Keeping track of CDs

[Roger Hicks]

One of the reasons I shoot mainly slides is that I can pull a sheet of 20 or 24 out; glance at the lot over a light table; and be on to another sheet a few seconds later. I can examine scores of images in a minute.

With dozens of CDs dating back to my first digital imaging computer in '96 I often find it quicker to re-scan than to try to find the CD with the scan on it; put it in the computer; wait for the CD drive to catch up; look at the contents in Nikon View (or anything else, really)... It's all so SLOW!

It's even worse with digital images which are of course numbered at the shooting stage instead of named at the scanning stage. Printing out thumbnails for entire CDs doesn't seem feasible, but I suppose it's an option.

DVDs would hold more but I still find it hard to believe they'd be faster than physically looking at slides. I know other photographers who are far more computer-competent than I but they prefer slides too. One reckons that he re-uses far more old material (on slide) than new (shot digitally).

Has anyone got any better ideas on this? Or must you, as my wife suggests, be totally anal-retentive and make minute notes about every CD you burn?

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[r-h]

Hi Roger,
I try to outline my system - it may work for you and is idependant from any computer program.
Every film gets a sequence number over one year, a prefix for me and my wife. On the slides, there is the number as well (we frame them). The scan gets the same number in front: E. g. R_03_04_P_05_white_rose.tif
Means: Roberts 3rd film in 2004 picture number 05, a white rose.
These raw scanns (raw means full resolution, colour or tones corrected, dust removed) are saved in a seperate directory. Once this direcory reaches the 650 MB of a CD, the directory is burned on a CD. On the cover a sequence number for the CD is mentioned as well as the first and last picture number.
Works very well for me and does not depend on any archiving software.
Just one way - there may be many others.
Regards
Robert

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Robert,

Thanks for the advice. Sounds good but I stilll suspect that slides may still be quicker for me. The big problem, I suspect, is that I'm nothing like as organized as you. Also, there's the question of volume: my wife and I normally shoot over 100 rolls a year, sometimes well over, and we have about 10,000 slides already on file.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[jlw]

I have two different systems that complement each other; one is used for organizing the images themselves, and a different one for organizing the information about them. Eventually I hope to integrate these, but so far there's no ideal solution for doing both.

For organizing the information, I use a custom database I made up with FileMaker Pro. I name each roll of film (or, now, each batch of digital images) with a roll number; in my case it consists of the year, the month, and the roll within that month, so, for example, the first roll I shot in January 2005 was named 05-01-01. Each individual frame on the roll is further identified by its frame number, so frame #17 on that roll would be 05-01-01_17.

In the FileMaker database, I record each roll along with the information I need to know about it. Most of my photography involves performing arts, so in my case that includes the roll number, date, theater or location, the title of the work, the playwright/choreographer/composer/whatever, and the names of the featured performers.

The roll-number database is relationally linked to another frame-number database where I store information about any individual frames from the roll that have been published, exhibited, etc. This database includes the roll number/frame number, a thumbnail of the image, the date and place of publication or exhibition, etc. Since this is linked to the roll-number database, I don't need to re-enter the title, subject, and people shooting info -- I can just move seamlessly from one to the other.

Using the two databases I can, for example, deal quickly with requests for "that picture of Jane Jones performing with the Fahrquahr Civic Ballet that was in the Daily Bugle last year." The roll-number index tells me all the rolls that contain pictures of Jane Jones and the company; the image index lets me see when and where they were published. Once I know the correct roll number, I can pull the correct negative sleeve or CD from my files immediately.

This type of system would work fine for an existing catalog such as your collection of slides. All you have to do is number each slide page according to some consistent system (I'll bet you do that already) and then enter data about it into the databases. You don't necessarily have to do this all at once; you can do it in batches as time permits.


Sometimes, though, the only way to find the image you need is by a visual search, and for this I use iView MediaPro to catalog all my digital and scanned images. I archive finished batches of digital photos on DVD discs, and once I've burned an archive DVD I let iView munch on it and build a catalog of all the images on it. The catalog automatically inherits the name of the DVD, and can be saved on my computer's hard disk, while the DVD itself goes into storage. Then, when I'm looking for "that picture of the girl in the green costume I shot a couple of months ago," I can page through the catalogs until I see it; then locate the correct DVD by name.

iView MediaPro also lets you add keywords and caption information to each image, and this information is searchable -- so eventually I may be able to transfer all my subject information into it and retire the FileMaker databases. For now, though, I've got so much "legacy" information in FileMaker that it's easier to just keep using it.


[Update: I've attached a couple of screenshots of my FileMaker databases, in case they might provide any inspiration for anyone else who is interested in "rolling their own." One big advantage of setting up your own database, as opposed to using a commercial asset-management product, is that you can have exactly the fields, layouts, reports, etc., that best fit your photography and way of working. The downside, of course, is that you have to learn the software well enough to set up the databases (although once you've learned it, this is useful knowledge for lots of other projects as well.) Anyway, it's something to consider...]

 

[dmr]

One of the reasons I shoot mainly slides is that I can pull a sheet of 20 or 24 out; glance at the lot over a light table; and be on to another sheet a few seconds later. I can examine scores of images in a minute.

With dozens of CDs dating back to my first digital imaging computer in '96 I often find it quicker to re-scan than to try to find the CD with the scan on it;

As much as I like to come down on Wally World, when I have CDs processed there (I finally trained them to do a DO/CD) 🙂 is that they do have a "contact sheet" printed right on the label of the CD. It's very obvious then which photos are on which CD.

(As an aside, not all Walmart photo centers have this feature.)

Otherwise I (try to remember to) write a brief description of the CD on the label with a sharpie.

For most of my serious stuff, I use an independent lab which does a great job of DO and scan to CD. I wish they would do a contact sheet on the CD, but I don't think their equipment does it.

I've considered taking the time to go thru the CDs I have (quite a few) and doing a quickie contact sheet to be stored with each, but I'll probably never get around to this.

 

[Doug]

I do it similarly to JLW's method, with a FileMaker database that I started some years ago, and then later on I added data back to 1963 by transcribing the info from the 4x6 file cards that I'd previously used. 🙂 I'm rather pleased with it, and the transcribing process involved a review of all that previous work, bringing some insights and new directions.

My datafile is not relational, but it does feature several different forms or pages, each with the basic roll info on it such as record number, film type and format. One page has a descriptive commentary about the subjects of the exposures and when shot. Another page has technical data about the camera gear, film and processing. Another is for scanning details, and the final page lists which exposures I like, which have been printed, which prints have been given and to whom, and publication.

I too like visual cataloging, for just browsing through... So each scanned exposure I think is worth seeing again or showing is made into a smaller jpeg suitable for upload and these are all placed in one folder on the computer. Photoshop has a browsing feature that can view a scrolling window of all these images in file order.

So as to find images easily, I use a numbering system very much like JLW's... My number is YYear, MMonth, DDay the roll was finished, and the individual scan files have a dash suffix matching the frame number on the negative. If I finish more than one roll in a day, then I add A, B, C etc to the roll number, and this is where JLW's sequential method might be better. The CD bears the roll number(s) on it. So I can easily relate browser thumbnails, upload jpegs, negative file pages, and the original scans on the CDs, with the information in the FileMaker datafile, easily searched.

 

[rbiemer]

I am not scanning my own film but I get a Kodak photo CD when I get my C-41 film developed and that comes with an index print which I store with the CD and Negs. "Real" B&W film I have developed and a contact sheet plus 1 set of machine prints which all get stored together. Some where along the way I will get a film scanner and my wet darkroom up and running again and then I'm not sure how I'll deal with this.
Rob

 

[nwcanonman]

Rodger,
For web-size pics, I pull it out of PS Album. But for full-size-printable files, like others, my lab gives me an index print and I put it on as the cover of the jewel box. And on it i'll have date and info of the shots.

 

[Roger Hicks]

OK -- thanks everyone. It's as I feared. I'm too lazy and disorganized to do anything except carry on the way I am.

I'm quite often working to deadlines, so there's no time to adopt the excellently organized approach that some have advocated. After the deadline has passed I just don't get around to it.

I process my own films so I can't get a ref CD/ref prints made by the lab.

I'd hoped there would be a "Wow! Why didn't I think of that" somewhere but the simple truth is that you have to be more diligent than I can be with CDs -- so I guess I'll stick with slides.

Once again, thanks to all.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Doug]

Working to deadlines means efficient use of time is important. Good record-keeping helps avoid time wasted thrashing around looking for something you know is there... somewhere! An investment in organization pays off later when you need it! 🙂

 

[T_om]

OK -- thanks everyone. It's as I feared. I'm too lazy and disorganized to do anything except carry on the way I am.

I'm quite often working to deadlines, so there's no time to adopt the excellently organized approach that some have advocated. After the deadline has passed I just don't get around to it.

Pity. A well organized collection is just about the only way to effectively use a large image set at all.

This software is called iMatch http://www.photools.com/index.php
It is the most powerful image organizer on the market and is so cheap it is almost free.

There is a learning curve because it is an exceedingly powerful program, but there is a great support group onsite and the author of the software is very responsive to questions and requests.

Doesn't matter if you are organizing a home database of family photos or a 400,000 image stock photo portfolio, iMatch will do the job.

Tom, a happy iMatch user for years.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Doug and T_om,

I take your point -- but sometimes there just isn't TIME to log everything and meet a deadline as well. And even when there is, it's not the way my mind works. I think it was Terry Pratchett (in The Truth) who reckons that all journalists regard all flat surfaces as part of their filing system...

Besides, even if I did try some sort of computerised approach, I'm still not convinced that it would be faster than seeing real slides.

Cheers (and thanks again, especially as your efforts were in vain)

Roger

 

[jlw]

This software is called iMatch http://www.photools.com/index.php
It is the most powerful image organizer on the market

Maybe (or maybe not) but as it's Windows-only, some of us will never know.

and is so cheap it is almost free.

Well, if you consider sixty bucks "almost free." (Those who do, maybe you'd like to send me sixty bucks...)

 

[T_om]

Besides, even if I did try some sort of computerised approach, I'm still not convinced that it would be faster than seeing real slides.

Roger, I enjoy reading your stuff but can't let this go by.

I have about 22,000+ stock images on file. In addition, I have about 123,000 other images on file and indexed. This is not all my library, which iMatch also catalogs, but it is the most critical.

If I want to see EVERY image with, say, a tractor-trailer truck in it, it is literally THREE mouse clicks away. EVERY image. Want every image that contains boats? Again, three mouse clicks away.

I shot film for many years. As a pro and semi-pro since 1968. I went digital with all my critical work two years ago. I STILL shoot film for personal enjoyment, so I have to deal with mixed media. Maintaining a file system and retrieval method to effectively manage that library was almost a full time job. It took just shy of three years to scan all my film and catalog everything in iMatch. Now, maintaining and keeping current the data is a piece of cake.

It is too easy to be overcome with information. If you are standing knee deep in a pile of transparencies with no effective filing system, there is no way "seeing real slides" is a viable option.

-----------

jlw,

Well, if you consider sixty bucks "almost free." (Those who do, maybe you'd like to send me sixty bucks...)

Cute. I'll tell you what. You send me something of value equal to iMatch and I'll raise your sixty bucks by sending you six hundred. Deal?

Tom

 

[Doug]

Maybe (or maybe not) but as it's Windows-only, some of us will never know.

Unfortunate... IMatch looks pretty decent, though I like Extensis Portfolio. And it took some digging on the website to find it runs only on those boxes with the Intel Inside warning sticker.

 

[T_om]

Unfortunate... IMatch looks pretty decent, though I like Extensis Portfolio. And it took some digging on the website to find it runs only on those boxes with the Intel Inside warning sticker.

Yep. That is the major drawback to the program's getting wider acceptance. I don't know if Mario is EVER planning a Mac release, but I would doubt it.

For Windows users however, I could not find a better program at ANY price point. And I looked VERY hard. Scanning and cataloging my collection was a non-trivial one-time event and I researched the tools available very thoroughly.

Tom

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear T_om,

Once again, wow!

I have only about 10,000 slides and I try to keep it that way, culling old ones as I add new ones. They are filed in hanging sleeves by country. An important part of my system for me is seeing pictures. In other words I don't search by key-word or category: I'm usually looking for something that illustrates a visual point -- sometimes, a visual point that I have not yet fully verbalized, or one that I may have verbalized but for which I am seeking the best possible illustration.

Your comments have been immensely helpful, though not, I fear, in the way you intended. They have shown me that little is likely to overcome my deep-seated loathing of computers: I use them only when there is no other easy way of doing what I want, e.g. they make very good electric tpewriters and colour enlargers. They have well illustrated hw two people, superficially similar, can classify things very differently. They have made me think about verbal and non-verbal classifications. They have made me reconsider my attitude to logic. And my conclusion, you may be sorry to hear, is that my way is probably best for me, no mqtter how excellent your system is for you (and no doubt others).

Once again, thanks,

Cheers,

Roger

 

[T_om]

And my conclusion, you may be sorry to hear...

Roger,

I am not "sorry" at all. I don't have a dog in this fight (Old Southern Term). Use what works best for you.

As an aside though, "culling" of photos is something I do during the initial editing process. Then I keep what is left forever. I never go back to years gone by and delete stuff. Why? Because I am sometimes a poor editor of my own stuff. Things I think will sell just sit there in the files and a stupid snapshot of a wall telephone (a WALL TELEPHONE fer cryin' out loud) has sold numerous times.

I could not possibly do what you do, but if it works for you, who am I to say differently?

Tom

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear T_om,

A poor editor of my own work? Sure. But for a book or magazine article, the only editor I'll accept...

I didn't really think you'd be upset. And I really am grateful. I couldn't work like you, either. And at least we've given two examples of things that work, for a given value of 'work'.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Thomaspin]

Roger - let me suggest a software approach that permits random access so you don't have to be hyper organized in how you put things together - Extensis Portfolio 7. The product is specifically aimed at your problem.

I use this and it is efficient. You dump all your scans - jpg, tif or psd - onto your hard disk and then have the one time task of assigning key words to your pictures. You can set up a list of frequently used key words (Paris, tree, candid, whatever) and add others on the fly.

The process is completely random, allowing you to search based on any combination of key words. Thus if you want all the moncohrome shots of trees in Paris taken in the fall you enter the search string "Monochrome Paris trees fall" and up they come. You can then either click on the thumbnail in Extensis for a larger preview or have the click direct you to your application of choice such as PS. Or just drag the thumbnail to your photo processing application of choice. You can elect to burn your filtered results to a new CD if you need one.

So there is still the one time task of assigning keywords to images. Well, I think if you set aside an hour a day you can probably do 250 an hour, so reckon on 40 hours per 10,000 images. I actually adopt a continous refinement approach, adding keywords each time I use an image - some may have up to 20 key words permitting very focused searches. I would recommend backing-up your database (it's one file) to another hard disk from time to time, as all hard disks fail sooner or later.

I use a Mac but the product will work on Windows machines also.

An alternative product, which I have not used but appears similar, is iView.