Photo Organizing Software Suggestions

[winn]

<p>Any suggestions for a photo organizing software? I have Photoshop Elements 9 and am totally frustrated with it. I find it buggy, extremely slow, and it frequently just stops working and closes. (I was not happy with the Elements 5 Organizer either, but 9 is MUCH worse.) The editor works fine.</p>

<p>I believe my computer should have no problem as far as capability: Processor 2.66 GHz Intel Quad Core, Ram 6.00 G, Windows 7 operating system 64-bit, ~400 Gb free memory. I've read that Elements 9 is 32 bit software and I don't know if this is part of the problem.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>What kind of things are you wanting to do with the organizer? Batch name changes, tags, sort by what parameters? Just wondering how sophisticated a tool you are looking for?</p>

[winn]

<p>I admittedly have a problem with taking too many pictures when shooting, whether at family events or trying to capture an "artistic" sunset. So my main need is to see higher quality images when filtering through a large amount of photos to decide what to keep and what to delete. (It takes the Elements Organizer forever to delete something from the catelog along with deleting the original image.) I would also like to find older pictures by quickly scrolling through thumbnails.</p>

<p>A "nice to have" would be having an thumbnail for similar named files in different folders. Canon naming cnvention on my camera turned over at 50,000 images.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Adobe Lightroom has excellent asset management tools, in addition to image processing superior to what you have in Photoshop Elements. Although I have Photoshop, I use it relatively infrequently compared to Lightroom.</p>

<p>The other part of the "picture" is how and where you store the actual images. Good data base management demands that records be stored in a single location (other than backups), each record with a unique name. The unique name consists of the entire path name, including the directory tree. For simplicity, I keep the original file name, but place it in a directory with a date code (yymmdd) and a brief title (e.g., Nelson Wedding). Once stored, images can be retrieved in many different ways depending on needs without affecting data integrity.</p>

<p>Lightroom is not particularly good at specifying where the original image is stored. For that I use Adobe Bridge, or even the Windows file explorer.</p>

<p>Your problem with Elements 9 needs to be resolved. It should work perfectly well under 7/64. 32-bit programs are run as X86 applications. It may be a corrupted installation, or memory issues. The free 400G is disk space. Make sure you have enough scratch space allocated. You may also need more RAM - not less than 4G total and as much more as you can fit and afford. Image processing slows down a LOT if you rely on scratch space for operations.</p>

<p>As a last resort, you can download a free XP version from Microsoft, which runs in a virtual window much like Apple's Bootstrap. There are 32-bit programs which run better in XP than Win7. Virtual XP has only limited access to hardware, like scanners and printers, which continue to run through Win7.</p>

[studio460]

<p>This is a good question, and was answered somewhere else by someone who suggested an application that looked excellent--however, since that post, Microsoft bought the company and completely ruined/discontinued it. I've asked the guys at WireImage, and they told me they had custom-designed sotware for cataloging. Another agency photographer told me he used something else, but I've forgotten what it was. I have Aperture and absolutely hate it for cataloging large numbers of files--I need something faster, that doesn't "hide" my files, with "easier" archival options (like moving an entire database to a new volume, e.g., a larger HDD).</p>

[john_macpherson]

<blockquote>

<p>This is a good question, and was answered somewhere else by someone who suggested an application that looked excellent--however, since that post, Microsoft bought the company and completely ruined/discontinued it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>iView MediaPro, which morphed into Expression Media. It is superb and I still use it, runs fine on my new Mac. Should still be able to pull a copy off the web from somewhere for your PC.</p>

<p>That MS screwed it is a real shame.</p>

[studio460]

<p>John said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>iView MediaPro, which morphed into Expression Media. It is superb and I still use it, runs fine on my new Mac. Should still be able to pull a copy off the web from somewhere for your PC.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's it! Thank you, John! You must've been the original poster. I looked for it at the time, but couldn't find a current, stand-alone release. They were re-coding it or something into some stupid "suite" or something. I'll look for it again (I'm OS X). Thanks again!</p>

[curt wiler]

<p>If you are just looking for organizational software, iMatch is outstanding. I have found that it allows me to catalog the way I did before digital, so the transition was simple. Years ago, I chose it over the original iView Media Pro and haven't looked back.</p>

[will_daniel1]

Try ThumbsPlus by Cerious Software (www.cerious.com). I've been using it for years. It will do everything that everyone in this thread wants to do. Be sure to also download the digicam plug-in for using Canon and Nikon color libraries for your raw files.

[J.W. Wall]

<p>Expression Media is now Media Pro, bought by the Phase One company that makes Capture One.</p>

[andylynn]

If the price isn't an issue I'd just go straight to Lightroom 3. If you shoot raw.

