Digital Archive Mess

[majid]

Lightroom, and organize your photos using keywords rather than folder hierarchies.

 

[LKeithR]

ACDSee Pro 3 has a very good organizing module based on tagging of images. You can create any number of sub-directories within your catalogue so it becomes pretty easy to locate photos. I have about 50,000 images in my files and I can tell you from experience that there is no "easy" way but ACDSee makes it "relatively" easy.

I don't shoot a lot of film but when I do I scan a whole set of negs at about 300 dpi. I use this for preliminary sorting and proofing and only scan the keepers at high resolution. Saves a lot of space while still giving me a thumbnail to catalogue...

 

[filmtwit]

This is partially what I do for a living these days. I'll give you a easy breakdown of the basic big three. I've used each of these, either at home or at work. I like aspects of all three, but hate aspects of them as well.

Aperture II (Mac)
- OK tools, files can sorted and organized internally, externally and a combination of both. If using the internal organizational tools, then data and metadata become very important to finding material since file structure depth is lacking.
- Intuitive.
- Memory pig.
- Updates are kind of spotty, and require for me at least to get new version of the software at bad times.
- Personally I have mixed opinion of Aperture, the memory pigness sucks, storing of files internally sucks too. Tools are generally very good and intuitive, but he cleaning tools suck.

Lightroom
- Far more tools then Aperture. But still lacks some of favorite tools from Photoshop (such as completley usible scopes).
- File structre is nearly completely set up by you. I prefer this, but most don't. Handles data and metadata as well as Aperture.
- Take a class if possible, since Lightroom has more to it then Aperture, it's easy to overlook tools within it. Also, using and chaning the layout at times hides things, which is really annoying.
- Files are completely compatible with other Adobe products.

Extensis Portfolio
-Clunky as hell, but far better data and metadata tools then either of the above. Uses a combination of exterior and internal file structuring, which is fine and helps keep organization.
- Easy to use.
- Can import, export and share data and metadata across platforms and networks. Neither Lightroom or Aperture can do this, as such, makes Portfolio over all much better "Archival" based software. Furthermore with Portfolio searching is deeper then simple key words and "Tagging" with 3 major fields that are sub-dived within each field (field 1 - is data, Field 2 - is image based key wording, Field 3 - is partially based on EXIF metadata, but can also include author and other information). the data and metadata can be searched via field and even subfield. Currently Lightroom and Aperture can only do this in a very limited ways.
- Photo tools are limited.

 

[imokruok]

It's a bit primitive, but I've been storing my digital images in the following way for quite some time. I think chronologically, so I create a folder with the following naming scheme, with SS being the upload session or different subject matter if I create more than one folder on the same day.

'YY_MM_DD_SS - Description (Camera), so today might be '11_01_02_01 - Street shots in LA (Leica M9).

Using this scheme, the folders organize chronologically in Windows, and I can quickly scroll through the master folder to find what I want.

 

[MPerson]

I use iView MediaPro......

Same here on my Macs. iView maintains catalogues for all my external drives along with my Buffalo Terastations. Fast foolproof system but no idea what Microsoft has done with it.

I would also recommend:

The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers by Peter Krogh.

I bought the first edition but there is a second edition out now and well worth the money if you need advice and a robust system.

 

[user237428934]

Same here on my Macs. iView maintains catalogues for all my external drives along with my Buffalo Terastations. Fast foolproof system but no idea what Microsoft has done with it.

I would also recommend:

The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers by Peter Krogh.

I bought the first edition but there is a second edition out now and well worth the money if you need advice and a robust system.

Phase One bought Expression Media (the new name) from Microsoft and as a Capture One user I could download the newest version for free some time ago. I played around with it for some time and for searching and scrolling through your photos it's significantly faster than lightroom. To be really fast you have to enable the option "use embedded previews" so that Expression Media does not render the raw file whenever you want to look at the bigger photo. But that does not work with M8 files.
If you have an existing workflow with Photoshop, Photoshop Elements or Capture One or whatever then Expression Media is very good for just organizing.
But I really like the RAW-converter in Lightroom and the editing options. Expression Media is very! basic in that.

 

[rondo]

This is just excellent. A lot of very useful information. Thanks to all.

