«

I want to get thousands of images in some sort of
order via an easy-to-use database. I already
have photoshop, so it's the database I really
need. Is Lightroom the best and most
straightforward for this? I was impressed by the
old MS "Digital Image Suite 9" in its day and this
is the sort of thing I need.
Peter

On 30/12/2012 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-12-29 14:59:51 -0800, Peter Jason said:
>
>> I want to get thousands of images in some sort of
>> order via an easy-to-use database. I already
>> have photoshop, so it's the database I really
>> need. Is Lightroom the best and most
>> straightforward for this? I was impressed by the
>> old MS "Digital Image Suite 9" in its day and this
>> is the sort of thing I need.
>> Peter
>
> As far as LR being the "Best and most straightforward" everybody here
> will have an opinion. I can only address LR and Bridge and for both, you
> have to have some system in place that you will understand.
>
> The secret for making Lightroom work as a decent catalogue database is
> to understand the application of "keywords" and "Keyword sets" along
> with rating. Then setting up an appropriate folder & "collection"
> hierarchy. This gives you a starting point for seaches and building
> "smart collections" based on criteria you establish within Lightroom.
>
> To start LR can import to a folder labeled with the shoot date. This can
> be renamed using that date and specifics, regarding trip &/or subject.
>
> So on a three day Yosemite trip I might have 2010-11-16 Yosmite,
> 2010-11-17 Yosemite, & 2010-11-18 Yosemite.
> Then images in those folders will have "keywords" such as; Half Dome, El
> Capitan, Yosemite Falls, Glacier Point, Merced river, Lodge, etc.
>
> My LR for 2010 looks something like this:
> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/LR-2010.jpg >
>
> Then you can use LR to rate and cull your shots. Sometimes there is
> stuff not woth keeping
>
> There is always going to be some work involved in making any of these
> useful to you.
>
> Then depending on which version of Photoshop you have, you have a
> workable catalog program in Bridge. the version of bridge found in CS5
> or CS6 is a vast improvement over the earlier editions.
> In my non-Lightroom archive I have a main folder for each year which
> contains 12 sub-folders for each month of the year. In the monthly
> folders I have specific date folders which have the RAW files shot that
> day.
> It is a simple matter to navigate within that archive with Bridge.
> My Bridge folder set looks something like this:
> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...%20folders.jpg >
>
>

I have thousands of images as well and trying to understand some sort of
method of indexing them is a daunting task. I change my mind on a
regular basis. (Only use PShop/Bridge as my editing programme.)

I have now tried to keep my images in camera sequence, but will keep
making subsets of specific location visits. This is convenient as for
now but I still need to remember heaps more to find a particular image.

Making key words is the important bit so as to find them again. There
are so many sub sets.

I don't have a clue what to do either - but it will always need heaps of
manual indexing to able searching.

One important thing which I do is retain the original file numbering,
and if modified add - mod - then I can find the original again. The
modified file ends up in a separate printer folder.

It's a worry!

