforward for RAW editing.

One more vote for Bridge. I don't like how Lightroom and Aperture "import" images and create databases, because I don't know where the actual files are and I am a bit of a control freak (maybe I don't understand how they work). Bridge and Photoshop work fine for me. It just works with the actual folders I have created on my computer.

Bridge works great. I like the Bridge interface, and the way Bridge does ACR and tagging. I use Bridge as a first cut at my new images. But, Bridge does not do very well the specific task the OP is seeking: a database to manage tags and find files. That is the feature that drove me to compare Aperture and Lightroom.

I sympathize with the desire to control file location, and Aperture gives you the option to use your file system as the database (better for moving files and directories from computer to computer). I think Lightroom doesn't do that, but I chose Lightroom because I like and understand ACR, and I work with Photoshop as an integrated part of my workflow. When they put Lightroom on sale in November, I decided to keep my workflow all Adobe... probably the more expensive choice.

 

[johannielscom]

Dear Dave,

for my negative scans and file naming convention I use this system. I've found that I can always locate any scanned negative with it, both on the hard drive and in the envelopes and boxes I save the physical negatives in.

Here's what I do to get everything organised in Lightroom:

*On my networked drive I create a folder for 2012, within that I create 201201, 201202, etc.
*I set all scanners to store files in a hard drive folder called 'Scanfolder'.
*All scanned files have the names from the above mentioned naming convention.
*In Lightroom I use the Auto Import dialog. Set it to move the files from the 'Scanfolder' folder to 2012/201201/name_of_the_scanned film.
*Now, when a file is written into the Scanfolder, Lightroom automatically picks it up, puts it into the correct network folder and keeps the name I gave when scanning.
*In Lightroom I put tags on the files, so I can search on subjects, places, holidays, people, family, etc.
*When I see a picture in Lightroom and want to edit it in another program, I rightclick it, choose 'Show in Finder' and Lightroom drops me into the folder with the image straight away.

Hope this helps a bit. If questions, just drop me a PM, I'll happily help out!