Lightroom and DAM

[john beardsworth]

I'm saying nothing about your system as I know nothing about it. But if you want an example of bad practice, look above to the suggestion of loading keywords into file names. The thing is, we should never make the mistake of saying whatever works for someone must be ok or equally good.

[digitaldog]

Still missing the point I was making. A date system never needs to be amended after the fact.

I don't care, you are missing my point! Dates are meaningless to me, content isn't. I can find dates within the Finder, it's been possible from day one. There's zero advantage TO ME to use dates within a folder structure.

Two people used the word primary, but in two different ways.

I don't care if two thousand different people used the term. Folder structure isn't and never was intended as a primary or secondary method of organizing images. It's simply one additional method outside the DAM to find my images in a method I prefer.

And I certainly do understand naming and organising files outside of a dam as that's why I take great pains to organise my work in folders that I can easily browse in or outside of LR

And your method would fail for me. Get it?

I always tell people to place things where it makes sense to them.

Thanks, I'll continue to do that.

Doesn't mean their system is not badly flawed or even bonkers though.

There is nothing flawed or bonkers with my system, it works exactly as I wish it to work. Move on, you're never going to convince me with that FUD! Let's hope others like Bob don't either. But that's his call.

The reality is that if you have a large library of images a DAM is the only way to find all aspects of your work.

Hogwash! It will be more difficult but it's not the only way! It is flawed and bonkers to suggest, no demand, that a DAM is the only way to find images.

[digitaldog]

My sentiments exactly!!!  I find it quite irksome when some people say "No, your way is all wrong" B.S., if it works for me, it's most certainly correct.

The FUD proponents will have you blue in the fact trying to convince you otherwise. This isn't about a scientific, fact based argument like, if you take a 16-bit ProPhoto image of colorful flowers and convert it to sRGB JPEG, there's a reduction of color gamut. You might not care about this anyway. This debate is about how you and I find our images. If it works for us, it works for us, there isn't any science these guys can spit out that will convince us otherwise nor should it.

One can argue that going from point A to point B can have differing paths and one is a shorter distance than the other. The tools and science in comparing the two is not up to debate. If the goal is to get from point A to point B and you don't care the distance traveled, any path is equally valid. But even if you tell a FUD proponent you prefer the longer path because it's a more enjoyable journey, or you can also drop off your laundry to the cleaners using that path, they will tell you it's wrong, the shorter path is better. FOR THEM! So unless you submit to their way, it's the highway which is ridiculous. If they really did have your workflow interest in mind, they would listen and understand the path you've chosen is better for you. But it's all about them. Ignore them.

[jjj]

In my mind, this issue isn't so much about what way is "correct." It's more about ways that can lead to dead ends as the photo library expands.

For example, many would agree that a single folder full of 100 pictures may not be a problem today. But when that library grows to tens of thousands with many different subjects taken in may different places for many different reasons, that idea will hit a dead end. The owner may not see that coming.

I've mentioned a potential dead end to my folders-by-location arrangement. One day I may have so many pictures that they can't all fit on a single storage device. At that point, bringing on a second storage device brings the question of what to do with that system? I'd probably have to move an arbitrary number of top level location folders to the new device. If my system were folders-by-date, I'd just cut over to the second device on a certain date.

For me, my system works well and I'm willing to take the chance that I may have a somewhat less good solution if I have to split things across storage devices. Or maybe storage devices will continue to grow in capacity at least as fast as my library grows.

My reason for starting the thread in the first place was to hear from others, with more experience and larger libraries, about potential dead ends.

This is exactly the problem with physical filing by subject [location is a subject]. It doesn't scale well or adapt to increasing complexity without more work.
Date filing for physical organising does not have that issue or any need to adapt and is less effort too, so win, win. 
I have 376k images and now with yyyy-mm-dd description filing there are no problems as my library expands/gets more complex.

With music, I physically file everything alphabetically [the equivalent of date] and then use smart playlists to organise by genre/feel and finally after several decades and various filing systems I feel my music is finally organised. Organising by single subject [genre/feel/tempo etc] simply does not work in any shape or form. I recall music for a variety of reasons, what city an artist came from, what genre they are play which can vary enormously, a specific tune, the band's name, when I heard it and so on. Now I can search by all methods.

By the way you can easily convert all your photos to a date folder system. Firstly tag all photos in your locations using keywords and create smart collections that correspond to to your locations or any other filing criteria you use. Now you have collections that correspond to your folders and any DAM you use will be able to do this. Now import all your images into LR by date and voila you now have all images in date folders, Create year and month folders to place the individual day folders in and add a description to each folder if you want [recommended]. Test this on a duplicate subset of your images to get a feel for it and once all the prelim work is done go for it, if it suits you. There's be a chunk of work in adding folder descriptions in one big go but in future, it takes very little effort to keep going with this system.
It'll probably be easier to do with with a new catalogue as otherwise you have to delete all pics from current catalogue and then re-import by date.
But I really advise doing this with a duplicate set of images in case you decide to go back to your prior system.

