Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Down

Author Topic: Lightroom and DAM  (Read 12505 times)

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11886
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #140 on: August 11, 2014, 09:49:45 AM »

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.
Same for me. I have a few saved filters, but far less than Smart Collections. And what's up with the disconnect between the two (SC's and Filters)? You'd think the two would be functionally equivalent in terms of what we can search for. For example, I can search a SC for "source color mode" but not by filters.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 448
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #141 on: August 11, 2014, 06:58:34 PM »

Same for me. I have a few saved filters, but far less than Smart Collections. And what's up with the disconnect between the two (SC's and Filters)? You'd think the two would be functionally equivalent in terms of what we can search for. For example, I can search a SC for "source color mode" but not by filters.

Yes, odd. Filters and Smart Albums in Aperture appear to use the same underlying engine; you can search for the same stuff in both.
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com

Les Sparks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 268
    • http://www.ncsparks.com
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #142 on: August 11, 2014, 08:39:57 PM »

Bob,
For a good discussion of library organization  check out George Jardine's article at  http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/software-technique/heresy-in-library-organization.html#.U-lhBGPw3ew
It's a clear discussion of why he organizes his library the way he does.
Les
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3128
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #143 on: August 12, 2014, 02:13:11 AM »

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.

iirc there's a problem with lack of standardization on the syntax used to represent hierarchical keywords in image meta data.
Logged

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 602
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #144 on: August 12, 2014, 09:13:01 AM »

iirc there's a problem with lack of standardization on the syntax used to represent hierarchical keywords in image meta data.

Perhaps that is then a good argument against not implementing hierarchical keywords ... at least until there is a standard set and accepted.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3690
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #145 on: August 12, 2014, 09:22:12 AM »

Perhaps that is then a good argument against not implementing hierarchical keywords ... at least until there is a standard set and accepted.

Not really, Butch. You could use the same argument against a number of fields (eg colour labels, flags) which are widely available but not standardised, and you'd be waiting forever and a day for a standard to be agreed (eg IPTC Extension fields) and then implemented in the application you happen to use (eg IPTC Extensions and Aperture). Metadata is an imperfect world, and in that environment you have to make yourself aware of the details of what things work now and how they can also screw other stuff up! I'm not a big fan of hierarchical keywords, but that's not because of the lack of standardisation.

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3128
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #146 on: August 12, 2014, 10:28:27 AM »

Perhaps that is then a good argument against not implementing hierarchical keywords ... at least until there is a standard set and accepted.

fwiw I wasn't talking about "a standard set" but --

Quote
You’ll notice that I’m using the “/” character to separate the various levels contained in a keyword. The choice of the separation character is arbitrary, some applications use the period (“.”) or the pipe (“|”) character , since there is no industry standard at the moment.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #147 on: August 16, 2014, 07:08:53 PM »

In the first example the  sorting is in alphabetical order. Works for some things (like names of songs) but definitely not for this purpose.
Sorting is alphabetical in both cases. It's just that Aperture labels Photostream folders stupidly considering how computers sort things.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2014, 07:12:25 PM by jjj »
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 448
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #148 on: August 19, 2014, 04:32:26 PM »

Just as another data point, Matt Kloskowski, of Kelby Media and at Lightroom Killer Tips, offers his ideas about organizing your Lightroom library, not by date, but by topic.

It's item 2 in this post:

http://lightroomkillertips.com/5-lightroom-organizing-mistakes-and-how-to-avoid-them/?utm_content=bufferd612d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11886
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #149 on: August 19, 2014, 04:36:33 PM »

Just as another data point, Matt Kloskowski, of Kelby Media and at Lightroom Killer Tips, offers his ideas about organizing your Lightroom library, not by date, but by topic.
Matt is agreeing with what you and I have been saying all along Bob.

But that's all wrong.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3690
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #150 on: August 19, 2014, 05:18:08 PM »

Just as another data point, Matt Kloskowski, of Kelby Media and at Lightroom Killer Tips,

Yeah, Matt and Kelby really are the first people you'd go to for DAM advice, colour management too.... /heavy irony

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 448
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #151 on: August 19, 2014, 05:21:42 PM »

Yeah, Matt and Kelby really are the first people you'd go to for DAM advice, colour management too.... /heavy irony

Like I said, just another data point. But, for better or worse, Matt is a well-known Lightroom instructor. That doesn't make him right or wrong, it just means he has heard and seen more than I have, at least.

You don't think he's drinking buddies with Peter Krogh? :)
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3690
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #152 on: August 19, 2014, 05:30:50 PM »

Matt seems one of the more measured guys in the Kelby business, Bob, but their strengths have never been in DAM and I wouldn't consider it much of a data point. Someone like George Jardine is a more credible source - see this post for instance.

John

 

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11886
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #153 on: August 19, 2014, 05:47:27 PM »

Like I said, just another data point. But, for better or worse, Matt is a well-known Lightroom instructor.
What did I tell you Bob, wrong data point and you're wrong. Stick to doing what you prefer doing, or tell those who do things differently what they want to hear.

Here's something George wrote that we all (well most of us) agree on:

Quote
The important thing (in the short run…) is that you can find your photos.
Anyway, back to digital photo libraries. Earlier I said that the folder organization you use doesn’t matter, as long as you can find what you’re looking for. And that truly is the heart of the matter.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2014, 05:52:45 PM by digitaldog »
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3690
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #154 on: August 19, 2014, 06:21:14 PM »

Selective and misleading quotation - what some people specialize in, eh?

FranciscoDisilvestro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 963
    • Frank Disilvestro
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #155 on: August 19, 2014, 07:06:53 PM »

If you have a DAM and rely on your folder structure to find your images, you might not have realized the full potential of a DAM. I cannot think of a possible folder structure that cannot be related to metadata. Think the other way around: with metadata, the folder structure of your image collection is the one you decide at any time.

In the case of LR, there is nothing obscure about it or LR being a "blackBox". The LR catalog is an unencrypted, unsecured relational database that can be accessed by a broad range of applications. By having a LR catalog (not the application) it would be possible to write a script that recreates a new folder structure (based on metadata), move the images to the appropriate folders and create corresponding xmp files if not using DNG.

You can hammer a screw, but I would recommend to use a screwdriver

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11886
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #156 on: August 19, 2014, 07:07:11 PM »

Selective and misleading quotation - what some people specialize in, eh?
Selective? Oh yes, seems pointless to copy and paste George's entire article when you yourself referenced the link as something you think backs up your opinion. Misleading quotation? Only if as I suspect of you John, you have difficulty reading and comprehending English. The text George wrote that I pasted from two areas in his article stand on their own. George is saying what I said pages and pages ago, post #2 in fact (exact quote): So my point is, build your organization based on what works best for you.

George is a good friend and wine drinking buddy, maybe I have to pull an Annie Hall moment on you (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE). The two sentences he wrote are as clear as the noise on your face and I really doubt he'll say he doesn't mean: the folder organization you use doesn’t matter, as long as you can find what you’re looking for. And that truly is the heart of the matter.
That George's writing backs up what I and other's have said, indicates you should treat him like you did Matt (dismiss him out of hand). But since you linked the article as recommended reading, the hypocrisy of your POV is pretty clear.

Bob, here's the bottom line. As the OP you can close down the thread. John will never agree with what Matt, I, George and other's have said here. In fact, what he's stupidly proposing is the opposite: use a system even if it doesn't make sense to you. Just look and read his last few posts? He dismisses Matt outright because he doesn't agree with him. He then stupidly references an expert who's piece he appears not to have read or understood. Then when in that piece, the expert he wishes he were states clearly that the folder organization you use doesn’t matter, as long as you can find what you’re looking for, he's got the balls to suggest that isn't what George meant and it's misleading!

Again, don't do what makes sense to you as most have suggested, do what John says. They 'you'll be right' in his eyes. The data points he just provided backs up what you have been saying all along! Maybe John can scour the web and find some 'expert' with his chops that writes "don't use folders to organize, and build your organization based on what doesn't works best for you".

Quote
Selective and misleading quotation - what some people specialize in, eh?
What an utterly foolish thing to write John.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11886
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #157 on: August 19, 2014, 07:09:38 PM »

You can hammer a screw, but I would recommend to use a screwdriver
Agreed with your points before this. No one is suggesting we rely on a folder structure, it's another form of finding your images if you can't use a DAM or you wish to migrate to another. Or to answer your quote above, if you don't have that screwdriver, that hammer is a heck of a lot better than using your bare hand! Obviously if you have the screwdriver, use it. If you have an electric screwdriver, maybe better yet.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 448
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Re: Lightroom and DAM
« Reply #158 on: August 19, 2014, 07:11:15 PM »

Enough. We've gone far enough off the rails.
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Up