Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: what do you do with alternate photos?  (Read 2635 times)
eatstickyrice
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


WWW
« on: July 30, 2008, 08:58:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi, I'm curious what the rest of you are doing with alternate photos in your Adobe Lightroom workflow. Like many, I typically shoot more than one shot of a particular subject. Then, I go through a process of elimination to narrow down to about 2-3 options. I choose one of those to submit to stock photography, but typically hang on to the other two options as alternatives in case a client ever comes back and asks if I might have additional shots of a certain subject. So, my question is, am I just clogging up my hard drives with unnecessary photos, or is it worth hanging on to these? If so, should I put them in same folder with the top photo I choose to submit? I'm asking this based on Adobe Lightroom's workflow. I have been keeping the alternates in a separate folder, but then I can't stack the photos anymore. However, for whenever the day comes again to migrate softwares, it would seem wise to have a non-software way to know which photos I've submitted or like best.

Your thoughts?
Rick
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2008, 11:53:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I tend to save everything I shoot, just throw out obvious garbage. I use star ratings
*         don't keep
**        Keep
***      good
****    very good
*****   excellent

Hard disks are pretty cheap now, but backup is less then convenient. Also I save my pictures as DNG in a year/month/date structure.

No recommendations, just what I do...

Erik

Quote
Hi, I'm curious what the rest of you are doing with alternate photos in your Adobe Lightroom workflow. Like many, I typically shoot more than one shot of a particular subject. Then, I go through a process of elimination to narrow down to about 2-3 options. I choose one of those to submit to stock photography, but typically hang on to the other two options as alternatives in case a client ever comes back and asks if I might have additional shots of a certain subject. So, my question is, am I just clogging up my hard drives with unnecessary photos, or is it worth hanging on to these? If so, should I put them in same folder with the top photo I choose to submit? I'm asking this based on Adobe Lightroom's workflow. I have been keeping the alternates in a separate folder, but then I can't stack the photos anymore. However, for whenever the day comes again to migrate softwares, it would seem wise to have a non-software way to know which photos I've submitted or like best.

Your thoughts?
Rick
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Bradley Proctor
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2008, 12:03:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I do exactly as above
Logged

madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2008, 02:29:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Agreed, just use ratings (or color labels, etc.) to separate the best images from the ones a cut below / alternates. No need to fuss with moving files around on disk.
Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2008, 03:03:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I assume Lightroom uses a proprietary filing system, in which case you may want to protect your investment in case you ever change software.  The best way is, whatever filename belongs to your "final" cut of an image, use the same filename for the alternates, and add an '_a' or '_b' etc. to those filenames so no matter where you go, they will have that "permanent" link to the original or "final" version.
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2008, 08:45:03 PM »
ReplyReply

It's an SQLite database, actually, which is pretty well-established.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2008, 11:54:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

I don't ingest my pictures in the data base, just convert it to DNG and put in folders Year/Month/Day.

I know that the pictures can be stored in the database but I think it is a very bad idea.

Erik

Quote
It's an SQLite database, actually, which is pretty well-established.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

ajtaylor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2008, 05:13:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't ingest my pictures in the data base

Unless I'm missing something, LR doesn't have its own database for storing photos - Aperture does, and I think LR did for one of the betas, but it now either imports images at their current location, or you can move them to a place of your choosing, but either way, the images are on disk in a standard folder/file format.
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2008, 07:24:38 AM »
ReplyReply

No, LR very much has a database. (Their term now is 'catalog' but implementation-wise it's a database.)

That's what makes it possible to search quickly for files and update metadata, etc. even when the files are on a separate drive that happens to be offline.
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2008, 11:07:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Unless I'm missing something, LR doesn't have its own database for storing photos - Aperture does, and I think LR did for one of the betas, but it now either imports images at their current location, or you can move them to a place of your choosing, but either way, the images are on disk in a standard folder/file format.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212268\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In both cases, the database stores data about the photographs but does not store the photos themselves - the import process is more like registering the files and their locations. What you are thinking of regarding Aperture is that it optionally adds the pictures to a package file, but this can be easily opened in Finder.
Logged

ajtaylor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2008, 11:08:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, LR very much has a database. (Their term now is 'catalog' but implementation-wise it's a database.)

That's what makes it possible to search quickly for files and update metadata, etc. even when the files are on a separate drive that happens to be offline.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes it does have a database/catalogue, but someone (Erik) was talking about ingesting photos into a database, which LR does not do - it stores them in a "normal" on disk format, unlike Aperture which can store photos in its own "package" format.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad