«

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >> >most is appropriate. most people shoot a particular event, say a ball
> >> >game, kid's graduation, trip to the beach, etc., and a set of keywords
> >> >will apply to the entire set of photos.
> >>
> >> I thought you were plumping for use of keywords to identify people.
> >> Even that beach shoot would involve "Bobby", "Bobby and Tim", "Tim",
> >> etc. Individual entries.
> >
> >i don't use keywords for people's names. i put that in the metadata,
> >where it belongs. or i use face recognition.
>
> But...but...but...but...you *just* posted about the advantage of
> keywording with combinations of names.

where did i say that?

or is this yet another of your made up ideas of what you *think* i
said? why yes, it is.

> And, we're talking about Lightroom, aren't we? Lightroom doesn't have
> face recognition.

i never said it did. do try to keep up.

iphoto and aperture have face recognition, and as i mentioned earlier
in this thread, i use iphoto for syncing idevices. the face recognition
from iphoto is transferred to the device and i can instantly pull up
photos by name there.

> You change your story faster than "most" goes out the window.

no, you just have a serious reading comprehension problem, to go along
with your habit of twisting what i say into things i never said.

> >> Both of my grandsons were on the same Babe Ruth baseball team this
> >> year. Two boys, choice of keywording.
> >>
> >> See how fast "most" goes out the window?
> >
> >no, because the issue is batch file renaming versus batch keywording.
> >
> >you originally said you batch rename on import, which is effectively
> >the same as batch keywording on import, except it's more limited due to
> >operating system limitations for file names.
>
> No, no, I batch rename *before* I import to Lightroom.

an extra step that's entirely unnecessary.

> I upload to a
> file in C: and rename in that file using a date file name. No
> limitation there.

there absolutely is a limitation there. you *personally* may not have
run into it, but that does not mean it does not exist.

windows disallows a number of characters, whereas keywords have no
restriction whatsoever. there is also a maximum file name length, which
you won't hit by using just a date for a file name, but it's definitely
there.

> >if you are going to tag each photo with the names of who is in each
> >one, then you are going to have to do that one by one, regardless
> >whether you do that with keywords or file names.
>
> I wouldn't tag in file names. I said that it could be done in
> rebuttal to your wrong-as-usual statement that of the impossibility of
> doing it.

i didn't say it was impossible. why do you insist on twisting things?

however, tagging in file names is going to become unmanageable
extremely quickly.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:26:01 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> >> >most is appropriate. most people shoot a particular event, say a ball
>> >> >game, kid's graduation, trip to the beach, etc., and a set of keywords
>> >> >will apply to the entire set of photos.
>> >>
>> >> I thought you were plumping for use of keywords to identify people.
>> >> Even that beach shoot would involve "Bobby", "Bobby and Tim", "Tim",
>> >> etc. Individual entries.
>> >
>> >i don't use keywords for people's names. i put that in the metadata,
>> >where it belongs. or i use face recognition.
>>
>> But...but...but...but...you *just* posted about the advantage of
>> keywording with combinations of names.
>
>where did i say that?

You posted: "with face recognition, geotagging, keywords and the
calendar, you can do complex queries, such as all photos with tony but
not bob, taken in 2009, and at the zoo."

>or is this yet another of your made up ideas of what you *think* i
>said? why yes, it is.
>
>> And, we're talking about Lightroom, aren't we? Lightroom doesn't have
>> face recognition.
>
>i never said it did. do try to keep up.

But this has been about Lightroom. Even you have said so:
"they'd already be sequenced by date even without you renaming them,
but more importantly, who cares? lightroom takes care of managing it."

>iphoto and aperture have face recognition, and as i mentioned earlier
>in this thread, i use iphoto for syncing idevices. the face recognition
>from iphoto is transferred to the device and i can instantly pull up
>photos by name there.
>
>> You change your story faster than "most" goes out the window.
>
>no, you just have a serious reading comprehension problem, to go along
>with your habit of twisting what i say into things i never said.
>
>> >> Both of my grandsons were on the same Babe Ruth baseball team this
>> >> year. Two boys, choice of keywording.
>> >>
>> >> See how fast "most" goes out the window?
>> >
>> >no, because the issue is batch file renaming versus batch keywording.
>> >
>> >you originally said you batch rename on import, which is effectively
>> >the same as batch keywording on import, except it's more limited due to
>> >operating system limitations for file names.
>>
>> No, no, I batch rename *before* I import to Lightroom.
>
>an extra step that's entirely unnecessary.
>
>> I upload to a
>> file in C: and rename in that file using a date file name. No
>> limitation there.
>
>there absolutely is a limitation there. you *personally* may not have
>run into it, but that does not mean it does not exist.