[goldbergbarry]

<p>Lightroom is the standard. I use it and love it. Use it if you shoot raw or JPGs.</p>

<p>Also if you are a student (or have a student in your family, e.g., spouse, son, daughter), the educational discount is quite cheap - about $100.</p>

<p> </p>

[photo5]

<p>Google's Picasa is free and quite nice, I've found, though I use iPhoto on the Mac to manage my 58,000 digital captures since late 2000. I love iPhoto (I use the 2009 version and like it better than the current 2011 version).</p>

[studio460]

<p>J.W. said:</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Expression Media is now Media Pro, bought by the Phase One company that makes Capture One.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the head's-up! Good to know. I was planning on getting DxO's Optics Pro, but every working photographer I see uses Capture One, so I was thinking of getting Capture One instead anyway. Is there any integration between MediaPro and Capture One that you're aware of?</p>

 

[studio460]

<p>Will said:</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Try ThumbsPlus by Cerious Software (www.cerious.com). I've been using it for years. It will do everything that everyone in this thread wants to do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, our photo editors at work used to use that. However, it used to have kind of an amateurish interface--maybe they've re-modeled since. I'll check on that as well.</p>

 

[studio460]

<p>Dave said:</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Google's Picasa is free and quite nice, I've found, though I use iPhoto on the Mac to manage my 58,000 digital captures since late 2000. I love iPhoto (I use the 2009 version and like it better than the current 2011 version).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting. I'm OS X also, so iPhoto would also work. Is it easy to manage the actual file locations in iPhoto? This is my main gripe with Aperture (and, possibly, Lightroom, although I haven't tried LR3), and I believe iPhoto suffers from this as well. Also, I'm very curious to know why you prefer the legacy version to the current release?</p>

 

[studio460]

<p>I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, our photo editors at work used to use [ThumbsPlus]. However, it used to have kind of an amateurish interface--maybe they've re-modeled since. I'll check on that as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was mistaken--an IT friend of mine used to use that. The photo editors at work used to use ACDSee. Havent checked to see if they're still currently using it. The staff photographers at work use Capture One, but not sure what cataloging software they use.</p>

[David_Cavan]

I suspect that that the tool you select has a lot to do with how you have established your workflow. I know that i am

happy with lightroom, but before I open it up I first download the files (both raw and jpeg) to a specific physical location

using ms explorer and drag-and-drop. Then I open up lightroom to work with the photos . I want to know where they

are - so that any subsequent decision on tools can be made independently from a proprietary catalog developed by a

management tool. Maybe that's old school but it works for our 75,000+ images quite well.

[DB_Gallery]

I manage a library of nearly half a million images spanning some 10 years including scans, tiff, raw and jpeg on a robust 28TB active, archive and off site storage network. I use a

combo of Phase One Media Pro to create archive catalogs and Photo Mechanic for fast thumbnail rendering for culling

before archiving. Some of my Media Pro catalogs are a big as 60,000 images.

 

Media Pro will also show movie clips for video work, key for organizing projects and unlike other DAM products, you

can have the same set of catalogs on several machines referring to all your drives, DVD's, RAID, etc...

 

My archiving system works very fast, keeps the files intact for easy searches outside the cataloging software, unlike

iPhoto, Aperture and I *think* Lightroom which stuffs all the files in a format that is not searchable outside of the

application that created it, total garbage for pro use.

[winn]

<p>Thanks for the information! I have some research to complete. This thread is making me take a step back and look at my whole "workflow"; how I process, tag, and archive photos.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> I *think* Lightroom which stuffs all the files in a format that is not searchable outside of the application that created it, total garbage for pro use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good thing you used the word "think" because it's wrong. Lightroom uses XMP, if you want, you can even have it create sidecar files with the info.</p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>Daniel said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I manage a library of nearly half a million images spanning some 10 years including scans, tiff, raw and jpeg on a robust 28TB active, archive and off site storage network. I use a combo of Phase One Media Pro to create archive catalogs . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like a terrific endorsement! I think I may be mimicking your applications selections as well. I'll shoot tethered (when practical) into Capture One, and perform primary cataloging in Media Pro (is there any special integration between the two?).</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . and Photo Mechanic for fast thumbnail rendering for culling before archiving. Some of my Media Pro catalogs are a big as 60,000 images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And, likely use Photo Mechanic for quick thumbnail review as well. This is the app that I couldn't remember. I see a lot of red-carpet event photographers using Photo Mechanic for on-site sorting. Thanks for jogging my memory and sharing your workflow!</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Another vote for Photo Mechanic from me. I've been using it for years for exactly these functions. Even with LR3, and Portfolio, I still start with Photo Mechanic as described above.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[studio460]

<p>Tom said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Another vote for Photo Mechanic from me . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good to hear! Thanks for your input! Whew! Just checked--there's both a Windows 7, <em>and</em> an OS X version of Photo Mechanic! This thread has been ultra-valuable! Thanks for everyone's contributions!</p>

[winn]

<p>Ok - You guys gave me too much information to sort through! I'm leaning towards Photo Mechanic (PM) - even though the price is killing me. It seems lot of people are satisfied using PM for organizing and Photoshop for editing. Since I already have PS Elements 9, I've ruled out Lightroom. I'm taking the PM/PS route and will order the 20 day free trial.</p>

<p>I'm confident PM will do what I need. The ThumbsPlus website did not give me a warm fuzzy feeling; they could not even accept credit cards at this time. The ACDSee and iMatch products will probably work for me and at a better price - but at this time (with my current frustration) I'm willing to pay a little more to make sure I get it right.</p>

<p>Please comment if I missed something - Thanks!</p>