Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR DAM capabilities  (Read 3357 times)
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« on: December 14, 2012, 04:07:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm an Aperture user and although I have no problem with it at the moment, I'm getting twitchy about Apples direction, everything seems to be getting dumbed down for the twitface user. I'm worried they will pull the plug on developing it's Pro abilities.
I've tried LR in the past and always found it's DAM capabilities for organising, clients, images and ease of outputting falling short of Aperture. Apertures vault system keeps everything nice and tidy and secure as well.
I have a library of a few TB of images, I find it easy to search all or part of the library, organise the selection in many differing ways. Smart folders I find very useful and the ability to email low res watermarked images direct from Aperture a must have. Then later from the saved searched collection the ability to output none watermarked high res.
I can organise searches I've done for clients into their folder, along with jobs I've shot for them.
I'm putting dam capabilities and backup above the raw file to tiff/jpg output, although Aperture is extremely good at that as well.
Anyone else here running a picture library and clients and using LR to do so? If so what's the good and bad of LR at doing this.
I'm using Aperture nearly everyday of the week most of the day so it's a major part of my business, until Aperture came along everything else was various shades of poor or just useless for a pro digital shooter.
Downloading a trial I find it difficult to have the time to get into the nitty gritty of a workflow, so some firsthand impressions is a good starting point.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044


« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2012, 04:42:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Kevin, you and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum in the sense that I know a fair bit about Lightroom but next to nothing about Aperture as to the nitty gritty of using it so I can tell you a fair bit about Lightrooms DAM capabilities without being able to directly compare functionality with Aperture.

First off there is no doubt that Lightroom (as a whole) is designed with the Professional photographer in mind and that definitely pertains to the DAM aspects of Lightroom.
Having fielded many questions on this and other forums regarding DAM it is true that some individuals workflow using other applications is not directly translatable into Lightroom.
Nonetheless Lightroom is a robust application that has (usually) many ways to skin a cat.
In fact one of the most confusing aspects of Lightroom for the beginner is the multitude of solutions for particular issues.

I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that smart folders are similar to smart collections in Lightroom.
In Lightroom smart collections can be constructed using any number of criteria using keywords and metadata.
Once constructed these smart collections continue to automatically add to the collection as images with the appropriate keywords and metadata come into the catalog.

Emailing directly out of Lightroom is possible in 4.x. Emailing the non-watermarked high resolution images would be easy from the smart collections.
As for emailing low-resolution watermarked images I would need to check how to construct the workflow there.

As a general primer on DAM in Lightroom LuLa has a very good tutorial called: "Where the #@$% are my Pictures" that is worth a look to get insight into Lightroom's approach to DAM although much of the tutorial also covers more generic aspects of DAM, but uses Lightroom to demonstrate the principles.

I would recommend taking the time to learn about what Lightroom can do for you.

Tony Jay
Logged
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 356


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2012, 03:17:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm an Aperture user and although I have no problem with it at the moment, I'm getting twitchy about Apples direction, everything seems to be getting dumbed down for the twitface user. I'm worried they will pull the plug on developing it's Pro abilities.
I've tried LR in the past and always found it's DAM capabilities for organising, clients, images and ease of outputting falling short of Aperture. Apertures vault system keeps everything nice and tidy and secure as well.
I have a library of a few TB of images, I find it easy to search all or part of the library, organise the selection in many differing ways. Smart folders I find very useful and the ability to email low res watermarked images direct from Aperture a must have. Then later from the saved searched collection the ability to output none watermarked high res.
I can organise searches I've done for clients into their folder, along with jobs I've shot for them.
I'm putting dam capabilities and backup above the raw file to tiff/jpg output, although Aperture is extremely good at that as well.
Anyone else here running a picture library and clients and using LR to do so? If so what's the good and bad of LR at doing this.
I'm using Aperture nearly everyday of the week most of the day so it's a major part of my business, until Aperture came along everything else was various shades of poor or just useless for a pro digital shooter.
Downloading a trial I find it difficult to have the time to get into the nitty gritty of a workflow, so some firsthand impressions is a good starting point.

Kevin.