 

[majid]

Have a look also at the dpBestflow.org site. They have comprehensive best-practice recommendations for professional photographers. The choice of specific software is less important than getting a good workflow in place.

You're likely to switch software several times, in any case. I myself went from IMatch on Windows to Canto Cumulus on Mac to Aperture 1.0 to Kavasoft Shoebox to Lightroom, and am considering switching back to Aperture 3. One of the dpBestflow recommendations is to make sure you have good export options to make switching possible (I had to write my own scripts to migrate from Cumulus, and it wasn't pretty).

 

[menos]

folder structure:

hdd/
pictures/
2011/
01/
2011-01-02 fun at the beach/
DSC123.JPG
DSC124.JPG
DSC125.JPG
DSC126.JPG

I use Adobe Lightroom for everything.
I import new images into Lightroom, rename folders, move folders into above folder structure, process images, tag, sort images, change image title, add captions, notes … everything in Lightroom.

I never, ever rename an original image file out of camera.

For this is EXIF data with adding tags, title, captions and notes within Lightroom.

I create collections within Lightroom, which are basically aliases of original images collected in a virtual folder like "best F1 shots 2010" or "for printing" or "for book for mom and dad" …

I only keep my original image files (mostly RAW) and the Lightroom archive file.
With these, I have the original data out of camera and all processing info, EXIF data and notes, I did in Lightroom.

When I need to reproduce an old image, I search for the image in Lightroom after time of capture, tags, event, etc.
When I have an exported small web size image (mom sends me a small image and wants a big print) - I just search for the original file name in Lightroom check, if my original processing is ok and print right away.

Lightroom is a godsend - without it, I could not live.

All my film scans are treated as digital camera files.
I do keep my negs archived in the same file structure and can find specific single frames quickly with the help of Lightroom.

I use Mac computers and run several backups in certain order. I do keep backups at different places.
The only thing, I could loose at once would be my original film negatives, with the last scan remaining as digital backups.

I treat my film negatives like my original digital camera RAW files. I do only keep the last needed file on hdd, that I used the last time.

I might have a low res JPG from a certain frame for years on the computer, just to find, that I might want to rescan at highres for a bigger digital print.
After that, I exchange the rescanned high res file with the old low res file and adapt the original post processing within Lightroom. It's all very easy and simple.

 

[B.J.Scharp]

I use Digital Image Mover to read the cards to my PC.

While copying, it renames the files to the format yyyymmdd-hhmmss-xx.ext, (where xx is a number between 01 and 99, depending on the number of images in that second (usually one), and ext is the extention: jpg, cr2, etc).

These get placed in a directory yyyy\mm-dd, so that each day of the year has its own directory, placed in a directory for that year.

If the day was of a specific event, or contained a specific event, I might rename the directory to "mm-dd - event description", and if there are two such events, I might split the day into two directories.

 

[rondo]

I use Adobe Lightroom for everything.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Although something worries me: What happens if one day you decide that LR is not the best thing on earth for you? Will all the information be lost when you migrate to a new application or switch OS? I think the tags,keywords etc should not be application specific.
Thanks again

 

[menos]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Although something worries me: What happens if one day you decide that LR is not the best thing on earth for you? Will all the information be lost when you migrate to a new application or switch OS? I think the tags,keywords etc should not be application specific.
Thanks again

Rondo, if this should happen, I had the following option at the current state of the software:

Choose all photos of my catalogue and export them from Lightroom in a high quality format including all processing, tagging, keywording into their original location or into an entirely new location.

Lightroom gives the option, to write all added EXIF info (keywords, etc …) into an exported file (with some limitations even into original RAW files, which I completely prevent out of philosophical reasons -"don't touch the original file").

At the current state, all file formats somewhat are questionable, other than highest quality prints with all your post processing worked in and all EXIF data printed on the same sheet.

At some point of imagination (which is theoretically fully valid), all digital files will be obsolete.

I try not, to worry about that point, as it might hopefully be well beyond my own expiration date, after which presumably not very many people will actually care about my photographs.

I use Lightroom for myself NOW as just the best all around solution for everything. For me, it is the most efficient way of editing, sorting, keywording, archiving, searching, printing, … all of my photographs.

I even use it for ALL still media, I might produce as THE central management tool.

Lately I have spent some first time with a new software (some might call it video game), which can be used, to produce still images.
It runs on a Playstation and is called Gran Turismo 5.

I am a big racing enthusiast and do motor sports photography myself, whenever I have the time, to visit a race track.

You can create these stills within the software on a gaming hardware, export it from there on a USB stick and import it into Lightroom, to manage the content - exactly the same, as you would with still photographs from a digital camera or film scanner or iPhone, …

motorsport images from Lightroom:

Le Mans 24h | Leica M8.2 | 135 APO-Telyt-M

Le Mans | Playstation 3 + GT5 | Zoom f2.8

This is not an old fashioned screen capture, but you create the stills inside a "photo mode", where you can walk on the track side and use a virtual camera with proper exposure controls, to create these photographs (funny thing is, you can haul around a 14 − 500mm f1 zoom 😀 )

I am a child at heart, having a huuuge amount of enthusiasm for the things that matter to me - the software (in this case Lightroom) is just the tool, to get me there - the thing, that should stay completely out of sight and mind, to be able, to concentrate on the creative part.

In the above case (could you tell, which is a "video game" and which is not on first sight), it acts as a mere connection point between several devices, to bring all content together onto a digital workbench, where I can produce content.

I don't worry much, what will happen in 10 years with Lightroom EXPECT A FEW BASIC RULES:

- never, ever touch your original raw files - ever
- save your files in a logic order, to be able, to browse, search, find them with other software, than your file management software
- do not produce duplicate files - ever
- do not store your file archive spreading in several places, except hdd space limitations force you to (if so, built these archives in a logical way - I have all archives including year 2008 on external drives and all archives from 2009 until now on my laptop)
- do backups
- do backups
- do backups
…
- collect all necessary software (OS, RAW converters, drivers, tools, …) in a place, to have them at hand, even if their creators website is down/ the company seizes operation, …
- do not worry much about tomorrow, but live today and enjoy photography ;-)

I hope, you can find out, what is best for you (sure, you will).
Oh, btw - I didn't test it personally, but Lightroom archive files are highly compatible between operating systems, different machines, different drives.
You can basically work on one laptop with your original photo archive on an external drive, copy the Lightroom archive file onto that drive (or create it from the beginning there, or "transport it otherwise"), throw away that laptop computer after finishing, connect your photo archive to another computer (be it Mac or PC), install Lightroom and continue, where you left of.

I love Lightroom ;-)
I moved from Lightroom 1.x from an old PC with my first photos to a Mac without issues, moved from there to a new Mac without issues and lived through all versions of Lightroom until now.
This software gets better and better with every generation.
The last major change from Lr2 to Lr3 basically gave my Leica M8.2 a full one stop performance upgrade, cleaning high ISO shots amazingly compared to older versions (or other software at that time).

So enough of praise - try it out, it won't hurt you ;-)

 

[Andy Kibber]

It's been posted in a couple of other threads on the forum, but Aperture 3 is $79 through the App Store right now. That's significantly less than I paid for the program less than a year ago.

 

[Steve_F]

I only need storage space for my film scans but since a 16Bit TIF file of a single 135 frame scanned with 4000dpi already needs ~135 MB ... 😱

What you need is a top-spec DSLR. 70mb 16bit TIFF. Will cut your storage in half, and remember they're medium-format quality too. 😉

Steve.

 

[j j]

Aperture II (Mac) storing of files internally sucks too.

If I ate a biscuit every time I read this I would be huge. Aperture lets you specify your own file system. I import and keyword, Aperture places the images into a month and year folder system for me and I use smart albums to display the images by subject. Lightroom will do the same/similar (except the smart albums?).

 

[bwcolor]

When LR and Aperture came out I tried both and went with Aperture. I'm using a Mac and my wife uses Ubuntu Linux distribution. For her LR/Aperture functions she uses Shotwell. Don't count out Linux. You can have much functionality in a very stable operating system. VueScan has a Linux version, so scanning is also available with Linux. I have a few windows computers and would agree that the Windows 7 is an improvement, but Windows is my least favorite operating system, so only use it for business where there is a program that I can't get for Mac (Linux running under the Leopard desktop) and Linux (like Ubuntu distribution).

I scan (VueScan) at full resolution of the scanner. Downsize, spot and adjust for exposure, contrast, curves..etc in PS. For casual shots I don't spot and all else I do via an automated script. Import into Aperture and look for blown highlights and adjust for shadow. I then export JPG and upload to Flicker Pro. I back the Aperture data file to another hard drive and the whole computer backs up to a Raid 5 Network server with eight TB of HD..that converts to 6TB Raid 5. I keep Flickr organized by month/year. Flickr is my house burnt down and at least I have something left option. All my computers, probably close to 20, backup to my house server and most backup offsite to the Crashplan central backup center. If you are not backing up offsite, you are not backing up your work. Take a look at Crashplan. It is free. You only pay to get more frequent backups, or if you want to use their backup site and that is dirt cheap with unlimited space. Best of all, it is totally free to backup to another or your (or a friend's) computers at a different site. Additionally, I have found Crashplan to be very dependable. You can even backup a laptop automatically when travelling...for free.

 

[nightfly]

Two thoughts:

1) I use an old pre-microsoft version of iView as well combined with scans stored on an external drive with the year/roll folder structure. It is more than adequate for my needs and fast for looking through catalogs of large scans.

If I shot digital, I'd probably move to something like Lightroom or Aperture, but my workflow works for me. The software watches folders and brings things in so I don't ever have to bring anything into it, when I launch it, things are there if they are stored in the folder structure I've told it to watch.

2) If you need a lot of external storage they makes these external drive mounts that basically let you plug internal style hardrives (no enclosure) into them and they mount instantly. So you can basically buy inexpensive drives as needed and use them like external media. I think they also make some type of boxes to store the drives in so you could have a shelf full of internal drives in nice cases that you could pop into your drive mount as needed. Haven't used this system but heard about it and it sounded great.

http://www.amazon.com/Thermaltake-Sata-HDD-Docking-Station/dp/B0012Z3MKW/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt

http://www.wiebetech.com/products/cases.php

 

[ampguy]

interesting thread, i might try aperture, but definitely won't rely on it. Each of my sd cards or set of scans from film goes onto a tiered storage platform under camera (sometimes I will have 4 of the same type, then date yyyymmdd followed by an a, b, c, for multiple cards/rolls in a given day.

The only thing this doesn't provide is tagging of events or lens used, film type which is kept in notes in the folder.

The only problem with trying things like Aperture or Lightroom or other DAM's and importing from central storage is the storage gets multipled 2x+ for every tool you try, if you maintain originals with read only access on a separate fs.

 

[nightfly]

With something like iView, it doesn't make copies of your files. It reads them in place and can create thumbnails of it's own to speed things up. The tool basically maintains it's own database of meta data about your images but it doesn't do anything to your images themselves. So the only increase in storage would be the space for the program and it's database of your meta data and associated thumbs.

If I'm understanding you correctly.

interesting thread, i might try aperture, but definitely won't rely on it. Each of my sd cards or set of scans from film goes onto a tiered storage platform under camera (sometimes I will have 4 of the same type, then date yyyymmdd followed by an a, b, c, for multiple cards/rolls in a given day.

The only thing this doesn't provide is tagging of events or lens used, film type which is kept in notes in the folder.

The only problem with trying things like Aperture or Lightroom or other DAM's and importing from central storage is the storage gets multipled 2x+ for every tool you try, if you maintain originals with read only access on a separate fs.

 

[ampguy]

got it

got it

that's how picasa works too, it doesn't re-copy. However, since I don't like to rely on individual programs, I'd export my edited images to another data store, so assuming iview has any edit features, it would be a 2x + storage factor.

I realize you can possibly backup the database of data changes, etc., only, but then you're relying on iview. Not something I personally want to do.

With something like iView, it doesn't make copies of your files. It reads them in place and can create thumbnails of it's own to speed things up. The tool basically maintains it's own database of meta data about your images but it doesn't do anything to your images themselves. So the only increase in storage would be the space for the program and it's database of your meta data and associated thumbs.

If I'm understanding you correctly.