In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:
> >> I can right click, copy to:, and direct that copy to another folder.
> >
> >that's a *duplicate*.
> >
> >that proves you can't have a file in more than one folder!! you have to
> >make a *copy* !!
> >
> >hilarious, absolutely hilarious.
>
> Of course it's a copy. I said it was.
which means what i said is correct.
> That functionally puts the
> same image in as many folders you want to have them in.
nice qualifier. it's functionally the same. that means it's not the
same.
twist twist twist.
> If the
> purpose is to locate an image by navigating to a folder, then this
> suits the job perfectly.
if.
too bad the purpose was something else.
> >> I'm sure there are other ways to do it.
> >
> >the only other way is to make aliases of the photos and put the aliases
> >in other folders. that is only slightly better than duplicate files.
> >
> >> It can be done in Irfanview,
> >> for example as a save-as. With the storage devices we now use, two
> >> copies of an image doesn't create a problem.
> >
> >sure it does. it doubles the size if you make two copies. it triples
> >the size if you make three copies. etc.
>
> So what? You'd be storing copies of .jpgs and the size would be
> inconsequential.
why would i be storing copies of jpegs? i shoot raw, but regardless of
format, it's double the space (or more).
> >> For those of us who shoot RAW and then edit in PS, we're going to use
> >> the save-as function for all images. We can just save-as twice
> >> directing the second one to a different folder.
> >
> >maybe you are, but those of us who know better use a photo management
> >app so none of this is necessary.
>
> You know I use Lightroom, but my reply is a contradiction your
> obviously false claim of "can't".
it's not false and your reply doesn't say what you think it does.
the fact you don't understand it proves how utterly ignorant you really
are.
you can babble all you want about faking it by duplicating files, but
that just proves you can't.
> You are the one who constantly whines about you saying "I never said
> you have to do that". So, it's not necessary but it can be done.
>
> >> Don't give me this "can't" bullshit.
> >
> >it's not bullshit. you *can't* have a photo in multiple folders, which
> >*you* proved above!
>
> I just proved you can.
nonsense. you did no such thing.
what you proved was that the only way to put one photo in multiple
folders is by duplicating the photo so you now have more than one. it's
*not* one photo anymore, it's two, three, fifteen or who knows how
many.
> >what you're saying is make multiple copies and manage it yourself. that
> >isn't the same thing, and as i said, it becomes a management nightmare
> >very quickly, particularly when you want to edit photos.
>
> Your premise wasn't about editing. It was about "can't". Your
> premise wasn't about editing. It was about locating an image with a
> particular subject.
nope. it was about one file in multiple folders.
> > you have to
> >mirror the changes to the duplicates, assuming you even remember where
> >they all were.
>
> Find it once, and the EXIF or the file name will tell you when it was
> shot or edited, and that will lead you to the folder with the
> original.
the exif will tell me where the file is? really? what tag is the file's
location stored in again?
oh yea, the exif has absolutely *no* information about the location of
the file.
> There are few instances where a person wants to re-edit old images.
> There are many instances where a person wants to locate an old image.
> The user of a folder/file hierarchy *can* use the system to make it
> possible to locate an old image by subject.
they can, but it's primitive.
there are much better and more efficient methods. if they want to avail
themselves of those methods, they can. if not that's ok too.
> >> >> Anyone with a lick of sense understands this. The computer doesn't
> >> >> figure things out for you. It follows the instructions you provide.
> >> >
> >> >anyone with a lick of sense understands that keywording is vastly more
> >> >flexible. file/folder hierarchy is very rigid, which is why apps like
> >> >lightroom are so popular.
> >>
> >> Yeah, LR's a good system. It still requires that you provide the
> >> instructions for it to follow. It doesn't magically make decisions
> >> for you. LR can make it easier for some people, but a folder/file
> >> hierarchy works just fine for others.
> >
> >only with small libraries. it quickly becomes unmanageable, like what
> >you describe above.
>
> The size of the library is not the problem.
that's exactly the problem.
file/folders quickly gets out of hand and very unwieldy to manage with
large libraries. even medium size libraries.
> It's the needs of the
> user that determine if a photo management system like Lightroom is
> needed. A person who takes only family and holiday snaps can be
> perfectly happy with a folder/file hierarchy. When that person
> searches for an image, the person looks to date and/or location, and
> folders work fine for this.
only because they don't do much.
> The number of photos in the system is
> immaterial.
wrong.
> You really don't think about things in a global sense, do you?
i definitely do. *you* do not.
you can't look past your own methods. you can't see that there are
other ways to do stuff, ones don't have the limitations of what you're
doing.
> You
> look at everything by what you do or want to do and completely ignore
> what others do or might need.
absolutely wrong.
> Then, you come up with ignorant
> statements like "you can't...".
nothing ignorant about it, and you proved it can't be done. that makes
*you* the ignorant one.
> >> I know how you operate. You are going to say I'm twisting your words
> >> because I exposed your "can't" as wrong (but that's what you said) and
> >> then you are going to natter on those extra keystrokes or extra
> >> seconds...considerations that aren't a problem to most people.
> >
> >you didn't expose my can't as wrong. far from it. you exposed yourself
> >as ignorant about computers and file systems.
>
> Interesting that when I proved something could be done in a way you
> hadn't thought about that you claim *I* am the ignorant one.
what a joke. duplicating files is not the same thing.
> >you also described something totally different and far *more* work.
>
> Far more work? Not really a big deal at all.
yes, far more work. you're talking about duplicating images and moving
them to different folders and somehow remembering where all the
duplicates are. good luck. you'll need it.
it's ludicrous.
the really bizarre thing is why you think this is somehow better than
keywording.
> There's only a few
> images, compared to the entire inventory of images,
only a few? sure, it works for just a few, but more than that, it fails.
> where it would be
> beneficial to do it if the folder/file hierarchy is set up to suit the
> user's needs.
big if.
> The majority of people doing digital photography are using their
> cameras to take family and holiday snapshots.
you know this, how?
> They want a system that
> works like a photo album where they can go to the album (folder) that
> contains the photos they took at a particular time and either view
> them or print them. They aren't going to re-edit old photos and they
> aren't going to keyword-search for elements in a photograph.
sounds like iphoto, aperture, lightroom, etc.
> Folders work just fine for this.
actually, they don't work just fine. that's why the above apps do what
they do.
> >the computer is there to *reduce* work, not add to it.
>
> The computer isn't going to do *anything* that you don't tell it to do
> in some way.
the point is to *reduce* the work you need to do and have the computer
do more of it.
you seem to want to do all the work yourself so the computer doesn't
have to. very strange.
> The computer doesn't keyword or decide how files are
> managed.
no, but it can analyze content so you don't have to.
Similar Threads