[Isaac]

Not heard of this new fangled thing called drag and drop then Issac?  

I've seen too many people release before they'd dragged over the target. Performance of the keyboard shortcuts is more reliable.

Easier to use LR to import images into folders by date anyway. Even better when they are images from multiple dates.

Did you read carefully enough to understand that images from multiple dates are placed in the same "date" folder, if they are loaded onto the computer on the same date?

[ButchM]

I'm saying nothing about your system as I know nothing about it. But if you want an example of bad practice, look above to the suggestion of loading keywords into file names. The thing is, we should never make the mistake of saying whatever works for someone must be ok or equally good.

I agree ... I think the tedium of sorting shoots into multiple folders and sub folders can be a bit redundant, my time is more valuable ... also the desire to store all pertinent data in a file name simply because Apple and MS allow us to utilize 255 characters seems to defeat the purpose of DAM.

I consider Peter's book an extremely valuable asset and I think it should be required reading for anyone who has to deal with more than a few dozen images. I don't follow his recommendations exactly to the letter ... but I think establishing a simple, methodical folder structure is key without resorting to extraneous pre-file sorting by subject, category, geo location or using 255 character names goes a long way in keeping an  archive more streamlined and better suited to pass the test of time. Besides, DAM solutions should not create more work ... they should make the task easier.

I'm not condemning what others prefer to do. I prefer to keep my DAM tasks as simple as possible by invoking the power of the software to allow more time for clicking my shutter release rather than a mouse or trackpad.

[jjj]

I don't care, you are missing my point! Dates are meaningless to me, content isn't. I can find dates within the Finder, it's been possible from day one. There's zero advantage TO ME to use dates within a folder structure.

Not telling you to use dates, just pointing out the flaws of not using them. Or and anyone who uses Finder for anything is a masochist. 

I don't care if two thousand different people used the term. Folder structure isn't and never was intended as a primary or secondary method of organizing images.

Utter, utter bollocks what a daft thing to say, even for you. For many many years it was the only way of organising your images. File Browsers were how people organised and found their data that was in folders until DAM apps started to appear [which not until LR appeared did it become mainstream] and even now I bet most people us folders as their primary organising.
Folders are my primary organising tool [primary meaning first as I already explained] and it works very well indeed.

And your method would fail for me. Get it? Thanks, I'll continue to do that.  There is nothing flawed or bonkers with my system, it works exactly as I wish it to work. Move on, you're never going to convince me with that FUD! Let's hope others like Bob don't either. But that's his call.  Hogwash! It will be more difficult but it's not the only way! It is flawed and bonkers to suggest, no demand, that a DAM is the only way to find images.

Didn't say your method was bonkers, definitely flawed though.
Of course you can find an image in a library of hundreds of thousands of images without a DAM, simply by manually searching. But as you well know that is not a usable solution compared to using some metadata to quickly pick up the files you are looking for - assuming you have added some, no point using a DAM otherwise.

[jjj]

I've seen too many people release before they'd dragged over the target. Performance of the keyboard shortcuts is more reliable.

So other people make mistakes, so you daren't do that?  Not to mention copying into the wrong folder is not even a problem, cancel the copy or move files into correct folder once done. No big deal.
Dragging to correct folder is no harder than pasting to correct folder.

Did you read carefully enough to understand that images from multiple dates are placed in the same "date" folder, if they are loaded onto the computer on the same date?

If you actually took photographs you would know that photographs taken on different dates get loaded into different date folders by LR regardless of when they are copied onto the computer. LR can tell the difference between shot date and copied date because it is different metadata.

[Isaac]

So other people make mistakes, so you daren't do that?

I see no reason to make those same mistakes.

If you actually took photographs you would know that photographs taken on different dates get loaded into different date folders by LR regardless of when they are copied onto the computer.

And that is not what I wish to be done.

[jjj]

The FUD proponents will have you blue in the fact trying to convince you otherwise. This isn't about a scientific, fact based argument like, if you take a 16-bit ProPhoto image of colorful flowers and convert it to sRGB JPEG, there's a reduction of color gamut. You might not care about this anyway. This debate is about how you and I find our images. If it works for us, it works for us, there isn't any science these guys can spit out that will convince us otherwise nor should it.

Actually someone could show you or myself an easier way to find our images and that would be a fact. Saving time is a measurable quantity which can be used to prove facts.  Here's a fact for you, I used to use your method, but outgrew it's usefulness and now use a easier methodology.

One can argue that going from point A to point B can have differing paths and one is a shorter distance than the other. The tools and science in comparing the two is not up to debate. If the goal is to get from point A to point B and you don't care the distance traveled, any path is equally valid. But even if you tell a FUD proponent you prefer the longer path because it's a more enjoyable journey, or you can also drop off your laundry to the cleaners using that path, they will tell you it's wrong, the shorter path is better. FOR THEM! So unless you submit to their way, it's the highway which is ridiculous. If they really did have your workflow interest in mind, they would listen and understand the path you've chosen is better for you. But it's all about them. Ignore them.

Poor analogy, I will happily travel a longer, more interesting route somewhere but simply making things more difficult for oneself is not an interesting journey it's just harder less pleasant work.

You love to use the ridiculous term FUD whenever you have no argument to back up your point of view it would seem.

[jjj]

I see no reason to make those same mistakes.

Nor me, so I do it better than those who got it wrong, so no mistakes are made. Not attempting something is a lazy way out.

And that is not what I wish to be done.

Being too terse again Isaac. What point are you making?

[digitaldog]

Actually someone could show you or myself an easier way to find our images and that would be a fact.

Easier is subjective, something you don't seem understand based on your posts here. Ever hear the old saying, "you can pay me now or you can pay me later?" Saving time now to waste it later (for me, trying to find something outside a DAM with dates) isn't time effective for me. If it is for you, great.

You love to use the ridiculous term FUD whenever you have no argument to back up your point of view it would seem.

It is FUD because as yet, years and years after setting up my preferred system, it's working exactly as I wish it to work. So you are only voicing nonsense FUD text like bonkers, and definitely flawed. Here is another old saying you should consider: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I can only speak for myself unlike others here, my system isn't broken. As such, I have no reason to consider your FUD which is based on your own language (bonkers, definitely flawed though). What is flawed is your inability to allow us to use a system that works for us, despite text you wrote that sounds pretty hypocritical putting the two in context:I always tell people to place things where it makes sense to them.
My system makes sense to me. I have no issues finding my images inside or outside the DAM. It is therefore and has been since I started it, not flawed nor bonkers (whatever that is supposed to mean).

[digitaldog]

And that is not what I wish to be done.

What you wish to be done and how is immaterial to jjj and a few others. You must do what they want you to do because it's right. Therefore you're wrong, the workflow is flawed. All while we hear:I always tell people to place things where it makes sense to them.
Do what you want, it probably will work. If it needs modification, you are probably smart enough but of course not as smart as jjj and a few others, to modify your workflow. The discussion is wavering to the point it probably needs to be shut down as once again, the insults are flying:

If you actually took photographs you would know that photographs taken on different dates get loaded into different date folders by LR regardless of when they are copied onto the computer.
You love to use the ridiculous term FUD whenever you have no argument to back up your point of view it would seem.
Being too terse again Isaac. What point are you making?
Not heard of this new fangled thing called drag and drop then Issac?

Bob, as the OP, you gaining anything here within the last page or two or is this just moving towards another waste of time?

[Isaac]

Nor me, so I do it better than those who got it wrong, so no mistakes are made. Not attempting something is a lazy way out.

I make no mistakes using  select all / copy / paste.

Being too terse again Isaac. What point are you making?

Troll.

[ppmax2]

...But if you want an example of bad practice, look above to the suggestion of loading keywords into file names...

How exactly is that a bad practice? Of the files named 2014-08-01_04-01-25.CR2 and 2013-08-01_04-01-25.CR2, which one has a picture of Johnny? If you have 50,000 images each named according to this scheme, meticulously organized into folders named by year, how do you find all the images that contain pictures of your dog when you lived in San Francisco, but not in Los Angeles?

The file itself has a creation date and a modification date, and most systems will let you search for the capture date...so naming your file by date is duplicating data, and doesn't provide any meaningful information about what the file has in it (e.g. the subject). Describing the subject is why keywords exist. Unfortunately, setting/getting keywords is only available in your "black box" DAM application.

I provided an explanation for why keyword-based file naming is a better solution for being able to find your images outside the DAM; it's up to you to show why date-based file naming (or any other file naming scheme) is better. The only explanations provided thus far are appeals to authority...("I read it in a book").

PP

[jjj]

Easier is subjective, something you don't seem understand based on your posts here.

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.

[jjj]

Troll.

So asking you to clarify one of your overly succinct posts is trolling and there's me thinking you liked to be precise about use of language.

[jjj]

What you wish to be done and how is immaterial to jjj and a few others. You must do what they want you to do because it's right. Therefore you're wrong, the workflow is flawed. All while we hear:I always tell people to place things where it makes sense to them.

Stop misrepresenting my and other people's views.

Do what you want, it probably will work. If it needs modification, you are probably smart enough but of course not as smart as jjj and a few others, to modify your workflow. The discussion is wavering to the point it probably needs to be shut down as once again, the insults are flying:

From you and oddly now Isaac it would seem.
Your continued personal attacks singling myself out are very tedious, you need to get over yourself.

[Isaac]

So asking you to clarify one of your overly succinct posts is trolling and there's me thinking you liked to be precise about use of language.

If you actually took photographs…

Troll.

…you would know that photographs taken on different dates get loaded into different date folders by LR regardless of when they are copied onto the computer.

"And that is not what I wish to be done."

[JRSmit]

I simply cannot understand why folder structure and naming is such a pain. At the end of the day the filename is the thing that has to be unique in a given realm. Compare with isbn or ean coding. This makes it unique regardlesss of where it is stored or in which collection  it is being referred.  Folders are just physical storing structures.