Best photo organizing software? [Archive]

twotterdhc6

Dec 18th, 2008, 02:12 PM

adblink182

Dec 18th, 2008, 03:08 PM

since I got a digital camera, I have been organizing them by into folder with the following format

1) January 2004
2) February 2004
etc etc

currently at --> 52) December 2008

and then import that all into lightroom.

I like it, works for me :)

srg83

Dec 18th, 2008, 03:14 PM

Windows Explorer ;)

I find it more reassuring that I know where everything belongs, rather than relying on the software to do all the sorting.

I make all my folder names start with YYYY-MM-DD, where each folder consists of photos from that particular day. I add description to the end if necessary.

I organize my photos this way as well - have been since I got my first canon. Although I import my photos with Picasa, and that's where I view them...but I don't sort them or anything.

However, my gf does not enjoy the fact that my folders are all labelled YYYY-MM-DD ;)

Keelie

Dec 18th, 2008, 05:49 PM

I organize/view my photos with ACDSee, but I use Picasa for touch ups.

Sgt_Strider

Dec 18th, 2008, 08:58 PM

Adobe Lightroom for me.

Kasakato

Dec 18th, 2008, 09:05 PM

Lr 2.2

selpats

Dec 18th, 2008, 09:53 PM

Windows Explorer ;)

I find it more reassuring that I know where everything belongs, rather than relying on the software to do all the sorting.

I make all my folder names start with YYYY-MM-DD, where each folder consists of photos from that particular day. I add description to the end if necessary.

Exactly. I have 250,000+ images calalogued this way and it hasn't failed me yet.

I have mine structered a little differently:

2008
---->January
------------>01012008 (Month, Day, Year)

Each year has a drive to itself, with a redundant external backup.

For those that aren't so organised iMatch is one of the best going. The support is excellent (or used to be anyway) and the price is reasonable.

http://www.photools.com/

kiz5

Dec 19th, 2008, 12:21 AM

Lightroom is arguably the best photo software out there. The workflow it allows, is phenominal.

selpats

Dec 19th, 2008, 01:39 AM

Lightroom is arguably the best photo software out there. The workflow it allows, is phenominal.

You got one thing right, "arguably". What may work for you definitely doesn't work for everyone. I find it very restricting and way too cumbersome...but to each their own...

kiz5

Dec 19th, 2008, 07:02 AM

You got one thing right, "arguably". What may work for you definitely doesn't work for everyone. I find it very restricting and way too cumbersome...but to each their own...

Yep, I'm not going to say it's flatout the best thing out there. I use Bridge for my captioning to most metadata, and wire captioning information. I use Lightroom for most of my workflow, and organization. Then, Photoshop, if I actually need to edit something specifically, and for one of the wires, I have to use Photo Mechanic, because Lightroom doesn't have everything I need.

But yeah, it's definitely great software, but just not what everyone needs.

adblink182

Dec 19th, 2008, 07:21 AM

You got one thing right, "arguably". What may work for you definitely doesn't work for everyone. I find it very restricting and way too cumbersome...but to each their own...

I thought about that as well when i first started using it. But you need to give it sometime and you'll realize, it cuts workflow in half (or more).

I'm not sure where exactly you find it restricting, especially with the new features added in v2. If your looking for the in depth pixel pinching like in photoshop, then ya obvious thats not what its designed for.

and cumbersome and lightroom shouldn't even be in the same sentence! lol

selpats

Dec 19th, 2008, 01:16 PM

I thought about that as well when i first started using it. But you need to give it sometime and you'll realize, it cuts workflow in half (or more).

I'm not sure where exactly you find it restricting, especially with the new features added in v2. If your looking for the in depth pixel pinching like in photoshop, then ya obvious thats not what its designed for.

and cumbersome and lightroom shouldn't even be in the same sentence! lol

I am not a photo journalist or sports photographer. I do 95% of my work in Bridge/ACR/Photoshop. I take the time with each photograph to produce exactly what I want. I have been using Photoshop since 1994 and would be lost without it.

Just curious, what type of photography do you do in that you need this improved workflow?

Again, to each their own...I am not judging, just curious.

Kasakato

Dec 19th, 2008, 08:06 PM

I am not a photo journalist or sports photographer. I do 95% of my work in Bridge/ACR/Photoshop. I take the time with each photograph to produce exactly what I want. I have been using Photoshop since 1994 and would be lost without it.

Just curious, what type of photography do you do in that you need this improved workflow?

Again, to each their own...I am not judging, just curious.

What do you shoot? I do a bit of everything, just as a hobby, and LR is a life saver when your importing 200 of the days image at a time and need to sort them.

ShadowVlican

Dec 19th, 2008, 08:32 PM

i use ACDSee Pro

lightroom is cool... but i hate how it needs to regenerate thumbnails all the time (unless they've fixed this in the recent versions)

selpats

Dec 19th, 2008, 09:24 PM

What do you shoot? I do a bit of everything, just as a hobby, and LR is a life saver when your importing 200 of the days image at a time and need to sort them.

I do flora, nature, landscape and commercial photography. I can easily have 800+ RAW images at the end of a long day. I find it quite easy to use Bridge for the inital sort (deleting OOF, bad comp. really bad exposure), ACR for a finer look after the initial sort, then conversion. I then bring the final images into Photoshop for colour correction, and whatever else may or may not be needed. I then save these images as 16-bit TIFFs. A batch is then done to convert these TIFFs into full resolution JPEGs to go online or whatever else the final destination may be.

I just prefer having seperate tools for each stage. I have done it this way for years and it is very efficient and works for me. I find LR frustrating in the fact that the RAW conversion takes multiple tabs, whereas everything I need for RAW conversion with ACR is on one screen/tab. I have seperate tools for sharpening, noise removal etc that I run through Photoshop...

adblink182

Dec 20th, 2008, 01:40 AM

what do you mean multiple tabs for raw conversion? one tab with ALL the developing tools you need, and then export and your done.

the best part is its non-destructive, and you can create as many virtual copies as you want, in a simple one click of the mouse.

Jonavin

Dec 20th, 2008, 03:04 AM

Picasa :D I use Aperture myself. When you get over 100,000 photos using the file system and folders just doesn't cut it anymore. You need Lightroom or Aperture.

Out of those 100,000 photos it's quick to find all the ones you tagged as "sky" or maybe you want to search for all the pics that you took with your 50mm at f/8. Sorting by dates alone doesn't get you that.

Plus when you're editing these photos, you don't want to store 20 versions of it. Lightrooom and Aperture allows for non-destructive editing and only stores versions of the edits (a few bytes) instead of your entire 10meg RAW file for each version.

I prefer the quick edits and tuning that both Lightroom and Aperture provides. Photoshop CS is just overkill 99% of the time. I'd rather spent more time with the camera than Photoshop.

rubberband

Dec 22nd, 2008, 11:15 AM

Lightroom. The newest version on a fast computer is a dream come true. Speed issues are gone completely now (for me at least).

I keep 3 seperate catalogs at the moment (weddings, sports, general) and just open whichever I'm using. All my folder structure stuff is done in LR during import.

I'm no PJ, but I find for me shooting lots is never the issue, but processing and doing something with the images later is always the problem. Being able to paste and later tweak adjustments across a set of photos, plus all the selection, review and compare tools give me no excuse to not process and show off my work sooner..

So yeah.. it's not for everyone, but in my case it's peeeeerfect.

iridescent

Dec 22nd, 2008, 12:12 PM

Lightroom. The newest version on a fast computer is a dream come true. Speed issues are gone completely now (for me at least)

I agree with Lightroom. If you aren't able to use it properly / find it cumbersome, you're pretty ******** (or haven't used it that much). Find a good book at a bookstore and read up on it- if you take a lot of pictures of an event and find yourself having to dwindle the photos down, Lightroom makes an easy task of it. Aperture, I'd rank #2.

As for speed... 1:1 previews still take forever on my fast computer. Any way to speed this up?

cloud82

Dec 22nd, 2008, 03:42 PM

I use Lightroom as well.
Used to use the Windows Explorer (and still do) but Lightroom provides much more functionality.

selpats

Dec 22nd, 2008, 09:44 PM

I agree with Lightroom. If you aren't able to use it properly / find it cumbersome, you're pretty ******** (or haven't used it that much). Find a good book at a bookstore and read up on it- if you take a lot of pictures of an event and find yourself having to dwindle the photos down, Lightroom makes an easy task of it. Aperture, I'd rank #2.

As for speed... 1:1 previews still take forever on my fast computer. Any way to speed this up?

Yeah, I am "********" as you say. I don't need any books, trust me. I was an Adobe ACE for a number for years but gave that up...

Just because I choose to have a different workflow than the average joe does not make me "********" a$$hole. I used to prefer using C1 Pro until they changed their application. Have these companies ever heard of K.I.S.S.?!

I am waiting for Magnes Nilsen to release an application he has been working on for a while now but I am sure you haven't a clue about that...

Now just **** off. I was going to suggest a way for you to increase the speed of your full-res. previews but why would I help you, **** you.

rubberband

Dec 23rd, 2008, 08:44 AM

I agree with Lightroom. If you aren't able to use it properly / find it cumbersome, you're pretty ******** (or haven't used it that much). Find a good book at a bookstore and read up on it- if you take a lot of pictures of an event and find yourself having to dwindle the photos down, Lightroom makes an easy task of it. Aperture, I'd rank #2.

As for speed... 1:1 previews still take forever on my fast computer. Any way to speed this up?

um, until the recent 2.2 update the only ******** thing was how slow the software was with a number of basic functions. Great, idea, but until recently not the best execution.

It's also actually very cumbersome if you're used to working in photoshop and still prefer it for many of your adjustments. Moving files in and out of PS/LR makes for awkward workflow. Personally I haven't used PS much in a few years, so I'm avoiding it and LR gives me an excuse to do so. :cheesygri

iridescent

Dec 24th, 2008, 12:55 AM

Yeah, I am "********" as you say. I don't need any books, trust me. I was an Adobe ACE for a number for years but gave that up...

Just because I choose to have a different workflow than the average joe does not make me "********" a$$hole. I used to prefer using C1 Pro until they changed their application. Have these companies ever heard of K.I.S.S.?!

I am waiting for Magnes Nilsen to release an application he has been working on for a while now but I am sure you haven't a clue about that...

Now just **** off. I was going to suggest a way for you to increase the speed of your full-res. previews but why would I help you, **** you.

Haha, relax and slip some xanax under your tongue - do you have anger management issues? Also, I definitely know who Magne Nilsen is, and have used his camera profiles (though I, like you, don't really like the newest version of C1), but I'm not quite sure he'd really appreciate your spelling his name incorrectly. Lightroom makes quite a lot of sense in terms of workflow, and I'm pretty shocked as a former "ACE" that you're unable to figure it out in terms of making it work for you, as thousands on thousands of professionals use the software; I bow to you if you're way above us mere mortals. Also, if you don't like to read books, there are also plenty of videos online about using Lightroom.

ShadowVlican

Feb 3rd, 2009, 11:29 AM

i'm trying the latest adobe lightroom right now.. but encountering the same issues as found in this thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=509123

so my main question is why must lightroom render previews (whether be mininal, standard, or 1:1)? :confused:

i believe i can have it render 1:1 previews, but there is another option that lets me discard previews after 30 days, doesn't that defeat the purpose? and doesn't rendering 1:1 previews waste space when a 1:1 is the actual JPG itself?

ACDSee Pro does not have to render anything but thumbnails for the gallery and that makes browsing/viewing photos much faster! :cheesygri

frank358fr

Feb 3rd, 2009, 11:44 AM

lightroom 2.2 + iPhotos 09!

tienm23

Feb 3rd, 2009, 04:01 PM

I've tried LR2 and I just don't like it. I actually use picasa for organizing and CS4 for editing..works for me anyways :)

NuggyBuggy

Feb 5th, 2009, 10:22 AM

After trying a bunch of different packages, I decided I liked Expressions Media (formerly IVMP) best. I like the fact that you can catalog and tag almost any type of file. I also like the fact that you get a Mac and PC license since I use both.

KonniXeoN

Feb 5th, 2009, 04:00 PM

I'm still using PS_CS2, I haven't tried lightroom yet, but I will work with it soon.

Windows Explorer does fine for me. And the canon utility.

sfu_engineer

Feb 5th, 2009, 04:02 PM

I'm still using PS_CS2, I haven't tried lightroom yet, but I will work with it soon.

Windows Explorer does fine for me. And the canon utility.

You don't know what you're missing! ;)

KonniXeoN

Feb 5th, 2009, 04:03 PM

You don't know what you're missing! ;)

I probably don't, I'm going to install LR2 now :D

kiz5

Feb 5th, 2009, 04:15 PM

Recently, I've started using Photo Mechanic far more than LR, but its more for editorial work. I wish Lightroom could move as quick as PM. I just wish PM could straighten like LR. Can't be perfect for everything. :(

smuncky

Feb 5th, 2009, 05:13 PM

I'm still using PS_CS2, I haven't tried lightroom yet, but I will work with it soon.

Windows Explorer does fine for me. And the canon utility.

i was using CS2 for all my post processing work. but since i've started to shoot in RAW, CS2 doesn't recognize RAW files from the XSi.

been hearing nothing but great things from lightroom, so i tried it out and it's pretty easy to use. everything from organization to minor/major tweaks in the photos. the one thing i really like is the history feature which saves what modifications you did to any photo.

sfu_engineer

Feb 5th, 2009, 05:28 PM

G - Jumps to Grid View in library mode.
L - Cycles through three levels of dark borders.
D - Jumps to Develop View to make changes.
| or \ - While in develop mode it cycles through Before and After changes.
T - shows or hides an extra information bar that I like to show/hide sometimes.
E - Goes to library view so I can see how many stars I have a photo rated.
TAB - Hides the two side bars so you can get a closer look at the image.
Numbers 1-5 - Rates the images based on a star rating system, useful choosing the best images out of a whole batch.

Aske001

Feb 5th, 2009, 06:46 PM

I have stuck with ACDSee after trying many others over the years. It's quick, flexible, and does most of the things I want. And it can export the database to XML format. I don't want to invest a lot of effort in a proprietary database that might have to be abandoned someday with no migration path.

I will have to check out Lightroom, based on the number of people recommending it here. But recognize that it's in a whole different price category than ACDSee.