Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom and DAM  (Read 5571 times)
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


« Reply #120 on: August 10, 2014, 12:29:03 PM »
ReplyReply

It has become a waste of time with name calling and endless repeating of the same arguments. I was hoping someone new might join in with additional knowledge or perspective. Now, if they did, they might be unwilling to participate.

While I agree with John that there are such things as "best practices," not all choose to follow them or even agree with them. That's their prerogative. In my mind DAM, like so many other things, requires practitioners to understand the rules before attempting to break them. This thread was my attempt to understand those rules so that I could make my own informed decisions about my system and approach. My switch from Aperture to Lightroom made it a convenient time to consider another approach.

It's important now, and may be again in the future. Lightroom still doesn't feel "just right" to me. If, and that's a big if, Apple's new Photos app started with the many good features of Aperture and then expanded them (to the cloud, with 3rd part non-destructive plug-ins, or something), I may well want to be in a position to move back. I will not be deleting my Aperture library for quite a while.

If you ever used Aperture in a managed mode ... you would see that even Apple adopted the year, month, day approach for file/folder structure. Not saying you should do likewise ... just pointing out that there was likely very good reasons those engineers chose that approach. Scalability, applying future updates and consistency to name a few ...
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9100



WWW
« Reply #121 on: August 10, 2014, 12:34:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Well seeing as you selectively quoted a post to take it out of context and are forever misinterpreting people's posts, maybe you should try reading posts more correctly.
Stop misrepresenting my and other people's views.
The text you wrote is provided exactly as you wrote it. If you think I or others are misrepresenting exactly what you write, do a better job of writing!
You love to use the ridiculous term selectively quoted or misinterpreting people's posts whenever you have no argument to back up your point of view it would seem.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
ppmax2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #122 on: August 10, 2014, 12:39:43 PM »
ReplyReply

See ButchM's explanation above. Further, do you change the filenames when keywords change?

Butch's explanation doesn't address the problem at hand; the purpose of doing all this crazy file-system organization is so you can access your pictures quickly and easily outside the DAM.

There will be a day, due to Adobe, or Apple, or on your own whim, where the information in your DAM will be inaccessible (for whatever reason...for example from another device your DAM doesn't run on). When data becomes silo'd, you will be faced with the problem of how to get that information out, either into another "black box" or into a form that can be accessed independently. The fact that everyone here does some degree of organization outside the DAM proves that there is a need to access these data outside the DAM.

Logically, your OS is a DAM, though one not necessarily optimized for managing or accessing data associated within (mostly proprietary) image formats. Despite this, there are steps you can take to work around these limitations and provide you with the means to access your data using the tools your OS provides. Naming a file by date vs. naming a file by subject (keywords) is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind. My point is that while date-based naming provides some information about the image, that data is already available via create date, modification date, and capture date...AND that date-based naming tells you nothing about the subject...which is really the only "interesting" thing I'm interested in when looking for images.


PP
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2791



WWW
« Reply #123 on: August 10, 2014, 12:52:28 PM »
ReplyReply

If you ever used Aperture in a managed mode ... you would see that even Apple adopted the year, month, day approach for file/folder structure. Not saying you should do likewise ... just pointing out that there was likely very good reasons those engineers chose that approach. Scalability, applying future updates and consistency to name a few ...

It's the old DAM mantra - folders purely for physical storage, metadata for organisation. I just think they went too far by entirely hiding folders!
Logged

Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156



WWW
« Reply #124 on: August 10, 2014, 01:17:14 PM »
ReplyReply

It's the old DAM mantra - folders purely for physical storage, metadata for organisation. I just think they went too far by entirely hiding folders!

Yes, the Aperture Library package is arranged with the image files stored in a folder-by-date hierarchy. The good thing is that Aperture automatically attached some internal "metadata" about what project you had put them in. Lightroom makes you do that step yourself (by creating collections).

I wonder when Krogh's DAM book came out, perhaps the Aperture team read it!
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2791



WWW
« Reply #125 on: August 10, 2014, 01:44:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I think they came out around the same time, Bob, and the hidden folders were quite counter to the book's buckets system. Apple lifted much of its DAM design (and software engineers and product managers) from Extensis Portfolio.
Logged

Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156



WWW
« Reply #126 on: August 10, 2014, 01:51:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I think they came out around the same time, Bob, and the hidden folders were quite counter to the book's buckets system. Apple lifted much of its DAM design (and software engineers and product managers) from Extensis Portfolio.

Yes, the hidden folders made a lot of people crazy and Apple was pretty quick to relent and provide the referenced library system so that folks could have folders they could see on the desktop. It was a little odd, to me, to hear all of the complaints because the "hidden" folders were only hidden to those who didn't want to right-click on the package and use the Show Package Contents command. Smiley
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2791



WWW
« Reply #127 on: August 10, 2014, 02:18:06 PM »
ReplyReply

In fact I was only thinking about the referenced model, Bob, and I'd forgotten the reaction to 1.0. As an aside, I was at the UK launch of Aperture and remember the presenter saying he was getting into it not because of what is was, but because of "what it would be by version 3"....
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3474



WWW
« Reply #128 on: August 10, 2014, 02:30:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Not a thing incorrect about it as far as I'm concerned!
Dear me. Seeing as I haven't been trying to get you to change systems, you are most certainly incorrect in inferring that I have. If you keep trying to argue otherwise you really are a lost cause.