Kevin,

Why the interest in LR? From what you are saying it appears to me that are happy with Aperture and no reason to switch.

Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2012, 04:04:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Kevin,

Why the interest in LR? From what you are saying it appears to me that are happy with Aperture and no reason to switch.


I'm thinking ahead. Aperture in truth is a core part of my business, everything is based around it. It is a fantastic program, in the early days I did do quite a comparison with LR and Aperture's DAM was streets ahead.
My concern is the direction Apple is heading with hard wear and software.The "Pro" aspect looks to be taking a back seat with each new release, Facebook looks to be a bigger priority than a pro users clients. It's all fine at the moment I can live with it, it's the future five years down the road i'm trying to second guess.

I've had nightmare experience with dam applications (Fotostation springs to mind) the smooth operation of workflow can not be underestimated.
 I feel I need  to be keeping up with what is around me and have some kind of exit strategy should I need to, it will not be an overnight necessity as such. But sometimes you are forced to move quickly, a computer dies and it needs replacing there and then, you then find the OS forces you to upgrade to new versions of software that don't fit your needs as well as the old. I can honestly see iPhoto being dropped and Aperture being the do all dumbed down version, great for the twatterfacers of this World that need to send Granny a Birthday card, maybe not so good for organising TB of images, clients, library searches etc.
We just lost colour coded Folders, catalogues and Projects and it's a real pain, all for style over function.
Another thing to consider is I don't know how much video will play a part in the future, I have After Effects and I have FCP X, they do not seamlessly work together, AE, LR, Photoshop and Premier link together very nicely.
And God forbid if I should feel the need to use a PC and Windows in the future it would all change over very nicely.
I am just looking at the road ahead and wondering what forks might appear and making sure I avoid the Wild Wood.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044


« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2012, 04:29:29 AM »
ReplyReply

With the insight that you have provided my suggestion is to download a trial version of Lightroom and then test it out to see whether it has the utility that you want or alternatively whether it is practically possible for you to adapt your workflow to what Lightroom can do.

Perhaps once you have had a look further more directed questions might help clarify those issues that really are important to you.

Tony Jay
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2012, 04:45:49 AM »
ReplyReply

"in the early days I did do quite a comparison with LR and Aperture's DAM was streets ahead."

Kevin, I think you've got to question this. Sure, one can point to specific features - smart albums can query more fields than smart collections, Lightroom lacks custom fields - but overall it's never been the case.

I often see a misunderstanding caused by Aperture's UI being based around virtual folders or its "projects" which lead Aperture users to see LR's folders and think that's how it expects them to categorize and manage their work, and then make claims like yours. The trouble is that it's LR collections, not folders, that are analogous to the Aperture library organisation, and what LR is actually doing is offering  physical folders (which Aperture hides) as well as virtual ones as first class citizens in the UI. Granted, some LR users do then try to use their Finder/Explorer folders to manage and categorize their pictures, but that's not a wonderful way to use LR. So I'd suggest you try modelling your organisation in LR collections, and using other standard metadata fields such as job number or keywords. For an almost-Aperture experience, you can even hide the Folders panel altogether - and I know of some LR users who actually work this way (they're crazy but like it that way).

John
« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 01:54:43 PM by johnbeardy » Logged

JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 356


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2012, 01:05:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm thinking ahead. Aperture in truth is a core part of my business, everything is based around it. It is a fantastic program, in the early days I did do quite a comparison with LR and Aperture's DAM was streets ahead.
My concern is the direction Apple is heading with hard wear and software.The "Pro" aspect looks to be taking a back seat with each new release, Facebook looks to be a bigger priority than a pro users clients. It's all fine at the moment I can live with it, it's the future five years down the road i'm trying to second guess.

I've had nightmare experience with dam applications (Fotostation springs to mind) the smooth operation of workflow can not be underestimated.
 I feel I need  to be keeping up with what is around me and have some kind of exit strategy should I need to, it will not be an overnight necessity as such. But sometimes you are forced to move quickly, a computer dies and it needs replacing there and then, you then find the OS forces you to upgrade to new versions of software that don't fit your needs as well as the old. I can honestly see iPhoto being dropped and Aperture being the do all dumbed down version, great for the twatterfacers of this World that need to send Granny a Birthday card, maybe not so good for organising TB of images, clients, library searches etc.
We just lost colour coded Folders, catalogues and Projects and it's a real pain, all for style over function.
Another thing to consider is I don't know how much video will play a part in the future, I have After Effects and I have FCP X, they do not seamlessly work together, AE, LR, Photoshop and Premier link together very nicely.
And God forbid if I should feel the need to use a PC and Windows in the future it would all change over very nicely.
I am just looking at the road ahead and wondering what forks might appear and making sure I avoid the Wild Wood.

Kevin.
I have no experience with aperture, i have considerable experiencewith LR using it professionally, and with datamanagment solutions on industrial scale.  I also do LR training classes . All  i can say, based on your elaboration, is that for you it probably requires to seggregate the way aperture works for you from the functional needs to do your business. From what i understand of Aperture is that it does things in a different way, at least apparently so. And it appears to me you are using Aperture extensively, it will be perhaps a bit difficult, thus takes some effort, to do this seggregation. Simply put, get a picture of some sort of your business process needs, and then see how you can support these with the LR functionality. avoid simulating the Aparture way of working, it will not work.
Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1104


« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2012, 01:47:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Is it a must for you to manage WITHIN the raw developer?  this I know is the pushed norm. But there are great advantages to managing using a dedicated DAM.

ACDSee,
SupremePhoto
PhotoMechanic.

All three of these have their strengths and weaknesses as any software. But it does free you from putting your eggs of images in the basket of the processor. What if you like Aperture processing on some images, and like LR, or C1 on others. LR makes it impossible unless you create a catalog, but it is something you can use as a "working catalo" while your managing sorting and searching rating is done with an actual DAM.

I'm not sure of PhotoMechanic, but I know the others support metadata and many other search tools. ACDsee "manages" over 8TB of data. I have different Raw developing needs, and I HATE not seeing what I have. My work is more dynamic than the score of what LR supports, and allows me to see.
I have no idea about Aperture, but it sounds like being closed off from your actual files is soentihng you don't mind. Which in that case LR would not be a problem.
The strength of having a catalog with the Developing program is usually convenience. SupremePhoto allows portable catalogs, and so do others. Managing and developing are such different functions, I don't expect a raw developer to do such a good job on the manage part. Having said that, If you are OK with NOT seeing your actual files, then LR does a great job at this. I do wish it would Sync folders on its own without me asking it every time I export a derivative file! (Perhaps its in Prefernces)?

Always good to look ahead, and that is why I wouldn't put all that sorting, rating, keywording and effort in a Raw developer. Specially when it isn't clear when the file itself is written with the info you give it (sidecars)  vs  The LR(or which ever program) catalog being the only place that you'll be able to retrieve such info you put effort into rating, keyworing, sorting you put into it.  Hope that doesn't sound confusing. :-)

___For example: Just now I opened LR to edit some images and I have already organized them in the folder structure on the Harddrive. Now all you see are "?" marks on the folders, as LR has no clue where I moved them. You certainly can't use LR to "manage" files/folders.  So It is always playing Catch-ups. But if you use a DAM to manage, and RAW developer is the Hand-off app, then this happens less often. :-)

If all developers simply opened ONLY the folder you asked for, the world would be a happier place. This is why I like DXO, but doesn't support my Cameras, so it is pointless.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 01:52:26 PM by Phil Indeblanc » Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 356


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2012, 02:27:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Qoute from Phil:
___For example: Just now I opened LR to edit some images and I have already organized them in the folder structure on the Harddrive. Now all you see are "?" marks on the folders, as LR has no clue where I moved them. You certainly can't use LR to "manage" files/folders.  So It is always playing Catch-ups. But if you use a DAM to manage, and RAW developer is the Hand-off app, then this happens less often. :-)

It is actually very straightforward, there an only be ONE manager of the image files, either Lightroom or Explorer (windows) / Finder(Mac).
So if you use LR, then that IS the managing application, period. note: Yes you can manage files/folders with LR, actually quite conveniently.
Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044


« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2012, 04:48:00 PM »
ReplyReply

It is actually very straightforward, there an only be ONE manager of the image files, either Lightroom or Explorer (windows) / Finder(Mac).
So if you use LR, then that IS the managing application, period. note: Yes you can manage files/folders with LR, actually quite conveniently.

Spot on!

Tony Jay
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1104


« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2012, 05:09:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I understand it if you create 1 complete catalog with all you image content, and the ONLY file formats you deal with are Raw,Jpeg,Tif,PSD. Also that you have only 1 computer that unloads files to the machine or NAS/Server...

On fairly large amount of info, 8TB of 12 over 6 servers how would LR run? Would the perfomance degrade at all? Switching thru folders, and files?
To avoid degrade in performance, I make a catalog for each client. I also make catalogs for personal and multiple subjects, arranged by date.
Using at least 2 raw developers.
Who expects LR to run fast and nimble on large catalogs? I haven't tested it, but I am sure there is a threshold when performance drops?
I don't know if I have much faith in my software to put 8TB of content and all my sorting organization in ONE proprietary "basket".
Raw developers are always getting better. I use LR along with C1. I also want to use DxO, when they support my Camera(regardless of lens support).

So when you use LR by making 50+ catalogs, I don't know if it works so well as it replacing Explorer or Finder.
Am i doing things the right way? I honestly don't know, but I think NOT knowing what and where files are on your system is a MAJOR limitation.
I don't see how LR can manage what it doesn't know exists.

Also, Most of the time I have a clients folder created with a number of materials discussed before the shoot from emails and such, which I have to look over and revise. If I didn't make it I am blind to it. Or if I forget where.

I also have a problem with the way it ingests as you Copy, Moves or Adds files.  It should force prompt you to make the choice BEFORE the action. The default should be a PROMPT, not a add, or copy or move. This I think is an error to have one of these as the default.

I write this as I know there are a number of ways to go about managing files. I also share this to help me see if there is an alternate solution.

Sometimes I wish LR DIDN'T have a cataloging interface, so the app would develop more efficiently. Or if it had option of a browser instead of catalog. That would be SUPER.

When ALL image apps use uniform RATING, COLOR, IPTC, EXIF standard, I think all the confusions would minimize.. This info should stay with the files. I think these are sidecar XMP files. But somehow they are not always made, or sometimes moved without seeing these hidden, and they get lost. So...these are my reservations about that.  I don't see DNG's being easier with the differnt revisions and lack of support with raw dev.

Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044


« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2012, 06:38:41 PM »
ReplyReply


...On fairly large amount of info, 8TB of 12 over 6 servers how would LR run? Would the perfomance degrade at all? Switching thru folders, and files?
To avoid degrade in performance, I make a catalog for each client. I also make catalogs for personal and multiple subjects, arranged by date.
Using at least 2 raw developers.
Who expects LR to run fast and nimble on large catalogs? I haven't tested it, but I am sure there is a threshold when performance drops?
I don't know if I have much faith in my software to put 8TB of content and all my sorting organization in ONE proprietary "basket".
Raw developers are always getting better. I use LR along with C1. I also want to use DxO, when they support my Camera(regardless of lens support)...

...So when you use LR by making 50+ catalogs, I don't know if it works so well as it replacing Explorer or Finder.
Am i doing things the right way? I honestly don't know, but I think NOT knowing what and where files are on your system is a MAJOR limitation.
I don't see how LR can manage what it doesn't know exists...

Phil, it is absolutely true that Lightroom might allow many different ways to approach digital asset management but some approaches are very far from best practise.
I would suggest, with respect, you are attempting to use a powerdrill (Lightroom) like a hammer.
It sorta works, sorta some of the time, but it is a klutzy and frustating experience.
Far better to really learn how Lightroom is best used and lever that knowledge into an organisational and workflow strategy that really works.

Many of your lamentations have a limited basis in fact.
Complaining about the fact that Lightroom does not support the diversity of file types you want it to - well maybe some may be included in the future - so lets see.

Having dozens of catalogs, even for the purposes that you describe, is a sure recipe for confusion. I personally do not have multiple terabytes of photographic images in my catalog but I am approaching a terabyte. Others that I correspond with do have multiples of terabytes of image storage contained in one catalog with no performance issues. If there really is a performance limit to a catalog size no one currently appears to have found it yet.

Catalog optimization makes a massive difference to performance so it is worth doing this regularly.

Using complicated folder systems to organize images is not the way Lightroom is designed to optimally function. Far better to use a simple and logical folder system. (I personally organize folders under camera type, then year, then date.) For you I would rename to date_........ to include perhaps a client or job identifier.
On import I would rename image files date_identifier_control number. The identifier would again be the client or job identifier.
This way both the folder and the individual files are self-identifying.
Also, having a simple and logical folder system where a single image file can only be found in one place (so is never duplicated in other locations) is paradoxically the easiest way to ensure image files are not lost or misplaced.
(I am not refering to backups and archives here.)

Smart collections are by far and away the best way to sort and find images within a catalog.
Having one catalog will allow Smart collections to shine since the entire image collection is searchable.
Once set up a smart collection will continually and automatically add any and all images that fulfill the criteria.

Appropriate keywording will allow the smart collections to keep track of all important aspects of the characteristics of your images, not just subject matter, but client or job status, and workflow status.
I use public keywords to denote exportable characteristics of my images.
Private keywords are used to organise the keyword hierarchy in general but also importantly to allow characterization of images for internal organizational utility only, such as job or client status.
These sorts of private organizational keywords can be appended to images automatically via import presets so potentially thousands of images from a single job will be automatically tagged with these keywords. Subsequently creating a smart collection with the appropriate criteria means all the images are instantaneously grouped - this will occur even if the images are physically located in separate folders on the hard drive or even if they are located on different hard drives. As long as Lightroom knows where the folders where originally Lightroom will keep track of the images. If folders need to be relocated on a hard drive do all the relocating from within Lightroom and there will be no issues.

Your complaint about Lightroom not being able to manage what it doesn't know exists is enigmatic. If it does know it exists it can manage it. It is your job to make Lightroom aware of those files and folders (import). If you subsequently fiddle with their location ouside of Lightroom then, yes, Lightroom will lose track, but no fault to Lightroom. If you are referring to file types not recognized by Lightroom currently then that is another issue.

The import dialog needs to be learn't.
Once you know what you want to do create presets to automate the process.
If you have a job that needs a slightly different approach modify a previously created preset and save it before use. It just takes seconds.
The import dialog is designed the way it is to accommodate many different workflows.
As you mention not all of these workflow approaches are my cup of tea either - thats why I use the presets - that way everything is predictable and repeatable.

In summary Adobe has taken a particular philosophical approach to digital asset management. Some of the results are readily identifiable by individuals well versed in other DAM applications and some are bit different and take some familiarization.
Apart from the issue of Lightroom not supporting all the file types that you desire none of the issues you have raised in several posts over the last few months are insoluble in Lightroom.
Hopefully the OP also gets some resolution from this post as well.

Tony Jay
« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 06:44:33 PM by Tony Jay » Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2012, 02:52:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I also have a problem with the way it ingests as you Copy, Moves or Adds files.  It should force prompt you to make the choice BEFORE the action.
Just deselect 'auto import' and nothing is done automatically without the user making the choices.
You can choose whatever strategy you want from the import dialogue, saving different options as pre-sets can ease things up if you regularly have different tasks to be done on import.

Phil from what you've written about LR here and in the past you have two issues;
1. You don't know enough about how LR works and what it's possibilities are.
2. You're trying to use it for tasks it wasn't designed for, eg indexing non-supported files

Although LR is widely reported as having DAM(digital asset management) capability, is should be more accurately called DPM(digital photo management). Then people might be a bit more understanding of what it's offering.
...

Kevin:
I understand why you might be tempted to move from Aperture and possibly Apple generally.
Shifting to LR might be take an effort to learn and optimise a workflow for your business, but I think you may find it worthwhile. Read some articles on the generalities of the program, look at some of the videos around, then try the demo version and see if you can get it to do what you want.
It sounds like you'll need to pay close attention to, and get a good strategy for, using the various metadata options (keywords, IPTC etc) and then using the 'smart' options for sorting and storing images, plus you'll find LR's transparent way of seeing folder structures on your drives may be helpful for you.
And if you ever think you need to jump ship to Windows, it's really nowhere as bad as the fanbois make out.

edited for clarity
« Last Edit: December 16, 2012, 03:42:37 AM by Rhossydd » Logged
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 356


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2012, 04:44:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I appreciate your concern about the limits of lightroom. So did i, when i started with LR.

To gain some feedback on limits, you can check for instance with LightroomQueen , to my knowledge she has 800.000 plus images in het LR catalog.

In my view, by going the route of catalogs per clients means you have created complexity through many catalogs, folderstructures, naming conventions, keywords, plugins, to name a few areas. It is not a matter of will it fail, rather when it will fail, as it will fail, so much is sure. One aspect for example: although Lightroom allows multiple catalogs, it all comes together in one single preferences configuration file. thus it does NOT manage all those catalogs in total isolation from eachother. Thus this fact alone is bound to give problems somewhere down the route. I may be wrong on this, so i would like to hear from you what your experiences are thusfar.

to elaborate on my paradigm of only ONE manager, in all my training classes thusfar, all my students had to go through the process of letting go their , in most cases in reality unmanageable, complex but so accutomed to folder / naming structures. also because of the folders with "copies" of the "original". Once they grasp the "blind alley" of "meaningfull" folderstructures, and the flexibility of the DAM capability of LR, they let go and start to appreciate the strength of LR ( or any database based DAM) in this respect. I have not encountered a limit thusfar. Yes it takes time, but: Bottom line, less time behind the computer, less frustration, more time behind the camera, in front of clients, etc.
The benefits are quite clear.

Just a couple of other questions:

do you have multiple terabytes of images, spread over NAS or other diskstorage concepts?
When i started with DAM, i used 250gb disks, now it is 2tb disk, i have not encountered problems migrating thusfar, nor dit it take me much of my precious time. All managed via LR.
Next is using NAS for storage of image files, due in January 2013.
Next step after that is seamless transport of my catalog across any of my computers, so i can work with LR on my images on any of my computers at choice.

Do you know the limit of the full pathlength (D:/wahtever/whatever/whatever/whatever-name.nef) on MAC-OS, Windows 7 , the unix, linux, or whatever OS on your NAS, or the DVD used for backup, or the software applications, or ... ?
i can tell you, anything beyond 128 will require thorough evaluation, to prevent inaccesibility or even worse fatal loss.
Which also means you cannot capture meaningfullness in your folder/filename structures. nor was it meant for that. folderstructures is basically meant for hiarchically structured physical storage of physical items, not so much for  concepts or logical groupings of physical items.




Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1104


« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2012, 07:47:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I appreciate all of these feedbacks, and certainly something to think about.  That you each for taking the time, and I will be reading over them again when I do some testing.

I guess it does come down to file types. In the beginning I tried a plugin from another LL member, which sort of worked but got in the way more than helped. It was for PDF.

I need to see these and it would help to see InDesign files. YES I certainly know InDesign specifically is not in the score of a photo-image format, and PDF isn't much either. They are Adobe family files, and they are if not always, often the files used to make prints based on publication demands.

I have used a few DAM apps, and I don't mind the catalog approach. I think I have let my past expereince with older DAM apps that get large and SLOW, push me away from the concept. Perhaps LR is different in this regard.
I will have to see how I can ignore the other file types and let them be where they are while I ...wow...never thought I would be making a 8TB catalog!...While I make ONE catalog of my photography of 15 years!!! :-)

You made some suggestions on how to go about this, so I will need to read through again to see how I can apply it.

Of the DAM's I have used, I really found a browser style to be so agile. Perhaps that having one catalog and sorting them using the metadata within LR can be a viable method. 