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:00:40 +1100, Rob <> wrote:
: On 30/12/2012 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
: > On 2012-12-29 14:59:51 -0800, Peter Jason said:
: >
: >> I want to get thousands of images in some sort of
: >> order via an easy-to-use database. I already
: >> have photoshop, so it's the database I really
: >> need. Is Lightroom the best and most
: >> straightforward for this? I was impressed by the
: >> old MS "Digital Image Suite 9" in its day and this
: >> is the sort of thing I need.
: >> Peter
: >
: > As far as LR being the "Best and most straightforward" everybody here
: > will have an opinion. I can only address LR and Bridge and for both, you
: > have to have some system in place that you will understand.
: >
: > The secret for making Lightroom work as a decent catalogue database is
: > to understand the application of "keywords" and "Keyword sets" along
: > with rating. Then setting up an appropriate folder & "collection"
: > hierarchy. This gives you a starting point for seaches and building
: > "smart collections" based on criteria you establish within Lightroom.
: >
: > To start LR can import to a folder labeled with the shoot date. This can
: > be renamed using that date and specifics, regarding trip &/or subject.
: >
: > So on a three day Yosemite trip I might have 2010-11-16 Yosmite,
: > 2010-11-17 Yosemite, & 2010-11-18 Yosemite.
: > Then images in those folders will have "keywords" such as; Half Dome, El
: > Capitan, Yosemite Falls, Glacier Point, Merced river, Lodge, etc.
: >
: > My LR for 2010 looks something like this:
: > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/LR-2010.jpg >
: >
: > Then you can use LR to rate and cull your shots. Sometimes there is
: > stuff not woth keeping
: >
: > There is always going to be some work involved in making any of these
: > useful to you.
: >
: > Then depending on which version of Photoshop you have, you have a
: > workable catalog program in Bridge. the version of bridge found in CS5
: > or CS6 is a vast improvement over the earlier editions.
: > In my non-Lightroom archive I have a main folder for each year which
: > contains 12 sub-folders for each month of the year. In the monthly
: > folders I have specific date folders which have the RAW files shot that
: > day.
: > It is a simple matter to navigate within that archive with Bridge.
: > My Bridge folder set looks something like this:
: > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...%20folders.jpg >
: >
: >
:
: I have thousands of images as well and trying to understand some sort of
: method of indexing them is a daunting task. I change my mind on a
: regular basis. (Only use PShop/Bridge as my editing programme.)
:
: I have now tried to keep my images in camera sequence, but will keep
: making subsets of specific location visits. This is convenient as for
: now but I still need to remember heaps more to find a particular image.
:
: Making key words is the important bit so as to find them again. There
: are so many sub sets.
:
: I don't have a clue what to do either - but it will always need heaps of
: manual indexing to able searching.
:
: One important thing which I do is retain the original file numbering,
: and if modified add - mod - then I can find the original again. The
: modified file ends up in a separate printer folder.
:
: It's a worry!

There's no perfect answer. I rely almost exclusively on Windows folders and
subfolders (in two sets: one on my home computer and one on a server at work),
organized partly by date and partly by location. This works out pretty well
and allows me to account for the different requirement on my home and work
pictures. At home, for example, I organize my folders so as to keep my backup
files from getting too big; at work it's not an issue.

Since I have a long commute, I often edit pictures on the train to and from
work. So at any given time, I have an assortment of both home and work
pictures on my laptop as offline files (in the Windows 7 sense). I suspect
this would be hard to do with Lightroom, but I've never actually looked into
it.

I used to name my image files by date (e.g., 20121229_01, etc.) and still do
sometimes. But more and more I've been naming them for their subject or
location, because it gives me another possible sorting order. The Exif data
always allow you to sort by date and time, however you name your files.

My only advice would be to read the manual carefully with your requirements in
mind before buying any software, so that you don't end up with something you
don't like or can't easily use.

Bob

In article <>, Peter Jason
<> wrote:

> I want to get thousands of images in some sort of
> order via an easy-to-use database. I already
> have photoshop, so it's the database I really
> need. Is Lightroom the best and most
> straightforward for this?

yes. lightroom will definitely do what you need, and it works
seamlessly with photoshop.

In article <>, Robert Coe
<> wrote:

> My only advice would be to read the manual carefully with your requirements in
> mind before buying any software, so that you don't end up with something you
> don't like or can't easily use.

reading a manual doesn't tell you much of anything.

most apps have a free trial, so the best way is to download and try
them out.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 23:31:08 -0500, nospam <> wrote:
: In article <>, Robert Coe
: <> wrote:
:
: > My only advice would be to read the manual carefully with your requirements in
: > mind before buying any software, so that you don't end up with something you
: > don't like or can't easily use.
:
: reading a manual doesn't tell you much of anything.

You don't say. Maybe a manual doesn't tell *you* much of anything, but I've
been known to extract quite a bit of information from manuals. Have you
actually read one? Maybe you'd have the same experience.

: most apps have a free trial, so the best way is to download and try
: them out.

If you say so. You always seem to know pretty much everything. I don't, and
reading manuals is one of the ways I try to compensate.

Bob

In article <>, Robert Coe
<> wrote:

> : > My only advice would be to read the manual carefully with your
> : > requirements in
> : > mind before buying any software, so that you don't end up with something
> : > you
> : > don't like or can't easily use.
> :
> : reading a manual doesn't tell you much of anything.
>
> You don't say. Maybe a manual doesn't tell *you* much of anything, but I've
> been known to extract quite a bit of information from manuals.

not as much as actually using the software does, and in a lot less time
too.

> Have you
> actually read one? Maybe you'd have the same experience.

there is no substitute for actually using software and seeing what it
does, how well it fits your needs, how fast or slow it is, whether it
interoperates with other apps you use and more.

a user manual will not tell you any of that.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 23:18:00 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:00:40 +1100, Rob <> wrote:
>: On 30/12/2012 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>: > On 2012-12-29 14:59:51 -0800, Peter Jason said:
>: >
>: >> I want to get thousands of images in some sort of
>: >> order via an easy-to-use database. I already
>: >> have photoshop, so it's the database I really
>: >> need. Is Lightroom the best and most
>: >> straightforward for this? I was impressed by the
>: >> old MS "Digital Image Suite 9" in its day and this
>: >> is the sort of thing I need.
>: >> Peter
>
>My only advice would be to read the manual carefully with your requirements in
>mind before buying any software, so that you don't end up with something you
>don't like or can't easily use.
>
What manual?

If you want a "manual" on Lightroom, you buy a book on Lightroom.

You can piece together a manual downloading tutorials and articles,
but no manual comes with Lightroom.

Scott Kelby and Martin Evening are two people who really appreciate
the fact that Lightroom and Photoshop come via download or disk but no
manual. They're cranking out books with each new version at about $30
a pop.

There was a time when software came with thick User Guides with
instructions, but that day has passed.

This is an instance of nospam actually being right for a change. He
says, in another post, to download a trial version and work with it.

The OP may have a problem, though. The only version available for
trial download seems to be Lightroom4, and he's asking about
Lightroom3. He can buy Lightroom3 on eBay, but he can't - as far as I
can tell - download it for trial. Still, he can buy Lightroom3 for
about the cost of one manual/book.

Further, the OP hasn't mentioned what operating system he's using. If
it's XP, he can't use Lightroom4 or run it as a trial. Lightroom3
will run on XP.

There's no doubt in my mind that any version of Lightroom will provide
him with a good database. His only problem will be in deciding how
he's going to set up that database so it will be effective for him.
No book or manual will tell him that. He'll just have to play around
with the program and work out his own system.

A date sequence file name (2012-12-28-001) and keywording works for
me, but may not work for him. The Duck's system sounds excessively
complicated to me, but it works for him. Where he uses folders I use
keywords within keywords.

My computer's motherboard started having mini-strokes so I bought a
new computer. The old system had XP and the new system is Windows 7.
So, I moved from Lightroom2 to Lightroom4. I've just started to set
it up, but so far I haven't seen any improvement in the Library
function. I don't do editing in Lightroom, so I don't know what's in
that module that may be different.



--
Tony Cooper, Orlando FL

On 30/12/2012 3:18 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:00:40 +1100, Rob <> wrote:
> : On 30/12/2012 11:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> : > On 2012-12-29 14:59:51 -0800, Peter Jason said:
> : >
> : >> I want to get thousands of images in some sort of
> : >> order via an easy-to-use database. I already
> : >> have photoshop, so it's the database I really
> : >> need. Is Lightroom the best and most
> : >> straightforward for this? I was impressed by the
> : >> old MS "Digital Image Suite 9" in its day and this
> : >> is the sort of thing I need.
> : >> Peter
> : >
> : > As far as LR being the "Best and most straightforward" everybody here
> : > will have an opinion. I can only address LR and Bridge and for both, you
> : > have to have some system in place that you will understand.
> : >
> : > The secret for making Lightroom work as a decent catalogue database is
> : > to understand the application of "keywords" and "Keyword sets" along
> : > with rating. Then setting up an appropriate folder & "collection"
> : > hierarchy. This gives you a starting point for seaches and building
> : > "smart collections" based on criteria you establish within Lightroom.
> : >
> : > To start LR can import to a folder labeled with the shoot date. This can
> : > be renamed using that date and specifics, regarding trip &/or subject.
> : >
> : > So on a three day Yosemite trip I might have 2010-11-16 Yosmite,
> : > 2010-11-17 Yosemite, & 2010-11-18 Yosemite.
> : > Then images in those folders will have "keywords" such as; Half Dome, El
> : > Capitan, Yosemite Falls, Glacier Point, Merced river, Lodge, etc.
> : >
> : > My LR for 2010 looks something like this:
> : > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/LR-2010.jpg >
> : >
> : > Then you can use LR to rate and cull your shots. Sometimes there is
> : > stuff not woth keeping
> : >
> : > There is always going to be some work involved in making any of these
> : > useful to you.
> : >
> : > Then depending on which version of Photoshop you have, you have a
> : > workable catalog program in Bridge. the version of bridge found in CS5
> : > or CS6 is a vast improvement over the earlier editions.
> : > In my non-Lightroom archive I have a main folder for each year which
> : > contains 12 sub-folders for each month of the year. In the monthly
> : > folders I have specific date folders which have the RAW files shot that
> : > day.
> : > It is a simple matter to navigate within that archive with Bridge.
> : > My Bridge folder set looks something like this:
> : > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...%20folders.jpg >
> : >
> : >
> :
> : I have thousands of images as well and trying to understand some sort of
> : method of indexing them is a daunting task. I change my mind on a
> : regular basis. (Only use PShop/Bridge as my editing programme.)
> :
> : I have now tried to keep my images in camera sequence, but will keep
> : making subsets of specific location visits. This is convenient as for
> : now but I still need to remember heaps more to find a particular image.
> :
> : Making key words is the important bit so as to find them again. There
> : are so many sub sets.
> :
> : I don't have a clue what to do either - but it will always need heaps of
> : manual indexing to able searching.
> :
> : One important thing which I do is retain the original file numbering,
> : and if modified add - mod - then I can find the original again. The
> : modified file ends up in a separate printer folder.
> :
> : It's a worry!
>
> There's no perfect answer. I rely almost exclusively on Windows folders and
> subfolders (in two sets: one on my home computer and one on a server at work),
> organized partly by date and partly by location. This works out pretty well
> and allows me to account for the different requirement on my home and work
> pictures. At home, for example, I organize my folders so as to keep my backup
> files from getting too big; at work it's not an issue.
>
> Since I have a long commute, I often edit pictures on the train to and from
> work. So at any given time, I have an assortment of both home and work
> pictures on my laptop as offline files (in the Windows 7 sense). I suspect
> this would be hard to do with Lightroom, but I've never actually looked into
> it.
>
> I used to name my image files by date (e.g., 20121229_01, etc.) and still do
> sometimes. But more and more I've been naming them for their subject or
> location, because it gives me another possible sorting order. The Exif data
> always allow you to sort by date and time, however you name your files.
>
> My only advice would be to read the manual carefully with your requirements in
> mind before buying any software, so that you don't end up with something you
> don't like or can't easily use.
>
> Bob
>


At one stage (10 years ago) I used Extensis Portfolio but after about
20,000 images that bogged down, crashed, was good for for a small number
of images when we used film and made scans. I don't think it would keep
up with the amount of images produced nowdays.

On 30/12/2012 6:04 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-12-29 21:47:28 -0800, nospam <> said:
>
>> In article <>, Robert Coe
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> : > My only advice would be to read the manual carefully with your
>>> : > requirements in
>>> : > mind before buying any software, so that you don't end up with
>>> something
>>> : > you
>>> : > don't like or can't easily use.
>>> :
>>> : reading a manual doesn't tell you much of anything.
>>>
>>> You don't say. Maybe a manual doesn't tell *you* much of anything,
>>> but I've
>>> been known to extract quite a bit of information from manuals.
>>
>> not as much as actually using the software does, and in a lot less time
>> too.
>>
>>> Have you
>>> actually read one? Maybe you'd have the same experience.
>>
>> there is no substitute for actually using software and seeing what it
>> does, how well it fits your needs, how fast or slow it is, whether it
>> interoperates with other apps you use and more.
>>
>> a user manual will not tell you any of that.
>
> ...or you could learn a little from somebody who knows how to wring the
> most out of LR.
> < http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html >
>
>

I have never been attracted to Lightroom tried it when there was free
pre release editions on the Adobe site. But others swear by it.