 
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156



WWW
« Reply #129 on: August 10, 2014, 02:32:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you to all who added something constructive to this conversation. Everyone need not agree.

I've assembled my learnings and plans from this thread onto my blog: http://www.bobrockefeller.com/blog/dam-in-lightroom-from-aperture

That post will help me remember the pros and cons of the arrangements.
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3474



WWW
« Reply #130 on: August 10, 2014, 02:42:33 PM »
ReplyReply

The text you wrote is provided exactly as you wrote it. If you think I or others are misrepresenting exactly what you write, do a better job of writing!
You love to use the ridiculous term selectively quoted or misinterpreting people's posts whenever you have no argument to back up your point of view it would seem.
Selectively quoting is quoting part of something which changes the context of the partial quote, not misquoting which is a different thing again. You repeatedly misread and misinterpret posts which is why I keep having a go at you for it, no other reason. Anyway I've had enough of your childish behaviour as I shall alter the settings to hide your generally insulting posts and be done with your nonsense. Debating with you is like wrestling with fog as Rob C once said. Your relentless stupidity is why so many people on here get exasperated with you and in the real world too, so I gather.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9100



WWW
« Reply #131 on: August 10, 2014, 02:44:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Selectively quoting is quoting part of something which changes the context of the partial quote, not misquoting which is a different thing again. You repeatedly misread and misinterpret posts which is why I keep having a go at you for it, no other reason. Anyway I've had enough of your childish behaviour as I shall alter the settings to hide your generally insulting posts and be done with your nonsense. Debating with you is like wrestling with fog as Rob C once said. Your relentless stupidity is why so many people on here get exasperated with you and in the real world too, so I gather.
Agreed Isaac, Troll. It's my fault again, it figures.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3474



WWW
« Reply #132 on: August 10, 2014, 03:06:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you to all who added something constructive to this conversation. Everyone need not agree.

I've assembled my learnings and plans from this thread onto my blog: http://www.bobrockefeller.com/blog/dam-in-lightroom-from-aperture

That post will help me remember the pros and cons of the arrangements.
Interesting post, but your list of cons is not accurate.
"There are a few drawbacks to the folder-by-date system, however:
Finding an image outside the DAM application requires knowing the date the image was taken; something few people would remember.
Using Lightroom, you would have to create collections to group the files in any other way but by day. Aperture did that for you using it’s virtual concept of a project."

The first issue is wrong as I can certainly find things outside of LR as I use date + description and used Bridge for many years as my organiser which is a file browser not  a database like LR/Aperture. Plus because I use a date system it helps me to recall dates of when things were done. Also criticising a system designed to be used in conjunction with a DAM for how it works without a DAM is a bit daft. It's like criticising LR for not being able to edit Word documents.  Tongue
Second point - there's no problem in using collections to collect images by whatever criteria you want. That is exactly what they are meant to do. And as you demonstrate on your blog you can do exactly the same with Folders as you can with projects, there's no real difference. So what's the problem there?  It's not like Aperture can read your mind and automagically create sub folders in Aperture for you with the right names  Huh

I think the main issue is the fact you are used to working in Aperture and LR does things much the same but with alternative names to what you are used to which makes you think things are more different than they actually are.

Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156



WWW
« Reply #133 on: August 10, 2014, 03:11:55 PM »
ReplyReply

JJJ, Do you have much experience in using Aperture?
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3474



WWW
« Reply #134 on: August 10, 2014, 04:13:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I was very excited when Aperture first came out as it looked like it would solve many of the problems of dealing with large numbers of images. Sadly v1 was not only very buggy but couldn't even import my already large and well organised folders - which is what killed it's initial uptake amongst photographers in my view. LR tried the something similar in very first beta but was quickly changed to also use referenced folders after feedback. Apple finally relented as well later on. I kept Aperture updated and used it regularly, but it was still too clunky and messy compared to LR's clean and efficient interface. Aperture seemed to become more like 1990's software as time went on whilst LR polished their modern interface that was more thoughtfully designed. I really liked Ap1.0 looks wise but later versions feel like a dogs dinner.
I actually spent quite a bit of time with Aperture recently and its still clumsy and inefficient. For example Photostream projects [or folders in any other programme] are incorrectly named.
They are date named but not in a sensible/usable way as they are Oct 2013 Photostream, November 2013 Photostream and so on and are randomly scattered through my projects. If I put them in a folder to contain my  various Photostream projects then they will not sort correctly as seen in first screengrab as April 2014 comes before Dec 2013 and so on. Second screengrab shows correct sorting after I tediously had to manually rename files so they would sort correctly. This is a really basic mistake and just shows how unfriendly Apple are to such basic ways of filing.
The other issue was that LR leapfrogged Aperture in processing quality a while back.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2014, 04:17:43 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
dennbel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #135 on: August 11, 2014, 12:11:31 AM »
ReplyReply

In the first example the  sorting is in alphabetical order. Works for some things (like names of songs) but definitely not for this purpose.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2791



WWW
« Reply #136 on: August 11, 2014, 04:41:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you to all who added something constructive to this conversation. Everyone need not agree.