Please explain how file naming by date can exceed the character
limitation. My file name would be 2012-07-18-001. How many images
would I have to number on 7/18 (It's day-specific) to exceed the
limit?

>windows disallows a number of characters, whereas keywords have no
>restriction whatsoever. there is also a maximum file name length, which
>you won't hit by using just a date for a file name, but it's definitely
>there.
>
>> >if you are going to tag each photo with the names of who is in each
>> >one, then you are going to have to do that one by one, regardless
>> >whether you do that with keywords or file names.
>>
>> I wouldn't tag in file names. I said that it could be done in
>> rebuttal to your wrong-as-usual statement that of the impossibility of
>> doing it.
>
>i didn't say it was impossible. why do you insist on twisting things?

You said: "those types of queries are not possible using
files and folders, no matter how precisely you name the files."

Not possible = impossible.

I didn't say that = You did say that
You twist things = I contradict myself

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >> >> I thought you were plumping for use of keywords to identify people.
> >> >> Even that beach shoot would involve "Bobby", "Bobby and Tim", "Tim",
> >> >> etc. Individual entries.
> >> >
> >> >i don't use keywords for people's names. i put that in the metadata,
> >> >where it belongs. or i use face recognition.
> >>
> >> But...but...but...but...you *just* posted about the advantage of
> >> keywording with combinations of names.
> >
> >where did i say that?
>
> You posted: "with face recognition, geotagging, keywords and the
> calendar, you can do complex queries, such as all photos with tony but
> not bob, taken in 2009, and at the zoo."

the fact that i didn't explicitly list every single bit of metadata in
a photo that can be searched on does not mean i use keywords for names.
that was entirely an assumption on your part.

> >or is this yet another of your made up ideas of what you *think* i
> >said? why yes, it is.
>
> >> And, we're talking about Lightroom, aren't we? Lightroom doesn't have
> >> face recognition.
> >
> >i never said it did. do try to keep up.
>
> But this has been about Lightroom.

no, it's been about asset management software. i initially said
lightroom or aperture. you keep tying it to lightroom because that's
all you've used.

> Even you have said so:
> "they'd already be sequenced by date even without you renaming them,
> but more importantly, who cares? lightroom takes care of managing it."

true, because you said you use lightroom and it was a reply to you, not
to the general user.

> >> I upload to a
> >> file in C: and rename in that file using a date file name. No
> >> limitation there.
> >
> >there absolutely is a limitation there. you *personally* may not have
> >run into it, but that does not mean it does not exist.
>
> Please explain how file naming by date can exceed the character
> limitation. My file name would be 2012-07-18-001. How many images
> would I have to number on 7/18 (It's day-specific) to exceed the
> limit?

read the rest of the post:
> >windows disallows a number of characters, whereas keywords have no
> >restriction whatsoever. there is also a maximum file name length, which
> >you won't hit by using just a date for a file name, but it's definitely
> >there.
> >
> >> >if you are going to tag each photo with the names of who is in each
> >> >one, then you are going to have to do that one by one, regardless
> >> >whether you do that with keywords or file names.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't tag in file names. I said that it could be done in
> >> rebuttal to your wrong-as-usual statement that of the impossibility of
> >> doing it.
> >
> >i didn't say it was impossible. why do you insist on twisting things?
>
> You said: "those types of queries are not possible using
> files and folders, no matter how precisely you name the files."

is english your first language? because it sure doesn't look like it.

you said,
> >> I wouldn't tag in file names. I said that it could be done in
> >> rebuttal to your wrong-as-usual statement that of the impossibility of
> >> doing it.

that part is possible, but it will rapidly become an unmanageable mess.

i said,
> You said: "those types of queries are not possible using
> files and folders, no matter how precisely you name the files."

which is impossible, as i said. you *can't* do complex queries with
file names.

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >> >> The problem the extra folders cause is that it's harder to treat all the
> >> >> photos as one pool.
> >> >
> >> >it's not harder at all. you just add the multiple folders to whatever
> >> >asset management software you are using.
> >>
> >> But what if you aren't using asset management software?
> >
> >then you're making things more difficult than it need be.
>
> Maybe, or maybe not.

definitely not.

> But organising through the conventional file and
> folder structure means that I am not bound to any particular asset
> management software.

but you're bound to windows explorer or mac finder, which plays the
role of asset management software and does a very bad job of it.

why not use software designed for the task? it makes things *so* much
easier and does *so* much more.

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >> But organising through the conventional file and
> >> folder structure means that I am not bound to any particular asset
> >> management software.
> >
> >but you're bound to windows explorer or mac finder, which plays the
> >role of asset management software and does a very bad job of it.
> >
> >why not use software designed for the task? it makes things *so* much
> >easier and does *so* much more.
>
> The basic structure of files and directories is the one thing that is
> preserved across virtually all operating systems. There is nearly
> always a means of transferring files from one operating system to
> another. If there isn't I expect it is probably going to be possible
> to write a simple translator. But I've several times been bitten by
> more complex data structures which have ended up in a dead end and I
> now do my best to minimise the potential for this kind of situation.

lightroom runs on mac and windows so there's no issue with switching
platforms, and there is a third party app that's compatible with it for
ios. it will also be around for many years to come, so there's very
little risk in being orphaned. however, if either of those are a major
concern, you can put metadata into sidecar files independent of
lightroom. if you use dng, you can even write it back to the original
file.

> I do not need an asset management system and have no desire to be
> dependent on one.

that's fine, but i think that's because you don't know what they can
do. have you even tried lightroom? it is *so* much better than dealing
with files and folders.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:42:35 +1200, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

>I do not need an asset management system and have no desire to be
>dependent on one.

No one needs one. Besides, cost hasn't been mentioned. It's easy to
recommend additional programs, but there's a significant cost to the
good ones. Most of us have to be careful about where we spend our
money because there are so many different choices in this hobby.

I'd love to have Nik's Silver Efex Pro because I do a lot of black and
white conversions. But, then, I look at the cost and decide that I
can get better with what I already have.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:41:44 -0700, nospam <> wrote:
: In article <>, Eric Stevens
: <> wrote:
:
: > >> >> The problem the extra folders cause is that it's harder to treat all the
: > >> >> photos as one pool.
: > >> >
: > >> >it's not harder at all. you just add the multiple folders to whatever
: > >> >asset management software you are using.
: > >>
: > >> But what if you aren't using asset management software?
: > >
: > >then you're making things more difficult than it need be.
: >
: > Maybe, or maybe not.
:
: definitely not.
:
: > But organising through the conventional file and
: > folder structure means that I am not bound to any particular asset
: > management software.
:
: but you're bound to windows explorer or mac finder, which plays the
: role of asset management software and does a very bad job of it.
:
: why not use software designed for the task? it makes things *so* much
: easier and does *so* much more.

How would you know?

In article <>, Robert Coe
<> wrote:

> : > But organising through the conventional file and
> : > folder structure means that I am not bound to any particular asset
> : > management software.
> :
> : but you're bound to windows explorer or mac finder, which plays the
> : role of asset management software and does a very bad job of it.
> :
> : why not use software designed for the task? it makes things *so* much
> : easier and does *so* much more.
>
> How would you know?

it's common sense. using the proper tool for a task is always going to
be easier and more effective than using the wrong tool.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >I do not need an asset management system and have no desire to be
> >dependent on one.
>
> No one needs one. Besides, cost hasn't been mentioned. It's easy to
> recommend additional programs, but there's a significant cost to the
> good ones. Most of us have to be careful about where we spend our
> money because there are so many different choices in this hobby.

times must be tough for you. the good ones are not a significant cost.
in fact, they are actually very affordable, and i'd even say cheap.

aperture is just $79 and lightroom is $149 for the standard version and
$79 for the student/teacher edition. iphoto is free with every mac, and
suitable for casual users who don't need the capabilities of aperture
or lightroom. by the way, you can thank apple for lightroom's new lower
price.

how much is your time worth? lightroom has saved me countless hours
over the past several years and it saved me a couple of hours just this
past *week* alone.

On 7/18/2012 9:05 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:42:35 +1200, Eric Stevens
> <> wrote:
>
>> I do not need an asset management system and have no desire to be
>> dependent on one.
>
> No one needs one. Besides, cost hasn't been mentioned. It's easy to
> recommend additional programs, but there's a significant cost to the
> good ones. Most of us have to be careful about where we spend our
> money because there are so many different choices in this hobby.
>
> I'd love to have Nik's Silver Efex Pro because I do a lot of black and
> white conversions. But, then, I look at the cost and decide that I
> can get better with what I already have.
>
>
True. If you have the patience and a reasonable sense of how channel
mixing affects the BW conversion, You can do as good a job as with the
NIK software.

--
Peter