What software will suit me best

[Tony Jay]

...Most non-pros don't need a DAM...

Actually the organisational requirements are the same for pro and amateur.
Folder-based systems simply do not work when properly classifying and identifying images.
As soon as one's image collection is more than a couple of thousand images it becomes exponentially more difficult to find images timeously.

The fact that attitudes and assumptions between pro and amateur may differ radically does not alter the truth on jot.

Tony Jay

[Eric Brody]

Clearly some of us are trying to convince some resistant folks that cataloging and key words are worth while. I'm not sure what will convince them if it has not been the almost pleading of some of us. While it is true that a decent folder system in the basic OS, be it Mac or PC is better than nothing, the sophistication that can be achieved in Lightroom is truly mind boggling. Some of it is automatic, with EXIF, some from the GIGO of meticulous keywording.

I'm willing to let these folks go on their merry way. They may or may not see the error of their ways at some point in the future, as clearly pointed out by many of us. Finding one's images of a certain place, person, activity, black and white vs color, all really require a DAM of some sort. At the risk of beating the deceased equine, I can find my black and white photos of a location taken after dark with a given lens at a given place, containing certain people in a heartbeat, no folder system can do that EVER. I just sold a lens. The purchaser wanted to see some images done with it. I found them easily and quickly.

Eric

[flyfishman2010]

Clearly some of us are trying to convince some resistant folks that cataloging and key words are worth while. I'm not sure what will convince them if it has not been the almost pleading of some of us. While it is true that a decent folder system in the basic OS, be it Mac or PC is better than nothing, the sophistication that can be achieved in Lightroom is truly mind boggling. Some of it is automatic, with EXIF, some from the GIGO of meticulous keywording.

I'm willing to let these folks go on their merry way. They may or may not see the error of their ways at some point in the future, as clearly pointed out by many of us. Finding one's images of a certain place, person, activity, black and white vs color, all really require a DAM of some sort. At the risk of beating the deceased equine, I can find my black and white photos of a location taken after dark with a given lens at a given place, containing certain people in a heartbeat, no folder system can do that EVER. I just sold a lens. The purchaser wanted to see some images done with it. I found them easily and quickly.

Eric

I'm convinced. The "where is my &$* pictures" is a very convincing argument. I'm going to give Light Room a try.

Toby

[Jack Hogan]

Yes, I know I am in the minority about disliking the rigidity and locality of a dedicated DAM and I am not going to turn  anyone who is convinced otherwise.  But most people do not even know that their operating system (Windows/Mac) can do 95% of what a dedicated DAM does, faster, more flexibly and less intrusively.  Here for instance is plain old Windows Explorer under Windows 7:



The files are renamed on import to the one of three computers I have with me (desktop at home or one of two laptops when I travel): NameOfEvent+Original file name (e.g. Easter_DSCxxxxx), the file structure is Year/Event/files.  If needed I introduce keywords in the metadata but I almost never do because I can usually find whatever I am looking for in the blink of an eye.  I initially work on the raw files on the computer I have with me, then upload all rendered files to a central NAS once back home.  If I want to move the files from one computer/NAS to the other as I sometimes need to I can do it with a simple click and drag.  Last time I checked in with LR it could not work this way.  And good luck giving LR up if you ever change your mind.

Anyways, if one is starting from scratch and has a minimum of familiarity with computers it is worthwhile learning what their operating system can do in terms of managing their captures out of the box before getting locked into a DAM for life.   Once unchained from the DAM one is then able to judge software based on its raw conversion prowess and one's needs.  The needs typically fall into two categories: low volume/higher quality vs high volume/higher convenience. There are then several good options for raw converters out there, LR being just one of them and perhaps more attuned to the latter category.  Many non-pros fall into the former imho - and I certainly do.

Jack

[Manoli]

Yes, I know I am in the minority ...

Not really, or at least you shouldn't be ..

It's not only good practice but common sense. Use any DAM you like, but there's NO reason not to have a sound file structure underneath for all the reasons you've given above.

Akin to building a house with all the bells and whistles to withstand earthquakes but not building it on solid foundations. Just wait until the mud slide comes along ...

[Tony Jay]

....before getting locked into a DAM for life... 

This is simply false information.
One is never "locked into a DAM for life."

If it were to happen that Lightroom became unavailable or too expensive or whatever I could easily migrate to another option.
The bottom line is that the magic is in the metadata and keywords.
Every DAM will expect to find metadata and keywords in exactly the same fields as Lightroom does.
That is what the EXIF and IPTC standards are all about.

Tony Jay

[Tony Jay]

Not really, or at least you shouldn't be ..

It's not only good practice but common sense. Use any DAM you like, but there's NO reason not to have a sound file structure underneath for all the reasons you've given above.

Akin to building a house with all the bells and whistles to withstand earthquakes but not building it on solid foundations. Just wait until the mud slide comes along ...

There is nothing contradictory between using a simple, repeatable, and extensible folder system in which to place image files and using a DAM system.
The two are absolutely complementary.
I teach a simple date-based folder system that ticks all the above boxes.
When one believes that it is through a folder system that one can adequately classify and organise images to make them easy to find that is where the problems start.

Jack's argument is that the folder system replaces the need for a DAM.

Tony Jay

[Hans Kruse]

One more thing that I use a lot in Lightroom is geotagging. Since I organize photo workshops, of course, it is very useful to be able to find a location again based on a photo. I also use apps on my iPhone to navigate to the location of the photo.
But even if you do not have the same requirements as I have, but still like to explore locations again and again geotagging can be really useful if you are a pro, amateur or just enthusiastic about photography

Another feature I use a lot in Lightroom is the publish feature by which I manage the content of my websites from inside of Lightroom. It is only available for the websites that provide a plugin for Lightroom for uploading of images to the website. I use Smugmug and Zenfolio.

These two features are not available in Capture One.

[Manoli]

Jack's argument is that the folder system replaces the need for a DAM.

I must be losing command of my mother tongue - that's not what I read at all.
Rather, that not all users NECESSARILY need a DAM.
But I'll leave it to Jack to answer ... (who better ?)

[Hans Kruse]

Features like collections (which also play together with Lightroom Mobile) and publishing cannot really not work well unless you have a catalog that knows about all photos. A folder based structure works well within Lightroom as well. I use a naming standard for my shoots which is simply <year>.<month> <location or subject> and in addition I keyword all my published images and I have an overall keyword hierarchy within Lightroom that I use for that. Most of the time I will navigate using the folder based structure, but sometimes I will go through some of my collections and then go to the folders where images are for a given shoot. I find it really useful to have a catalog based structure so I can navigate to my photos in many different ways. I don't see why any photographer would not like to have that. With more pictures it becomes more useful.

[fdisilvestro]

Jack is not explaining the folder system but the windows libraries, which work like a rudimentary catalogue. If you want to work this way, then I recommend to use Bridge, which is much more powerful.

LR does not lock you for life. You can move files around and from one computer to another, just have to follow some rules. I do it all the time from inside or outside LR (updating later the locations) and have never lost a single image and its adjustments.

For me the main advantage of a DAM like LR is that the physical organization (files & folders) is independent of the logical organization (how you display and work with the images) and the main disadvantage of LR is that it is strictly single user

[Jack Hogan]

Yes, if one needs some advanced feature of a DAM then one needs a DAM. 

But the way many non-pros look for their images they could achieve the same result 95% of the time by simply using the tools available in their operating system.  If it's in the metadata you can search for it (lens type, check; focal length,check; keywords, check; geotag, check;...).  In fact you can search for those files the exact same way from any 'open file' menu of ANY program on ANY computer: your Raw Converter of Choice, check; PS, check; RawDigger, check; Microsoft Office, check; ...  When I tried LR a couple of years ago its DAM did very little that I couldn't already do and in fact it put major constraints on what I could do and was used to doing.  Did I mention that I use one of three computers at any one time plus NAS?

So what do you, the average low volume/high IQ non-pro, really need a DAM for?  Good question.  If you know the answer to it then you are probably a good candidate for a DAM.  Hans knows and he is a pro.  Otherwise you may not need a dedicated DAM at all, the advanced search tools built into our operating systems will find image files just fine.  In that case choose the raw converter independently of its DAM capabilities, based on how easy/good it is at converting raws into rendered images.  LR favors speed and convenience, sometimes at the expense of quality.  Others make different compromises.  To each their own.

Jack

Manoli is correct, a well thought out folder system is the basis of efficient image storage in the long run.  On the other hand from the user's perspective folder structure is independent of the search capabilities discussed in this subthread (via dedicated DAM or OS).  Throw all images in a single folder or create a folder for every image if you prefer, it works the same.

[luxborealis]

I don't think I need any of the photo cataloging features.

You really must re-consider this notion. Despite what some are saying, I for one find it invaluable for a number of uses. Now it may be that your uses of your photos are pretty straightforward: shot, process, print, the end. Adding a few keywords and rating them as 3- 4- or 5-stars helps to future-proof what will be a growing collection. Keywords can be added during import - type once, copy to many. The stars will come with rigorous editing/culling.

For example, if you want to "call up" your best (e.g. 5 star or 4+ star) landscapes from the last year, it's just a few clicks. Or, perhaps you've travelled with family and you want only the family photos (I "colour" minor purple) or only the non-family photos from that trip, it's easy to do.

After a number of years of photographing, you may have the need for a retrospective of your best photos from a particular location. Again, a few clicks will take you there.

One could spend an inordinate amount of time keywording, titling, captioning, etc. - and that's what's required for submission to stock agencies - but for most, just a few keywords are helpful. Even adding a location to the title or a species of flora or fauna can help.

My memory is no longer the steal trap it once was, so refreshing my memory of a location by calling up some photos is another reason I spent few minutes at import adding a few details. As others have said, you may not think you need it now, but it will be helpful in years to come.

[BAB]

https://gregbenzphotography.com/news/lumenzia-v3


The above link will get you there Lumenzia

[Rhossydd]

Lumenzia

Hardly a 'must have' package for a new digital photographer.
A lot of what it's selling itself on could be achieved with careful use of LR or CO anyway.

[Jack Hogan]

I don't think I need any of the photo cataloging features.

You really must re-consider this notion.  Despite what some are saying, I for one find it invaluable for a number of uses.

In case you were referring to me I think you, like others here, have misunderstood what I am saying.  I do what you mention below and more.  I just do it directly from the raw converter and the operating system.  The raw converter happens not to have a dedicated DAM, which to me is a plus while I know for others it may be a minus.  My point is that the number of people for whom it would really be a minus is smaller than what many people, including you it seems, think.  Hence my comments aimed at making those and other people question whether a dedicated DAM is a must-have feature for them when selecting a raw converter/editor.  Because if it isn't it increases your options.

Jack

Now it may be that your uses of your photos are pretty straightforward: shot, process, print, the end. Adding a few keywords and rating them as 3- 4- or 5-stars helps to future-proof what will be a growing collection. Keywords can be added during import - type once, copy to many. The stars will come with rigorous editing/culling.

For example, if you want to "call up" your best (e.g. 5 star or 4+ star) landscapes from the last year, it's just a few clicks. Or, perhaps you've travelled with family and you want only the family photos (I "colour" minor purple) or only the non-family photos from that trip, it's easy to do.

After a number of years of photographing, you may have the need for a retrospective of your best photos from a particular location. Again, a few clicks will take you there.

One could spend an inordinate amount of time keywording, titling, captioning, etc. - and that's what's required for submission to stock agencies - but for most, just a few keywords are helpful. Even adding a location to the title or a species of flora or fauna can help.

My memory is no longer the steal trap it once was, so refreshing my memory of a location by calling up some photos is another reason I spent few minutes at import adding a few details. As others have said, you may not think you need it now, but it will be helpful in years to come.

[luxborealis]

In case you were referring to me.
Jack

Yes, you are quite right, it is possible to do much that outside of a DAM. But, I, for one, find it more helpful to do it within LR as do the dozens of photographers I know. There's no trade off in quality, though; I just happen to prefer the convenience offered by having it all in one place.

[Rhossydd]

Here for instance is plain old Windows Explorer under Windows 7:

Which isn't a default W7 setup, it takes some effort to set up explorer in that mode. Here at least, those options simply don't work either. I don't see any meta data being displayed from Canon CR2 files.

I'm afraid your advice here seems skewed by having your own unusual personal file management requirements coupled with only needing simplistic search options.

My original point to the OP was simply a suggestion to not disregard the DAM options in Lightroom & Capture One, but to take advantage of them from day one. Even your workflow will require sensible file naming and structures, plus keywording. All of that is just so much simpler to do within a single application and it does give a much more powerful set of additional options like collections and smart collections.

[Jack Hogan]

I'm afraid your advice here seems skewed by having your own unusual personal file management requirements coupled with only needing simplistic search options.

I believe the opposite is true: some here make it sound like a non-pro cannot live without a DAM.  In fact there are several really good converters out there without a DAM and people use them just like that all the time.   But I'll stop here.  My comments are meant to be constructive while I can tell some people here are somehow taking them as a personal affront so I will bow out of this conversation.

Jack

[joofa]

Clearly some of us are trying to convince some resistant folks that cataloging and key words are worth while. I'm not sure what will convince them if it has not been the almost pleading of some of us. While it is true that a decent folder system in the basic OS, be it Mac or PC is better than nothing, the sophistication that can be achieved in Lightroom is truly mind boggling. Some of it is automatic, with EXIF, some from the GIGO of meticulous keywording.

Indeed, associating tags of any sort (keywords, etc.) are very helpful in search. Let me digress before I come back to this point. What I get from Jack Hogan's messages is that operating system provides powerful tools (including database-based search tools such as 'locate' on Mac and Linux) for file searches. Indeed I have seen many of the same photographers on this forum who think of them as 'pros's often asking simple questions regarding locating files. Files, that can be found using the simple 'find' command on Mac or Linux terminal. And, I always marvel at the resistance of these photographers to learning a few basic Linux commands (which can be used in Mac OS also). And, the knowledge of such commands can be very helpful in their workflows.

I don't use LR so I don't know enough about its 'DAM' - which appears to be a simple database in concept from people's comments here. With the 'big data'-hype-driven world of today I see the power of tags in image search also. Heck, people have constructed businesses out of this simple concept in stock images. I would even go further ahead and personally think that more sophisticated graph-based databases (such as Neo4J or OrientDB) can provide even more power to photographers in particular, or image search in general.