I've assembled my learnings and plans from this thread onto my blog: http://www.bobrockefeller.com/blog/dam-in-lightroom-from-aperture

That post will help me remember the pros and cons of the arrangements.

One thing you don't mention at all is the Library Filter panel, which I don't think has an Aperture equivalent, and it's behind my suggestion that LR users tend to make more use of IPTC fields than Aperture users. Rather than a folder/project system recording where photos were taken or the location they depict, you're putting the information into the 4 main IPTC location fields and then using the Library Filter to slice and dice the pictures in a more ad hoc fashion. The left panel might still include some geographical structure, but there will be fewer containers - so I wouldn't have a left panel list of all geographical locations, just smart collections for frequently-used groupings such as "country = USA" or "state contains Maine or NH or RI or MA". These standard fields will also migrate well to other systems.

John

Logged

Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156



WWW
« Reply #137 on: August 11, 2014, 05:54:00 AM »
ReplyReply

John,

Very true. The Library Filter is a helpful too and I use it a good bit when searching for images across my library. I always used the IPTC location fields and consider them to be important metadata, even if I have the image in a folder-by-location hierarchy.

In Aperture I used to use its Filters in a similar way. Aperture offers a few more options for filtering, and doesn't take up any screen space while active.

I don't use a filter like that much while working on a new set of images. My brain still works better with the folders-by-location and a temporary •Imports folder to hold current work.

But my "location" is never based on the location in the picture (subject). My "location" is simply where my feet where when the picture was taken; I find that to be as unambiguous and imutable as the date the image was taken.

Maybe I will have to learn, but I don't like collections that much. I use them if I have a special purpose, such as a photo book, a set of images for a client or some such. My biggest two gripes are deleting images from disk while working in a collection and their "split" from the folder pane so I have two panes for looking at image groups. I know, I know it's probably my Aperture-brain talking, but still.

Too bad we're on different continents, I think it would be fun and educational for us to sit together in front of a computer and exercise Lightroom and Aperture "going through the paces!"
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2791



WWW
« Reply #138 on: August 11, 2014, 06:58:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, it would be pleasantly argumentative!

It's hard to be sure, but I think I use the Filter Panel much more actively or ad hoc in LR than I think I would use the Aperture equivalent. I will often hide it by pressing the "\" key and I have a number of sets of columns saved - just like the one in my screenshot. The Filter Panel tends to be more of a tool for exploring metadata and drilling down into it, similar to Excel pivot tables if you're familiar with them, so for instance I found a few cases of "Unknown City" 

The problem with location fields has always been consistency. Individuals can certainly be consistent and can stick to a "where I stood" or "what's shown", but people change practices over time or make exceptions. Neither is really satisfactory - which is why there are two fields in the IPTC Extension (which no-one ever uses!).

I don't find collections totally satisfactory, and I've never been a big fan of how delete works. I like how Aperture albums hang off the project, and how you can drag a smart album to another source, and in LR it can certainly be a pain to have related folders and collections in two panes. The bigger the catalogue, the more this is a problem. An Aperture-style merging of the two panes might work, though I feel the way forward is for a "left panel filter" which filters all your folders and collections in the same way as the little filter panel at the top of keywords. Progress comes at glacial pace (though at least nowadays the glaciers move faster, if backwards).
Logged

ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


« Reply #139 on: August 11, 2014, 08:17:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Butch's explanation doesn't address the problem at hand; the purpose of doing all this crazy file-system organization is so you can access your pictures quickly and easily outside the DAM.

There will be a day, due to Adobe, or Apple, or on your own whim, where the information in your DAM will be inaccessible (for whatever reason...for example from another device your DAM doesn't run on).


The whole purpose of DAM is to allow the data to be independent of a specific software solution ... As I recall that was the main theme of Krogh's book. Establish a solid foundation that can be scaled to grow into what may come next.

if you are saving your metadata back to the individual image files ... many other options other than Adobe can utilize at least most if not all of that data. It can be used regardless of what type and how many containers you choose to store your image files within. For example, I employ Media Pro for my long term archive and primarily only use the DAM portion of Lr or Aperture until a job has been completed and delivered. I also have little trouble seeking out and accessing images using Spotlight or Finder searches.

It seems to me if you know you are going to have to invest the effort to keyword, label and rate the images no matter what, sorting the images into category based folder structures can be a bit redundant.

As I said before, it matters little to anyone else other than you how you set up your DAM folder structure ... though sooner or later the sheer quantity of images you will have accumulated will soon outgrow categorizing by subject matter specific folder storage. Sooner or later you run out of cross referencing options ... Like back in the day of dealing with negatives and slides ... you still needed a catalog that could take into account all the criteria pertaining to that image so you can put your hands on the images required in short order.

Streamlining the process without sacrificing accuracy and efficiency is important to me. The more time I spend with a mouse in my hand means I'm spending less time holding a camera.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad