Best DAM?: digital-asset management options

<p>I'm deciding on my primary digital-asset management/cataloging software. Here's some data I've collected:</p>

<p>1. Custom: Getty/WireImage uses proprietary DAM software.<br /> 2. Custom: One of the largest digital workflow vendors, Industrial Color, again, uses their own software.<br /> 3. Adobe Bridge: used by a number of major media photo editors.<br /> 4. Photo Mechanic: used by a number of major media photo editors.<br /> 5. ACDSee: used by a number of major media photo editors.<br /> 6. Phase One Media Pro 1: An old favorite, formally known as, <em>iView MediaPro</em>/<em>Microsoft Expression Media</em>, is now owned by Phase One, and has been re-branded as <em>Media Pro 1.</em> Unfortunately, it's apparently suffering from version 1.x-itis, and is reportedly very unstable in its current iteration. Even in its current version, it has some interesting, and unique, DAM-related features. It'll certainly be worth re-evaluating when v2.0 is released.<br /> 7. IDimager [XP/Windows7 only]: haven't seen anyone using this, but it looks pretty good--[http://www.idimager.com/products/idimager].</p>

<p>Of the applications listed above, the one I see used most often by photo editors is Photo Mechanic. I was leaning towards Photo Mechanic, but I think I may give this IDimager a try--Oops! It's Windows-only!--I'm OS X (although I may switch to a Core i7, 64-bit Windows7 machine for its price/performance advantage).</p>

<p>Any other suggestions?</p>

<p>On another forum, an OS X user recently mentioned two additional OS X browsers/catalogers, that I hadn't heard of (<em>Portfolio</em> and <em>ImageFolio</em>), but decided on Media Pro 1, despite the fact that he's aware of the application's less-than-stellar user reports.</p>

<p>I see Lightroom is missing. It's about 10000 times better than Bridge, in terms of DAM, 100000000 times better than ACDSee and Photo Mechanic - I'm not even going to go on...</p>

<p>Strange...</p>

<p>+1 Lightroom but building a useful DAM workflow really depends on your needs: are you selling stock images or just photographing the family cat?</p>

<p>The most comprehensive info on all things DAM is the site www.thedambook.com</p>

<p>Extensis Portfolio</p>

<p>Dan said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>+1 Lightroom but building a useful DAM workflow really depends on your needs: are you selling stock images or just photographing the family cat?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't plan on selling stock, and I can honestly say I've never taken a picture of a cat. Since I'm starting from scratch (all my licenses are Windows-based, and I've since switched to OS X), I thought it a good time to begin a serious DAM strategy. I'm shooting both personal work, and client work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The most comprehensive info on all things DAM is the site www.thedambook.com.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I've been reading up on that site. Read his article--haven't bought the book yet.</p>

<p>Louis said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Extensis Portfolio</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I was looking at that also . . . what is it you like about the Extensis product?</p>

<p>Marios said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see Lightroom is missing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I wasn't including PIEs.</p>

<p>IDimager looks really interesting, but I'll have to get a Windows machine up and running to try it out. I may soon jump the OS X ship for a blistering-fast, Core i7 Windows7 machine, with a ridiculous amount of RAM to try it out--you just get so much bang-for-the-buck with PCs these days.</p>

It is true that pros use Bridge and Photo Mechanic, but neither are DAMs.

 

It is a mistake to exclude Lightroom.

<p>I Googled someone's mini-review about IDimager from 2010:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"[iDimager] is based on SQL database. so metatdata is not trapped in a proprietary jail. Very responsive customer support. Active ongoing deelopment with frequent updates. Active user forum. Full support of international metadata standards, even recent additions. Download images automated for adding copyright and labels, saving untouched originals to another folder, and much more. Files move with verification. Easily imports controlled vocabular. Your choice to write data to images and database or only to database. Works on Windows 7 64 bit very quickly. Backup of database very easy. Tracks images burned to CD/DVD.'</em></p>

</blockquote>

>>> Any other suggestions?

 

It's a real shame you have intentionally dismissed Lightroom. Having used that since he beginning (coming from iView)

with far more than 100K images, it has served me very well. I realize it isn't the most esoteric sounding solution.

But it is the best, being robust, scaling well, and having great and frequent upgrades over the years. It's not lacking features, but

more importantly, it's a system that I have confidence in and trust going forward.

 

>>> I may soon jump the OS X ship for a blistering-fast, Core i7 Windows7 machine, with a ridiculous amount of

RAM to try it out--you just get so much bang-for-the-buck with PCs these days.

 

You're looking for *value* on the hardware side, yet you're not considering LR for DAM on the systems/software side, which is far more important long-term. Very odd. And shortsighted...

<p>Well, I'm just starting to research this. I was looking for a dedicated DAM, not a PIE, possibly for some enhanced performance, and a more archive-directed feature set. Of course, many use Lightroom as a DAM, but from what I've read so far, LR may not be the best choice for a DAM. Apparently, LR does not verify file moves/copies. Also, dedicated DAMs appear to have more archival-tracking tools, e.g. "tracks images burned to CD/DVD."</p>

<p>In your previous posts you said you're just starting with photography again after a long absence. How many images do you seriously imaging you'll shoot over the course, say, of a year, to require the most powerful dedicated DAM solution? 30,000? 50,000? 100,000? Even if you were indeed shooting that much (whcih would mean you would be on assignment with NG for 10 months a year!), unless your requirements included sharing those images with 10 different channels, auto-exporting to hundreds different media (with different demands each), maintaining a full-tracking of EVERYTHING because licensing fees depend on that, EVEN then, LR would more than cover you AND provide a very robust initial editor to boot.</p>

<p>I just get the impression (from all your posts) that you're attempting to build an arsenal of super tools for what appears to be no clear goal or even process yet. I'm not even going to go into the subject of cost...</p>

<p>I bought Portfolio and it does have some nice features--all of which I certainly have not capitalized on. I chose it after looking at most of the other solutions you mention here. It was one that seemed to work best with off-line files--Lightroom destroyed data when I tried it with offline images and on a trial, I couldn't get Adobe support to address the issue.</p>

<p>In any case, I still use it for some things but I found that having a system outside of my normal work flow was tedious and time consuming. With Bridge, I can easily keyword, including ones that automatically create desired collections and search my files quickly. It would be even better if I restructured things a bit. For off-line storage, I just make small jpegs in folders referencing those storage devices that are off-line--very small footprint with lots of information.</p>

<p>Since I use bridge as my "base", it is a direct, one path work flow to keep my images in order.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is a mistake to exclude Lightroom.<br>

It's a real shame you have intentionally dismissed Lightroom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Guys, there is some anti-LR slant here, just see this recent thread from Ralph:<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00ZK4G<br>

Basically he is <strong>again</strong> asking for advise after making up his mind in the first place. What’s the point?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, many use Lightroom as a DAM, but from what I've read so far, LR may not be the best choice for a DAM.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LR is an excellent DAM. How many more people will it take to tell you this before you either accept it or continue to wait for a predetermined answer? Tells us what product you <strong>want</strong> to buy and we’ll all <strong>agree</strong> with you so these silly posts stop. </p>

<p>I am managing between 30,000-40,000 images per year with a combination of Aperture/Photoshop and my collection goes back to 2001. All images are available to me on a couple of RAID 5 drives and they are backed up and they are archived to an offsite drive. Backups and archives are generated with SuperDuper. <br>

Over the years, I have had several drive failures, but have not lost any pictures to the best of my knowledge (knock on wood).<br>

In terms of archival-tracking, I would never ever ever use CD or DVD. They are not as stable as you might think, you end up fragmenting our image files into small junks of 4.2GB (unless you go blu-ray...and then it is small 50GB junks). With the cost of hard drives so low, multiple very large drives are the way to go, if you plan on having lots of pictures. Smaller ones are also available.<br>

Lastly, don't look to software to solve archival tracking issues. The single most important thing is for YOU to develop a comprehensive strategy that works for you. I can usually find a single picture out of 300,000-400,000 pictures in less than 30 minutes.<br>

On my blog (http://www.e2photo.net/e2Photography,_LLC/Blog/Entries/2011/5/1_Hotdog_daCHshund.html)<br>

I describe what has worked for me.</p>

<p>Portfolio is a dedicated, SQL-based Image DAM. It's very fast, feature-rich and integrates seamlessly with Photoshop. Win or Mac. Both with a very intuitive interfaces. The feature set in the single user product is found here:<br>

<a href="http://www.extensis.com/en/products/portfolio8-5/features.jsp">http://www.extensis.com/en/products/portfolio8-5/features.jsp</a></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Over the years, I have had several drive failures, but have not lost any pictures to the best of my knowledge (knock on wood).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably because you had backups. Anyone who blames LR or any product for corrupting their images or database and has no back up deserves to suffer <g>. Any product could be substitute for LR in this case. It could be a Word manuscript. It could be your iTunes Library. And to blame the software when any number of issues could be the cause is pointless. Backup, backup, backup.</p>

<p>many pro i know (including myself) use Ligthroom for many reason, one is the integration with the other Adobe product AND because it is more than just a catalogue... but im not gonna repeat myself from the other post and suggest you read the link i provided again ; )</p>

<p>*by the way, thanks for your comment on my work... but none of the image there have been taking by me.. im a digital assistant and a retoucher.. so what you see is the final product i deliver.</p>

<p>Andrew said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Guys, there is some anti-LR slant here, just see this recent thread from Ralph:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="00ZK4G">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00ZK4G</a><br />Basically he is <strong>again</strong> asking for advise after making up his mind in the first place. What’s the point?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and in that thread, I agreed, Lightroom is a superior workflow tool, and I plan on buying it. I just don't think it's the best DAM tool, at least for me.</p>

<p>Patrick said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>*by the way, thanks for your comment on my work... but none of the image there have been taking by me.. im a digital assistant and a retoucher.. so what you see is the final product i deliver.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was complimenting your digital retouching! I knew the photos were clients'.</p>

<p>thanks ; )</p>

<p>Marios said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In your previous posts you said you're just starting with photography again after a long absence. How many images do you seriously imaging you'll shoot over the course, say, of a year, to require the most powerful dedicated DAM solution? 30,000? 50,000? 100,000?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think I currently have about 75,000 images spread across multiple drive volumes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just get the impression (from all your posts) that you're attempting to build an arsenal of super tools for what appears to be no clear goal or even process yet. I'm not even going to go into the subject of cost...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes! I <em>am</em> building an arsenal of super-tools! No! I have no clear goals or processes yet! Yes! I spend lots of money on "stuff." Why is that of anyone's concern?</p>

<p>Steven said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In terms of archival-tracking, I would never ever ever use CD or DVD. They are not as stable as you might think, you end up fragmenting our image files into small junks of 4.2GB (unless you go blu-ray...and then it is small 50GB junks). With the cost of hard drives so low, multiple very large drives are the way to go, if you plan on having lots of pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks again for your comments. Yes, that's currently what I'm doing--storing on multiple drives, then transferring to brand new drives every few years. But, I do also use a stand-alone media card-to-DVD burner for all family photo sets--vacation/holiday photos are immediately burned to DVD for internal distribution, and for archive. Last I read, metallized polycarbonate substrates were rated for about 25 years.</p>