Is your photo library in disarray?

This was the strapline for an article in Amateur Photographer this week, and got me wondering. Since I don't have, and have never had an image library associated with a software application. What might I be missing?

 

Currently I save images to my PC hard drive, backed up to a plug-in, saved under a year folder, then by date with a descriptor, such as 'London to Brighton bike ride' etc. If I need to find something I can search by that event, persons name, or year, and I usually find what I'm after pretty quickly. Most of the dedicated photo software applications allow you to save under categories such as portrait, landscape etc. and rate images with stars. I have always considered I don't need this, or could be bothered to allocate a rating to each image, so am I missing something here?

 

Thanks

My photo.net galleries, 30 of them, make it relatively easy to find stuff. Better, more descriptive titles help.

As a Picture is worth a thousand words, here is a screenshot of my 'system'.

 

I use a fairly simple directory system that organizes everything by month. Folder dates are always YYMMDD prefix so they sort correctly. Am I the only one that detests editing programs that want to catalog everything? I just started using Luminar and wish that whole scheme could be eliminated. Paint Shop Pro has something like that, but it's easy to completely ignore it. Also, do people really use that "rating" thing?

I use the Library that is part of Lightroom before that I used Organiser as part of PS Elements. I don't rate photos but they all have allocated Keywords, today in the No Words Forum photos on the theme "Yellow..." are required. A keyword search "yellow" brought up an abundance of choice, I couldn't see myself bothering without some sort of search system.

I think it depends a lot on the number and types of photos you process, your workflow, and how often you need to retrieve older photos. .

 

Like [uSER=10955656]@Ludmilla[/uSER], I use Lightroom too and I couldn't do without it. But I use Lightroom mainly to organise my workflow, not to retrieve photos.

I often take action shots in 'burst mode' during interviews, meetings and events. So my usual workflow is to select the 'keepers' in Lightoom. For large series of (event) photos, I usually tag (or color code) smaller sets of foto's from different parts of the event so I can work on one set at a time. I rate the photos that are OK (3 stars) or Good (4 stars). This is maybe 30% of the total. Then I review this 30% and adjust the rating. Finally I review the 'Good' photos and rate any Best ones of the bunch (5 stars) .I only make adjustments to photos that are 'Good' or 'Best'. I delete the rest.

 

I tag some (usually larger series of) photos but not each and every one. So like [uSER=10955656]@Ludmilla[/uSER], it takes me time to find single untagged photos from years back. Another cataloging features I've found useful is to keep photos that I take for different purposes (in logically) separate catalogs. Even though the 'keepers' are all physically in folders ordered by date. So I have separate catalogs for personal photography, voluntary photography, each major event, etc.

 

If working with descriptive folder names were an app is works for you - and you can easily cull the non-keepers as you go, then tagging may not help you much. My Lightroom tags are usually of (groups of) people or places. An app is useful because it makes tagging easy. You can select and tag whole groups of photos from different folders. And an app like Lightroom (perhaps Bridge too) remembers previous tags.So typing the first few letters automatically brings up a tag suggestion that you can confirm. There are even AI apps on the market that 'suggest' tags based on the content of photos.

 

Mike

 

This was the strapline for an article in Amateur Photographer this week, and got me wondering. Since I don't have, and have never had an image library associated with a software application. What might I be missing?

 

Currently I save images to my PC hard drive, backed up to a plug-in, saved under a year folder, then by date with a descriptor, such as 'London to Brighton bike ride' etc. If I need to find something I can search by that event, persons name, or year, and I usually find what I'm after pretty quickly. Most of the dedicated photo software applications allow you to save under categories such as portrait, landscape etc. and rate images with stars. I have always considered I don't need this, or could be bothered to allocate a rating to each image, so am I missing something here?

 

Thanks

I keep images with the number assigned by the camera in folders with a reverse date code and brief description, for example "D200614 Botanic Garden". With over 200,000 images in my library, I can still find a topic, even a particular image, within a few minutes.

 

A reverse date code is sortable by default. I have a lot of folders with "Botanic Garden" in the name, but the date code makes each one unique, which is a prime directive in management of a relational data base. "D" for "Digital" is kind of redundant these days, but old habits are hard to break.

 

Frame numbers roll over every 10,000 images, but it's unlikely that will ever create duplicates in the same folder. Shooting with two cameras, on the other hand, is likely to produce duplicates, so I customize the name with a camera identifier. The complete identifier is found in EXIF data, if that becomes important, and is searchable (in Lightroom).

 

Does it matter which memory card was used? It's not like Velvia vs whatever. As soon as they're backed up (twice), I re-format and reuse the card anyway.

 

Significantly, I store images manually before importing them into Lightroom. That way I'm in control, not some finicky program. Lightroom obligingly keeps them in the same folders (an option when importing).

Edited June 14, 2020 by Ed_Ingold

As a Picture is worth a thousand words, here is a screenshot of my 'system'.

 

[ATTACH=full]1345677[/ATTACH]

 

Raw 10 is SD card number - 1262 is the number of DNG images (32 GB card)

 

sub folders are again disc number-folder number_date - then brief aide-memoire as to contents.

 

From here, I can usually locate images quite quickly.

 

Not dissimilar to mine Tony. Now of course, everyone is wondering what the hell is 'Cley'?!

 

Cley next the Sea - Wikipedia

Not dissimilar to mine Tony. Now of course, everyone is wondering what the hell is 'Cley'?!

 

Cley next the Sea - Wikipedia

 

Actually refers to the marshes between Cley-next-the-Sea and Salthouse, managed for wildlife by the NWT - my favoured site for birding, as it's a mere 2 1/2 hours away by bus from Norwich.

 

Actually refers to the marshes between Cley-next-the-Sea and Salthouse, managed for wildlife by the NWT - my favoured site for birding, as it's a mere 2 1/2 hours away by bus from Norwich.

 

[ATTACH=full]1345700[/ATTACH]

 

Cley - bit misty Friday.

I see no birds! ;)

Dewey decimal system?

I see no birds! ;)

 

Nor did I ! Heard a few.

Back to the question -- I still use a date, place, etc code in an old version of Adobe Bridge:

But at least I found the image i was seeking !

 

To actually view all the images in any particular folder, when and if I need to, I use Irfanview or XnView, which also have both limited editing facilities and the ability to open the image in another editor, such as FastStone. These three (all free !) let me do all the editing I require.

I use a fairly simple directory system that organizes everything by month. Folder dates are always YYMMDD prefix so they sort correctly. Am I the only one that detests editing programs that want to catalog everything? I just started using Luminar and wish that whole scheme could be eliminated. Paint Shop Pro has something like that, but it's easy to completely ignore it. Also, do people really use that "rating" thing?

 

My library looks similar Conrad, and I feel the same about catalog software. However I do use the rating thing for 3/4/5 ratings. That is used to sort out items I want to have for on-line albums and as a "photo-channel" on our TVs. I dont' find we need anything more complicated than file explorer to keep track.

Thanks for all the replies. The short answer seems to be, no I'm not missing anything, so I think I'll stick to what I have for the time being.

Like Conrad I'm not a fan of editing programmes that automatically suck up your whole photolibrary without so much as asking you if you want that.

 

One thing did cross my mind about ratings, and that is it might be useful when I wanted to do a 'slideshow' following a holiday or other event, At the moment, I just put the shots I might want to view into a separate folder called 'slideshow' and save these to a stick when I want to do this. This involves file duplication, which could be avoided if I rated the images (maybe only the images I wanted to slideshow) I could then sort these easily and save to the stick without duplication.

Thanks for all the replies. The short answer seems to be, no I'm not missing anything, so I think I'll stick to what I have for the time being.

Like Conrad I'm not a fan of editing programmes that automatically suck up your whole photolibrary without so much as asking you if you want that.

 

 

I can't speak for all editing programs but all that I've used allow you to disable any "automatic suck up". But horses for courses choose what suits you.

Luminar does have a "open images for quick edit" choice under the file tab, which is the way I use it. It's the previous version and it's good enough I might pay to upgrade it.

Digital media management is a subset of relational database management. It consists of two major parts with distinct sets of rules - Storage and Retrieval. The general concept is "Store once, retrieve many". Rules for relational database management were formalized in 1970 by E.F. Codd, an IBM employee. If you want to learn more, start here: Relational database - Wikipedia. Except for backup or distribution purposes, a given version of an image should be stored in only one location and used as needed.

 

Lightroom can store (import) photos in a variety of ways. In the simplest form, you can insert a memory card in the computer, and Lightroom will read its contents and store the results in some default location. I prefer to store the images where I wish, then import them into Lightroom in their present location. Lightroom is an effective way to manage, retrieve and edit (non-destructively) images. That makes images available, but doesn't mean you have to use or display them all.

 

I use Lightroom to selectively export images for other purposes, locking any editing into JPEG or TIFF format. I generally save them to a subdirectory under the main directory for the raw or master images. However you can assign images by reference (without making copies) to any number of "Collections". Collections can then by selectively synchronized in cloud memory with mobile devices and other computers. I use collections to create topical portfolios which I can display in an iPad. Collections can be assembled from any number of source directories, and images can be traced to their actual location if desired.

Yes there are certainly (usually standard/free) apps that want to suck up your whole library. I hate these too! Apps like Adobe bridge (free) enable you to just select the photos you want to include in any slideshow. And Lightroom and Bridge don't suck up anything. I only have experience with Ligthtroom but you have to explicitly choose to include (import) any photos in a catalog. Windows 10 app 'photos' is the main app I have that assumes a) where my photos are stored b) that I want to have all photos included and c) I want my photos ordered by date.

 

Thanks for all the replies. The short answer seems to be, no I'm not missing anything, so I think I'll stick to what I have for the time being.

Like Conrad I'm not a fan of editing programmes that automatically suck up your whole photolibrary without so much as asking you if you want that.

 

One thing did cross my mind about ratings, and that is it might be useful when I wanted to do a 'slideshow' following a holiday or other event, At the moment, I just put the shots I might want to view into a separate folder called 'slideshow' and save these to a stick when I want to do this. This involves file duplication, which could be avoided if I rated the images (maybe only the images I wanted to slideshow) I could then sort these easily and save to the stick without duplication.

Lightroom is pretty good as an image database. Its main downside is that it's not safely scalable beyond a single user or computer. It's easy enough to backup the basic application and thumbnails, but not the actual data. You can back up the data independently, but in order to use it you must restore it in the original directories, or reconstruct the Lightroom database from scratch. Even that's not hard to do, but it can take a veeery looong time.

 

I've written applications for Microsoft Access, including media management, which work well for half a dozen or fewer users. Beyond that it's incredibly slow and hard to maintain. For multiple users and/or servers, a comprehensive system like Microsoft SQL Server or Oracle should be considered.

My Photo Library is a TOTAL MESS ! Thanks for reminding me. I usually upload by date to Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, or ACDsee. When I upload my pictures I upload everything, test shots, bloopers, lemons and keepers. I got a whole lot of stuff that I need to delete, but this is very time consuming. What I need to do is give each folder a meaningful name and only keep the keepers. This might speed up my computer, but I doubt it since I got a Terabyte of disk space and so far I'm only at 18% capacity.

Some kind of "photo organizer" might help you speed up the process of culling photos that you don't want (or need) to keep). In the sense that it helps you select and rate photos across multiple folders. And quickly delete any photos that have a zero or low. rating (or color coding). If you have a recent version of ACDsee Photo Studio, you probably have their "Digital Asset Management" features. I've never used ACDsee but it might help in organizing. Otherwise Adobe Bridge (free) could be useful in selecting the keepers from the junk. Photoshop Elements also has an organizer but this looks much less flexible to me than Bridge.

Mike

 

My Photo Library is a TOTAL MESS ! Thanks for reminding me. I usually upload by date to Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, or ACDsee. When I upload my pictures I upload everything, test shots, bloopers, lemons and keepers. I got a whole lot of stuff that I need to delete, but this is very time consuming. What I need to do is give each folder a meaningful name and only keep the keepers. This might speed up my computer, but I doubt it since I got a Terabyte of disk space and so far I'm only at 18% capacity.

culling photos that you don't want

I rarely trash photos. I organize, not obsessively, but enough to keep track. I use date, location, and key words to organize into folders. I have gone back through my archives too many times discovering potential I never saw before. I'm not one who takes hundreds of photos a week and get by with many months of relatively few pictures taken, so it may be a function of my way of shooting that allows me this practice. My ever-evolving needs, desires, and aesthetics challenge me to hold onto stuff I don't necessarily like or see the value of now in deference to the knowledge and experience I have of seeing something in a photo months or years later that I hadn't yet seen. Just as when I view others' photos, that "wow" factor that immediately grabs me but doesn't stay the test of time, the photos of mine that may grab me at first aren't necessarily the ones that offer the most challenge and the most secrets to untangle.

I generally keep everything. Not that many are complete duds, and maintaining continuity of frame numbers alerts me if there is a break indicating photos are lost or misplaced. I tend to rate things highly (by making corrections and saving them as TIFF or JPEG) based on my goals at the moment. Those goals tend to change with time, and images I might have discarded may fit those new needs. Sometimes those needs are strictly practical. If I'm doing a CD label or skin, I need fairly broad light or dark areas for text and graphics. Those landscapes or travel shots with too much sky (or grass) suddenly fit the bill. Who needs a full frame of parsnips - until you do? I troll farmers' markets just in case.

 

Nobody is creative enough to come up with unique names that actually mean something. I don't even try. The combination of folder and image njmber is almost automatically unique, and I don't have to stress the few grey cells I have left.