PhotoSupreme is a catalog app that I am new to, but was an IDImager user for a brief time. It had large file issues, and was more complex than it needed to be. So I turned back to ACDSee, Then MediaPro tried. And it had issues with PSD and TIF file formats. It was also a choppy jump from one function to a related function.  I really like and can do just about everything ACDSee can within LR.

What I'm doing now is working OK, not ideal, but OK. Unless like you said I might run into folder limits. I will report back. And to the OP. I certainly due hope this helps you. I sure hope you post back to let us know your thoughts.
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 19, 2012, 05:08:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks everyone for your help.
I know trying it is the best way, it's finding the time to learn it properly. You need to know it inside out to work out the best strategy for your workflow needs. Getting the time and willingness to learn yet another program  is so difficult. Photography was so much easier before computers got involved :-)

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2012, 07:43:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Phil, LR is a program for photographers.  While it's true that some of the other file types are used by some photographers, those aren't really 'photography' files, as you rightly point out.  I think that's probably why Adobe hasn't added support for those files.  But Adobe also has Bridge.  It's come a long way since it was first introduced.  It's not a true DAM application like LR, but it has many of the same features and it can allow you to see those other file types. 

Using multiple catalogues isn't, as others have pointed out, the best way to use LR.  It really is intended to be used with a single catalogue that is comprised of multiple projects.  And it can manage many thousands of images without loss of performance. 

Do all the other DAM applications you've looked at also manage those other file types?  In your case, Bridge may be the better choice, or a Bridge/LR combined solution may work for you.  A lot of people don't like Bridge.  I didn't for several years.  But once I got more comfortable with it, it's a good application.  Using folders rather than catalogues for your clients would be simpler as well.

Kevin, I think LR can likely do all of what you want, it will probably just do those tasks in a different manner so will take some getting used to. 
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1104


« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2012, 06:00:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You need to know it inside out to work out the best strategy for your workflow needs.
And 30 days split into work and lifesurely wasn't enough time. But at one point LR was very inexpensive with my Photoshop upgrades and I kept getting it since v1 without using until v3.x.  If you see a deal, and you can see yourself use it beyond entertainment purose. It would be worth buying it.

It is so true about the learning curve for new apps. And that is why when they associate it to a familiar layout like the OS or a long time associated app like Photoshop, it helps you get over some things. But most importantly the GUI is key. as long as it is visually driven, and logical and flexible to a users needs. It should help the learning curve.

Well, as of yesterday, I already did a Import from Catalog to a "master" catalog. I will have 3 or 4 of these for LR to deal with instead of 50+ or so.

Bridge has always had a problem seeing NAS drives, and would crash. I haven't tried it since CS5 was out. It also drops 2 files in EVERY folder. I have cleaned those off and don't use it.  But it may have improved.  ACDSee does well in the browse and export watermark resize crop and MANY other things in BATCh very well...but the ratings and a number of hand in had seamless integration Bridge and LR,PS have is lost.

ACDSee sees just about ALL file types that have graphics. Yes the other DAMS also see multiple file type. LR not supporting PSB is weird, but I'm going to see which would work better(speed/size) a TIF or PSB.

How do you mean
Quote
Using folders rather than catalogues for your clients would be simpler as well.
. How would I relate this to LR?

thanks
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044


« Reply #18 on: December 20, 2012, 05:04:41 AM »
ReplyReply

...Using folders rather than catalogues for your clients would be simpler as well...

Bob, would I be imposing if, like Phil, I asked for clarification with regard to the folder issue too please?

Tony Jay
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #19 on: December 20, 2012, 06:16:42 AM »
ReplyReply

You can only use one catalogue at a time in LR, Phil.  So if you have a need to change clients you have to change catalogues.  That's inefficient. 

By using a folder good folder structure instead on your hard drive(s), you get a much more efficient workflow.  All of the folders are visible in the Library module and you simply switch between folders for different clients.  LR can handle very large catalogues without a performance drop off. 

So rather than having separate catalogues for client ABC, DEF, GHI, you have folders on the hard drive(s) for each of those clients. 

Bridge shouldn't have a problem with network drives.  That's an odd one.  What do you mean it drops 2 files in every folder? 

Re: PSB, are the files large enough that PSB is really needed?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad