NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Processing & Publication => Topic started by: RobOK on October 24, 2015, 15:12:36
-
I've long been bought into LR for library and Raw conversion, but lately feels slow and I feel locked in with Adobe.
Considering adding Photo Mechanic on front end ( per other thread). In my brief trial, I love the speed but have to learn the keyboard short cuts.
But I also hear about people using C1 and other raw converters - so my question is, when people use more stand alone raw converters, then what do you use for library functions?
I would love to hear people's work flow at a high level - not detailed steps, but just what products used for:
- import/rename
- culling / rating
- metadata
- later search
To a lesser extent - publishing to web, books, social media.
I don't use Photoshop.
Right now I am Lightroom for all of those functions but am examining my workflow. My main camera is Nikon Df but also use Sony NEX-7 and in the past Nikon D300.
Thanks!
Rob.
-
I'm interested in this as well.
Extra problem I have is my LR-catalog with over 125.000 entries.
For import/rename you can use Nikon Transfer. It's free and it has more or less the same possibilities as LR import
For culling and rating I use FastRawViewer. Very fast and it uses the RAW image (not the embedded JPG).
From that point I import it in LR and I have not found an alternative
-
I really like the options for culling in LR. X for delete and P for pick (select). Then with one click you can delete all X's. I have not been able to replicate this in PM and as far as I can tell you can't change the key mapping. The speed is impressive.
-
I really like the options for culling in LR. X for delete and P for pick (select). Then with one click you can delete all X's. I have not been able to replicate this in PM and as far as I can tell you can't change the key mapping. The speed is impressive.
I had missed a setting in "Accessibility" that lets you Rate with single key (1-5) and I missed that the T key toggles a tagged indicator on and off. So I am using "1" as a first cut to keep and T to tag for deletion. The keyboard commands seem pretty well hidden, but here is a link to their help wiki:
http://wiki.camerabits.com/en/index.php?title=Keyboard_Shortcuts#Preview_Window_Shortcuts_.28OS_X.29
-
I use ViewNX2 for transferring, renaming, deleting, sometimes even converting.
If it needs treatment, I open the RAW file in PhotoNinja, save to TIFF, open in Photoshop and that's about it :)
I hope PhotoNinja advance in the future so I don't need Photoshop, but I doubt that that will happen any time soon...
-
I really like the options for culling in LR. X for delete and P for pick (select). Then with one click you can delete all X's. I have not been able to replicate this in PM and as far as I can tell you can't change the key mapping.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your LR method, but in photo mechanic you can move through a contact sheet row by row via an arrow key. As you navigate, any highlighted thumbnail can be deleted during that navigation by just hitting the delete key.
But if you want to wait and delete your culls as a group, then just arrow through the thumbnails and hit T for "tag" on any thumbnail you want to remove. When done, hit Command-T followed by delete.
You can also navigate by arrow and make tags on the larger previews for a better view.
Right-hand for arrow key. Left-hand for T "tag".
Cmd-T then Delete.
***
The keyboard commands are easily available from the top dropdown menus if you forget them.
-
I really like the options for culling in LR. X for delete and P for pick (select). Then with one click you can delete all X's. I have not been able to replicate this in PM and as far as I can tell you can't change the key mapping.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your LR method, but in photo mechanic you can move through a contact sheet row by row via an arrow key. As you navigate, any highlighted thumbnail can be deleted during that navigation by just hitting the delete key.
But if you want to wait and delete your culls as a group, then just arrow through the thumbnails and hit T for "tag" on any thumbnail you want to remove. When done, hit Command-T followed by delete.
You can also navigate by arrow and make tags on the larger previews for a better view.
Right-hand for arrow key. Left-hand for T "tag".
Cmd-T then Delete.
***
The keyboard commands are easily available from the top dropdown menus if you forget them.
Thanks Andrea, I did discover much of what you posted... The "T" command is no where to be found in the menus, it is Command and the + sign for Tag. The ratings show Option 1-5 (not just the numbers 1-5). So I don't agree that the commands are easily available from the dropdown -- most of the commands from the Help file are NOT in the menus.
But I do appreciate your reply and welcome any other PM tips!! I am getting the hang of it.
-
If you do not use PS, then CaptureOne Pro, in my opinion is the natural progression from LR.
It has a slightly different interface compared to LR, but it is highly customiseable.
It does importing, cataloging, metadating, tagging, rating and bunch processing very well. And on top of that it is a more advanced editor. I used LR and C1 for a month in parallel, and got frustrated with C1 interface first. But as soon as I got used to it, I could find less and less reasons to use LR for the sheer quality of C1 processing. I first bought it to process FUJI files, but then realised it does Nikon and Ricoh RAW conversion better as well. LR is probably better with social media, but C1 is more aimed at pros processing large quantities of files.
-
I use ViewNX2 for transferring, renaming, deleting, sometimes even converting.
If it needs treatment, I open the RAW file in PhotoNinja, save to TIFF, open in Photoshop and that's about it :)
I hope PhotoNinja advance in the future so I don't need Photoshop, but I doubt that that will happen any time soon...
Jacob, if you set PN up as a filter in PS, you can move an image from PN to PS without creating a tiff. This saves a lot of time, and space.
You have to change settings in both programs to set this up. http://www.picturecode.com/tutorials/photoshop.php
-
If you do not use PS, then CaptureOne Pro, in my opinion is the natural progression from LR.
It has a slightly different interface compared to LR, but it is highly customiseable.
It does importing, cataloging, metadating, tagging, rating and bunch processing very well. And on top of that it is a more advanced editor. I used LR and C1 for a month in parallel, and got frustrated with C1 interface first. But as soon as I got used to it, I could find less and less reasons to use LR for the sheer quality of C1 processing. I first bought it to process FUJI files, but then realised it does Nikon and Ricoh RAW conversion better as well. LR is probably better with social media, but C1 is more aimed at pros processing large quantities of files.
Is there a way to import your LR catalog into C1 (or another RAW converters)?
-
Jacob, if you set PN up as a filter in PS, you can move an image from PN to PS without creating a tiff. This saves a lot of time, and space.
You have to change settings in both programs to set this up. http://www.picturecode.com/tutorials/photoshop.php
Jacov, sorry for getting your name wrong, the spellchecker betrayed me.
-
... but C1 is more aimed at pros processing large quantities of files.
Its silly insistence on specific output places make it actually less usable for that...
Their whole recipe mechanism looks like it is from IT stone age. As much as I despise LR, their export, especially when coupled with the tree exporter plugin is still better in that area, but it is still a far cry from what Biible(RIP) and now AfterShot have been doing for a decade...
Both C1 and LR are too stupid to assign dedicated hotkeys for specific outputs though.
Is there a way to import your LR catalog into C1 (or another RAW converters)?
Yes, C1 can import a LR catalog (I think that was added a year ago or so).
@RobOK:
Which platform are you on?
For
- import/rename
- culling / rating
- metadata
PhotoMechanic is King of the Hill.
But searching is Mac only.
On a Mac, PhotoMechanic can us Spotlight for image searching, but not so on Windows.
C1 has a built in DB, but it is a toy DB just like LR (which seems to be sufficient for most causal users).
Depending on the DB power you need, you might want to have a look at iMatch. This is an extremely powerful image manager, good enough to make it the core of an image agency, but it is Windows only.
cheers
afx
-
Jacov, sorry for getting your name wrong, the spellchecker betrayed me.
My name is Jakov ;)
Thanks for the TIPP!
-
I'll like to be able to cull faster than with LR
PM is great, amazingly fast, but I'm not currently willing to pay for it
Fast raw is ok, need to learn the keyboard shortcuts
-
I cannot offer faster culling. But where Andreas is offering iMatch win only, i offer photo supreme (PSU). While PSU is both win and mac, it also comes with a server version that uses PostgreSQL. As you may know, that is a grown up database.
PSU itself is not the fastest in the world, but is very stable (for me at least). I run the postgres server on the same machine as is my workstation. You are free to choose any configuration you like, probably depending on how much of a DB admin you are.
PSU is good enough for importing, it offers a host of naming/renaming options and file placement options. Culling with selects, or star ratings, or colour flags. Sending to external raw converters (i use C1, PN and LightZone), pixel editors (e.g. Pixelmator, Affinity Photo), or other sorts (email, HDR, stacking, etc.). It is also pretty strong in metadata, even though i don't use much of that. I do use the catalog keyword hierarchy for my organization, but don't really use image metadata.
It even does (some) export, but i never use that, i export from C1.
In my opinion, C1's catalog is not ready for large libraries. While some can use it, it lacks too many necessary features to make it compete successfully. Hopefully Phase One improves in that area, the more competition, the better (for us).
@Andreas: could you explain a bit more about "Its silly insistence on specific output places" regarding C1? I don't understand that.
-
@RobOK:
Which platform are you on?
For
- import/rename
- culling / rating
- metadata
PhotoMechanic is King of the Hill.
But searching is Mac only.
On a Mac, PhotoMechanic can us Spotlight for image searching, but not so on Windows.
cheers
afx
I was windows for a long time, but the past 3-4 years I have been exclusively on Mac. While I am frustrated with LR, I will probably stick with it. Like everyone, I want the speed of PM with the functionality of LR.
A long time ago I had used Bibble and liked it, didn't it get rolled into some other product via an acquisition, or is it totally dead?
I'll keep my eye on CaptureOne.
-
@Andreas: could you explain a bit more about "Its silly insistence on specific output places" regarding C1? I don't understand that.
Output is always to the session directory or in subdirectories of it.
No way to put it into a parallel hierarchy.
No way to construct output paths according to variables (they can do it with names, why not directories?).
The need to have a session is just a major PITA.
A long time ago I had used Bibble and liked it, didn't it get rolled into some other product via an acquisition, or is it totally dead?
Thanks to some miss-planning, Eric had to sell it.
Unfortunately he sold it to Corel. It is now named AfterShot.
Though nominally Corel puts in more resources than Bibblelabs did after the downsizing before the end, the results do not show it.
I use it for download, culling and initial meta-data entry, as well as quick and dirty pics where the effort of going into LR is just not worth it.
cheers
afx
-
I had similar reaction to the idiosyncratic file management in C1. That, combined with a definite bias in processing quality for a specific brand (which I don't use) at the time lead me to abandon C1 complete, even when I was provided with a free license. Things might have changed over the last few years, however the response of Andreas tells me not all is well.
I'm among the earlier fans of Bibble who mourns its tragic demise. Bibble was terse and cut straight to the chase. You were given the native and plug-in tools and file features required for a very efficient work flow, and little assistance in making it work. If you persevered, and learned all the keyboard short cuts, Bibble could fly you effortlessly through your files in a short time, all within an easily customisable processing pipeline.
Aftershot has been handled in a strange fashion by Corel and there were times I believed they just would kill the software and save the juicy bits into other applications of their own. Somehow Aftershot survived, but is shadow of its former past. Like Andreas, I use it for quick-and-dirty work. Sometimes I rely on Aftershot to provide the colour impression of an IR image also processed by PhotoNinja. The latter software is almost devoid of sensible file handling and cries for an improvement in that aspect.
-
I cannot offer faster culling. But where Andreas is offering iMatch win only, i offer photo supreme (PSU). While PSU is both win and mac, it also comes with a server version that uses PostgreSQL. As you may know, that is a grown up database.
PSU itself is not the fastest in the world, but is very stable (for me at least). I run the postgres server on the same machine as is my workstation. You are free to choose any configuration you like, probably depending on how much of a DB admin you are.
PSU is good enough for importing, it offers a host of naming/renaming options and file placement options. Culling with selects, or star ratings, or colour flags. Sending to external raw converters (i use C1, PN and LightZone), pixel editors (e.g. Pixelmator, Affinity Photo), or other sorts (email, HDR, stacking, etc.). It is also pretty strong in metadata, even though i don't use much of that. I do use the catalog keyword hierarchy for my organization, but don't really use image metadata.
This is interesting, I will have to try this. I see it supports face detection, have you tried that?
-
Output is always to the session directory or in subdirectories of it.
No way to put it into a parallel hierarchy.
No way to construct output paths according to variables (they can do it with names, why not directories?).
The need to have a session is just a major PITA.
Thanks to some miss-planning, Eric had to sell it.
Unfortunately he sold it to Corel. It is now named AfterShot.
Though nominally Corel puts in more resources than Bibblelabs did after the downsizing before the end, the results do not show it.
I use it for download, culling and initial meta-data entry, as well as quick and dirty pics where the effort of going into LR is just not worth it.
cheers
afx
I still do not understand what you want to do?
Do you mean outputting to different folders?
This is possible in C1P by simply adding another recipe to the process.
You want to output a selection by aperture or shutter or ISO or whatever to different folders? This is also possible.
You want to change the naming? It is also possible,
Could you clarify what it is exactly you wish to do and cannot be done in C1P?
-
Output is always to the session directory or in subdirectories of it.
No way to put it into a parallel hierarchy.
No way to construct output paths according to variables (they can do it with names, why not directories?).
The need to have a session is just a major PITA.
...
Well, Andreas, no doubt you know your systems. I mean, i've seen the Bibble Bible you wrote. But, this is plain wrong. You can have the recipes output any which way you like.
However, it is true that it cannot be done with variables.
Just to avoid any fanboy remarks, i'm not one. C1's DAM capabilities, or rather lack thereof, steered me away initially. Later, i found out that the session route combined with a real dam (or at least a more proper one), let me do all the stuff that is being called for here and in other forums.
But, not unlike Bibble in its glory days, this is a complex piece of software and one really needs to hang in there to get it to work for ones own workflow. I know it took me about a year and a half after Phase One kinda abandoned Media Pro to find a way of working that suits me. YMMV. I do feel though that making blanket statements about some software on how it does or doesn't work without getting to the bottom of it (or so it seems) isn't particularly helpful.
Other than that, i believe you are quite well versed in iMatch and i think that is every bit as good as the DAM i use, but just not Mac.
If anyone has any questions about C1 and wants to call my "bluff", of course i will see if i can help. The same goes for all other applications i use, photo supreme, photo ninja, affinity photo, pixelmator, zerene stacker, photomatix pro, autopano giga, lightzone, to name a few.
-
I still do not understand what you want to do?
Do you mean outputting to different folders?
This is possible in C1P by simply adding another recipe to the process.
You want to output a selection by aperture or shutter or ISO or whatever to different folders? This is also possible.
You want to change the naming? It is also possible,
Could you clarify what it is exactly you wish to do and cannot be done in C1P?
My images are in
d:/Year/Project/image.nef
I want to send JPGs to
r:/Year/Project/image.jpg
Last week I confirmed with PhaseOne support that this is still not possible without explicitly entering the destination manually. It can not be derived from the current image location.
Not really brilliant for an efficient workflow...
cheers
afx
-
Well, Andreas, no doubt you know your systems. I mean, i've seen the Bibble Bible you wrote. But, this is plain wrong. You can have the recipes output any which way you like.
However, it is true that it cannot be done with variables.
That is exactly the point. As soon as I have to enter stuff manually, it becomes inefficient.
Later, i found out that the session route combined with a real dam (or at least a more proper one), let me do all the stuff that is being called for here and in other forums.
Hmm, me thinks the session as anchor for everything is like having all the negatives of a DB without any of the advantages.
But, not unlike Bibble in its glory days, this is a complex piece of software and one really needs to hang in there to get it to work for ones own workflow.
I barely survive LR at the moment and would happily switch.
But I could not crack the messed up I/O. That also includes storing settings in an extra directory instead with the files which breaks all file system semantics when trying to integrate it with regular file system management applications.
I like customizable UI, the IQ is there, but the sessions and the I/O keep me form really digging into it. I've been trying again and again since version 6.
Other than that, i believe you are quite well versed in iMatch and i think that is every bit as good as the DAM i use, but just not Mac.
Actually, I don't really use it right now. Currently I don't have the need for a real DAM, I just use the toy stuff in AS and LR for a few quick searches.
If anyone has any questions about C1 and wants to call my "bluff", of course i will see if i can help.
If you could help me to find my way into C1, I'd be happy...
cheers
afx
-
Well Andreas, reading back my post it seems i got a little ahead of myself. Sorry if i came across rude.
I know that C1 cannot direct output based on tokens. Of course i don't use it that way, otherwise i'd feel the same as you.
Having said that, i'm using recipes directed to specific output. So, not JPEG and then wanting to use variables to direct output for NG, or my own website. I use an NG recipe and another one for my website. This way you get some more recipes (not sure if that's a bad thing) and still get my output directed to the "right" output home dir. I use the subfolder option in the recipe that i indeed change manually each time it need changing.
It works for me though.
After i've done the output with C1, i then import the output images back in PSU (using verify folder) and they'll automatically be stacked as versions of the original (in my case depending on naming scheme).
I'd be more than willing to help out if i can, but then i'd need more precise questions so i can test it myself.
One tip (if you hadn't found out already) is the website of Paul Steunebrink, the image alchemist (http://imagealchemist.net/). Good info and tips for C1 there. He is also rather responsive in the Phase One user forums.
-
If anyone has any questions about C1 and wants to call my "bluff", of course i will see if i can help. The same goes for all other applications i use, photo supreme, photo ninja, affinity photo, pixelmator, zerene stacker, photomatix pro, autopano giga, lightzone, to name a few.
Now you mention it :D I asked about the face detection feature in Photo Supreme earlier in the thread. Any experience with that?
I have Pixelmator too, but never really started using it, do you like it?
-
Seems like a lot of Bibble alumni here, I had no idea! What is today's equivalent of Bibble? Best quality of RAW conversion, highly configurable, open architecture for plugins? I guess LR carries *some* of those attributes. Doesn't sound like AfterShot is worth checking out?
-
What is today's equivalent of Bibble?
Does not exist....
Best quality of RAW conversion, highly configurable, open architecture for plugins? I guess LR carries *some* of those attributes. Doesn't sound like AfterShot is worth checking out?
Currently there is no single tool that really just works. Each of them has different warts to put it mildly.
As long as yo don't get close to the edge (high ISO, strong manipulations), AfterShot is still quite usable. Most other programs are better in that area nowadays, but in terms of usability, they all suck compared to AfterShot, with PictureNinja being the worst. That is a program for low volume shooters, but don't even think processing a concert or wedding with it. But it has probably the best IQ....
cheers
afx
-
Now you mention it :D I asked about the face detection feature in Photo Supreme earlier in the thread. Any experience with that?
I have Pixelmator too, but never really started using it, do you like it?
Jørgen, not i haven't yet. I'm still pushing it ahead. I do use catalog labels to label my family and relatives, so it should be fairly easy. But, i haven't tried it.
Do i like Pxm? Well, it works for most tasks and pretty fast at that. But, i don't like the snails pace of its development. I've purchased Affinity Photo as well (took part in their beta) and it seems more potent. But then again, what do i know, i am not, nor have i ever been a post processing buff. Affinity seems to be after Adobe, so that at least is promising.
-
Been experimenting with C1 again tonight.
Tried to have watermarks.
Good what a pain.
The text watermark field does not have metadata variables. So every time the year in the field does not match the year of the image or the photographer does not match, one needs to fiddle with it.
Ok, so me thinks I have batch files with ImageMagick that do this for me and I try to use them in the "Open with" field. No luck, that field accepts only EXE files.
I'll try to trick this by hacking the config file if I can find it.... Too late for today.
Sometimes you wonder how little clue about practical usage those programmers have...
cheers
afx
-
Been experimenting with C1 again tonight.
Tried to have watermarks.
Good what a pain.
The text watermark field does not have metadata variables. So every time the year in the field does not match the year of the image or the photographer does not match, one needs to fiddle with it.
Ok, so me thinks I have batch files with ImageMagick that do this for me and I try to use them in the "Open with" field. No luck, that field accepts only EXE files.
I'll try to trick this by hacking the config file if I can find it.... Too late for today.
Sometimes you wonder how little clue about practical usage those programmers have...
cheers
afx
Excellent suggestions Andreas. While i don't use watermarks much, i also saw that that area is ... well uhh ... lacking.
You could help your self and others using this by raising a support case for phase one with feature request in the header. This is the way they track interest in certain functions.
It's quite true that the company phase one is by far more interested in the hardware they produce and sell.
-
You could help your self and others using this by raising a support case for phase one with feature request in the header.
Apart from the header, this is exactly what I did last night.
It's quite true that the company phase one is by far more interested in the hardware they produce and sell.
Yes, very little resources in the software ;-(
Maybe I should start a C1 specific thread to collect C1 tidbits..
cheers
afx
-
...
Maybe I should start a C1 specific thread to collect C1 tidbits..
...
Good idea !
-
I just installed Photo Mechanic and did my first import. It sure is fast! Having used basically nothing but LR for quite some time, it'll take some time to grok the interface. Perhaps it's just my english that's lacking, but several of the terms used in the interface confuses me. I more or less understand what Ingest means, but it's a word a have rarely seen. I wasn't sure what "Contact sheet" was either. Has anyone made a LR <> Photo Mechanic translation page? :D
My first import didn't go quite right either and I didn't expect it would as the interface is a bit intimidating I think. I normally import my images into a folder like this: \Pictures\YYYY\<YYYY-MM-DD> <Relevant name>\<YYYY-MM-DD> <Relevant name> <sequential number with 3 or 4 digits>. I'll figure it out for sure, but it's late here so it'll have to wait.
Photo Mechanic is clearly a power tool and I have no doubt it is worth spending some time to learn how to use it efficiently, especially if you shoot a lot of images.
-
Photo Mechanic is clearly a power tool and I have no doubt it is worth spending some time to learn how to use it efficiently, especially if you shoot a lot of images.
I have spent some time learning PM the past weeks, it is in many ways a brilliant tool for photographers. They have a very good wiki and user manual, and not least a great support forum where people from PM are very active contributors.
Wiki: http://wiki.camerabits.com/en/index.php?title=Main_Page (http://wiki.camerabits.com/en/index.php?title=Main_Page)
Tutorials: http://www.camerabits.com/support/tutorials/ (http://www.camerabits.com/support/tutorials/)
Resources: http://www.camerabits.com/support/resources/ (http://www.camerabits.com/support/resources/)
Forum: http://forums.camerabits.com/ (http://forums.camerabits.com/)
User Manual: http://wiki.camerabits.com/en/index.php?title=Category:UserManual (http://forums.camerabits.com/)
User Manual flat view: http://wiki.camerabits.com/en/index.php?title=User_Manual_Flat_View (http://forums.camerabits.com/)
-
I just installed Photo Mechanic and did my first import. It sure is fast! Having used basically nothing but LR for quite some time, it'll take some time to grok the interface. Perhaps it's just my english that's lacking, but several of the terms used in the interface confuses me. I more or less understand what Ingest means, but it's a word a have rarely seen. I wasn't sure what "Contact sheet" was either. Has anyone made a LR <> Photo Mechanic translation page? :D
My first import didn't go quite right either and I didn't expect it would as the interface is a bit intimidating I think. I normally import my images into a folder like this: \Pictures\YYYY\<YYYY-MM-DD> <Relevant name>\<YYYY-MM-DD> <Relevant name> <sequential number with 3 or 4 digits>. I'll figure it out for sure, but it's late here so it'll have to wait.
Photo Mechanic is clearly a power tool and I have no doubt it is worth spending some time to learn how to use it efficiently, especially if you shoot a lot of images.
Jørgen
Ingest is what most of us call Import, not sure why they use that.
I highly recommend using the variables at the bottom left of the Ingest screen for dates and frame numbers. My images are all renamed {datesort}_Relevant Name_{frame} . {datesort} is a Variable which extracts the shooting date from the Exif in the format YYYMMDD (there are other Variables to show the date in different formats) and {frame} is the frame number from the Exif. Using Variables means minimising keystroke entry. There are a lot of variables to choose.
The folder can be anything you want on your computer.
It is worth filling in the IPTC stationary pad with as much information as possible at the outset, so this is automatically applied to everything in the shoot. You can amend this later for specific images or groups of images.
I also recommend setting Preferences>Accessibility so that 0-5 sets the rating, and Preferences>Preview so that all the boxes under Automatically Advance are checked. This makes reviewing really fast. Tagging a photo instantly moves you to the next one - I use this to select the images I know I want to delete, and then select and delete all the tagged. This tidies up the contact sheet. I then typically go through them, grading 1 for all the possibles - again, grading a photo instantly moves you to the next photo. I then upgrade the best of the 1s to 2, and if necessary the best of the 2s to 3.
Once you get used to the various options it is really fast to work through a shoot and identify the keepers.
-
Thanks for the links Bjørn, I have started reading :)
From the manual:
"Photo Mechanic sets out to be the most useful photo browser on the market today. It does this by being logical in operation, intuitive in use and, most importantly of all, performing its functions as quickly as possible."
Depends on who you ask I guess, not sure I agree that it is entirely logical and intuitive :) They are using what I consider slightly wierd terms and why is the shortcut for Ingesting images <CMD>-G?
Anthony: Yes, I was looking at those, I haven't quite found the date format I use, which is YYYY-MM-DD. I wonder whether it's possible to create your own format? I haven't found any mention of that so far. Another thing is that I regularly have pictures from more than one day on a card which I put in the same folder. So far, I have named all my files the same name as the folder name (YYYY-MM-DD <relevant title>) plus a sequential number. I guess that's not really possible by using variables. Or perhaps I haven't gotten enough coffee today yet :D
-
As long as the actual date is extracted from EXIF into a variable, it should be easy to transfer files into any date-based catalog structure. The hardcore EXIFTool has offered this option for decades .... So in the unlikely case PhotoMechanic doesn't provide the right answer, it's easy for any computer literate to write a batch script using ExifTool.
-
That's also my problem, Jørgen. The File-name options on 'Digest' (what a strange name!!) or Transfer, which sounds more logical, are very limited. The 'standard' I use, VIEW NX2, is most flexible. Unfortunately it does only load Nikon NEF's.
All the other Image-viewers I checked, Faststone, Bridge, PM etc. are very limited in file-naming (including correct format) during transfer of files from camera to hard-drive. But perhaps I overlooked something....
-
I've figured out the folder naming: {year4}-{month}-{day0} <relevant title>
Now I just want to use that folder name as the basis for my filenames, would something like: {foldername} {seqn}
I haven't found the {foldername} option.
-
I am just copying files from the card to my drive and using Bulk Rename Utility, http://www.bulkrenameutility.co.uk/Main_Intro.php (http://www.bulkrenameutility.co.uk/Main_Intro.php) to rename files. It is very flexible; I have a different settings file for each body. My date/time format is on the form 2015-10-31-2345W-1758.NEF, where the letter is a camera code and the last number is the file no. recorded by the body. Folders are named manually with similar date format+ descriptive name. I frequently create folders with a date interval, for instance 2015-10-20-31-Moon-Aurora. Raw files with reside in folders Raw or Original-Raw. (I also use it to add suffixes for different file resolutions to the name after batch conversion.)
Then I quickly go through with Irfanview to cull obvious discards.
These files are then copied to two different set of drives, one for originals and one for editing (with backups of each of course).
Then I use ViewNX2 for adding keywords etc. and for initial ratings, IR files are also marked with a red tag. I do some quick adjustments in ViewNX where needed, particularly if exposure adjustment is required for initial evaluation of files.
The I do the final editing in CNX2 of tree-star and higher files. At the end, ratings are re-evaluated in ViewNX2.
Batch conversion is performed in CNX2 to different jpg resolutions, and I also make copies of highest rated full size jpgs to subfolders Selected and Selected-best if anyone qualifies for 4 or 5 star ratings.
I have from time to time looked at Photomechanic for browsing/keywording, however I have found that unless I have missed something, the star and color ratings are not compatible back and forth in a reliable way with CNX2 and ViewNX2.
-
Jørgen, as the Variables relate to image metadata, I do not believe that it is possible to use them to rename the image on Ingest, as the destination folder is not part of the image metadata at that stage.
I can think of two workarounds. The simplest, in my view, is, immediately on completion of the ingest, select all the relevant files and rename them using File>Rename Photos, inserting the variable {folder}. This will add the folder name to the file name. It takes mere seconds to do this. I quite often rename photos, as there may be images that need different names ingested at the same time.
Another solution would be to insert the folder name in a spare IPTC field. An example would be Supp Cat 1 under Status in the IPTC Stationary Pad. You can then add the variable for that field into the new file name as part of the Ingest process and it will be picked up automatically. I think this method is actually a bit more complex, and unless you remember to keep updating the relevant field then it may add incorrect information when you use it in other circumstances.
It may be interesting to raise this issue on the Photomechanic Support Forums, as I am far from being an expert on every aspect of this program.
Personally, I find it best for each image to have the date it was shot as part of its name. As this is in the Exif, it is a permanent feature of the image metadata, which helps with tracing multiple versions. For similar reasons (following Bjørn R's advice) I now use the file number from the camera, not a sequential number from the shoot.
-
I am just copying files from the card to my drive and using Bulk Rename Utility,
...
Then I quickly go through with Irfanview to cull obvious discards.
...
Then I use ViewNX2 for adding keywords etc. and for initial ratings, IR files are also marked with a red tag. I do some quick adjustments in ViewNX where needed, particularly if exposure adjustment is required for initial evaluation of files.
...
The I do the final editing in CNX2 of tree-star and higher files. At the end, ratings are re-evaluated in ViewNX2.
Sounds rather labor intensive to me.
Programs like PhotoMechanic or AfterShot that have fully automated batch queues are much more efficient for downloading things while putting them in the right place and applying whatever naming scheme you desire.
Programs that do allow you to tag and advance with one key like PhotoMechanic or Lightroom make the culling&selection process much faster.
Flipping between ViewNX and CNX is something where I finally give up...
CNX should be a superset over VNX, so why hop around?
cheers
afx
-
Jørgen, as the Variables relate to image metadata, I do not believe that it is possible to use them to rename the image on Ingest, as the destination folder is not part of the image metadata at that stage.
You should be able to use user variables like jobname for this me thinks.
cheers
afx
-
Personally, I find it best for each image to have the date it was shot as part of its name. As this is in the Exif, it is a permanent feature of the image metadata, which helps with tracing multiple versions. For similar reasons (following Bjørn R's advice) I now use the file number from the camera, not a sequential number from the shoot.
He is putting the Date in the folder name and then continuing it to the file name. I think he can use the Date variables for both the folder and the filename (I do this). I actually make a folder for each level, 2015/10/31 for example as YYYY/MM/DD. I like the granular folders, other may not.
Trying out PhotoMechanic has made me realize I am indecisive about photos. I feel "attached" to even the bad ones, well the out of focus or missed shot I will delete. My problem is I keep a lot of mediocre photos, like some magic filter in Lightroom 10.78 will fix my poor composition or technique!!
So who has strong culling discipline and what are your words of advice to Delete More and Save Only Great Shots?
Rob.
-
Personally, I find it best for each image to have the date it was shot as part of its name. As this is in the Exif, it is a permanent feature of the image metadata, which helps with tracing multiple versions. For similar reasons (following Bjørn R's advice) I now use the file number from the camera, not a sequential number from the shoot.
I can see it would be nice to have the correct date for each image shot as part of its name, but the tool I currently use (Better Rename) doesn't support using variables like that. If I use {year4}-{month}-{day0} <relevant title> {seqn} to ingest/import images from several days, I gather it should use a sequential number for all images, but the dates would be different?
I can't imagine ever needing the file number from the camera?
-
So who has strong culling discipline and what are your words of advice to Delete More and Save Only Great Shots?
I wish....
Still I try to cull to only keep images with a meaningful subject and decent quality (and fail often enough).
Where I have problems is keeping the one image out of a burst when they are very similar.
In a recent concert shot culling session of a band that did not have that many special poses, I used the rule 5 shots per musician and 5 shots of the band, thanks to Chris Wahl, that worked well.
In the end, any shot requires one to ponder whether it might be resurrected one day is rubbish to begin with. One just has to have the strength to admit it ;-)
Especially on events, I usually have up to three culling rounds.
The first gets rid of the obvious failures.
The second round happens after basic processing and adjustment.
Here the too similar shots and various soso shots get weeded out.
The third is then done with the help of another set of eyes if I still have to many shots of the event that are still too similar.
cheers
afx
-
I can see it would be nice to have the correct date for each image shot as part of its name, but the tool I currently use (Better Rename) doesn't support using variables like that. If I use {year4}-{month}-{day0} <relevant title> {seqn} to ingest/import images from several days, I gather it should use a sequential number for all images, but the dates would be different?
I can't imagine ever needing the file number from the camera?
I think what Anthony refers to is that Bjørn pointed out that one needs image names that are in-volatile, so images can always be consistently identified.
If one does the rename to unique names at ingest and never changes the base image name from there on, there is no need to keep the camera image numbering.
I used to name my images
Project-YYYY-MM-DD-SSS
Which is absolutely unique when using a sequence counter per project/day.
But often enough, the Project string gotten too large to display the file name in a usable fashion in various apps.
I now use
AFX-YYYY-MM-DD-SSS
Where the sequence number gets restarted per day.
Which is good enough for most purposes, but can be tricky when downloading several times a day.
cheers
afx
-
In the end, any shot requires one to ponder whether it might be resurrected one day is rubbish to begin with. One just has to have the strength to admit it ;-)
For jobs, whether paid or donated, this holds true for me. I can very quickly decide which to promote and which to delete.
However...
For personal shots, which are by nature exploratory and experimental, I have many times gone back several years later and found shots that did not interest me at the time, but which now are used to make valuable finished files.
-
I think what Anthony refers to is that Bjørn pointed out that one needs image names that are in-volatile, so images can always be consistently identified.
If one does the rename to unique names at ingest and never changes the base image name from there on, there is no need to keep the camera image numbering.
That's what confused me until I re-read his reply. A sequential number is unique when combined with a date and title as I do. However I can see the advantage of simply using the camera image numbering variable.
I used to name my images
Project-YYYY-MM-DD-SSS
Which is absolutely unique when using a sequence counter per project/day.
But often enough, the Project string gotten too large to display the file name in a usable fashion in various apps.
I now use
AFX-YYYY-MM-DD-SSS
Where the sequence number gets restarted per day.
Which is good enough for most purposes, but can be tricky when downloading several times a day.
I always have the date first because that means the filesystem will sort them logically.
-
He is putting the Date in the folder name and then continuing it to the file name. I think he can use the Date variables for both the folder and the filename (I do this). I actually make a folder for each level, 2015/10/31 for example as YYYY/MM/DD. I like the granular folders, other may not.
I guess it depends on how many images you shoot and how often, I don't shoot that many or that often, so I "just" have a subfolder for each year.
Trying out PhotoMechanic has made me realize I am indecisive about photos. I feel "attached" to even the bad ones, well the out of focus or missed shot I will delete. My problem is I keep a lot of mediocre photos, like some magic filter in Lightroom 10.78 will fix my poor composition or technique!!
So who has strong culling discipline and what are your words of advice to Delete More and Save Only Great Shots?
I don't know, but every time I have two or more shots that are roughly similar, I choose what I think is the best one and delete the rest.
-
Keeping folder names that the file system can always keep in the same order sequence is important to me.
My folder/subfolder names use dates, monthly in my case. This month's folder, just created minutes ago, is 151130Z.
The -30- symbolizes the last day of the month, and then -Z- symbolizes that it holds all photos ingested(not created) through the end of the month. Special events/trips/photo safaris get their own folder with a alphabetic tag after the number; if a created a special folder tomorrow for shots taken on a trip to Joshua Tree National Park, it would get the name 151102JOTRtrip.
The files keep the camera-generated file names, which the filing system also keeps in order.
I have Lightroom set toi always display in the order shot via the timestamp on the files, which for all practical purposes is the same as file number order.
-
Sounds rather labor intensive to me.
Programs like PhotoMechanic or AfterShot that have fully automated batch queues are much more efficient for downloading things while putting them in the right place and applying whatever naming scheme you desire.
Programs that do allow you to tag and advance with one key like PhotoMechanic or Lightroom make the culling&selection process much faster.
Flipping between ViewNX and CNX is something where I finally give up...
CNX should be a superset over VNX, so why hop around?
Each step beyond those of evaluation and editing only takes a few seconds, so it does not add much to the time needed for processing the images, it just looks like a lot when writing up every step in a list as in my initial post. And there is no slow import stage to wait for like in Lightroom.
I keep both ViewNX2 and CNX2 open during editing and use the browser in ViewNX to launch files in CNX2 by pressing the NX2 button in ViewNX2. The browser in CNX2 is only used for batch processing. Also consider that most simple adjustments are done in ViewNX2, so not every file needs to be loaded in CNX2, except for final batch processing steps like capture sharpening etc., and final batch processing to jpgs.
It would not help me much to add scores and color tags in Photomechanic, if those scores cannot be read back and forth between PM and CNX2.
-
Unique file naming string in Photo Mechanic for Nikon digicams.
title_{datesort}_{timesort}{subsecond}_{act}
where
{datesort} = yyyymmdd, the capture date year, month and day
{timesort}{subsecond} = hhmmssbb, the capture time hour, minute, second and subsecond
{act} = shutter actuation number for the file being named
Example: newYorkCity_20151031_13442235_10987
In theory - IF you had a camera in each hand and IF you fired both shutters simultaneously down to the very subsecond and IF, by some miracle, you had an identical number of shutter actuations on each camera, then you could get duplicate file names. But for me, that just is not going to happen!
Note that not every camera brand has subsecond or actuation in the Exif.
I asked Photo Mechanic for that shutter actuation variable because I wanted to use it as a unique identifier (when properly combined with other variables) and they added it !!!
-
The files keep the camera-generated file names, which the filing system also keeps in order.
That's something I prefer to change to avoid having files with identical names.
-
Unique file naming string in Photo Mechanic for Nikon digicams.
title_{datesort}_{timesort}{subsecond}_{act}
where
{datesort} = yyyymmdd, the capture date year, month and day
{timesort}{subsecond} = hhmmssbb, the capture time hour, minute, second and subsecond
{act} = shutter actuation number for the file being named
Example: newYorkCity_20151031_13442235_10987
To me, that makes the filename longer than neccesary. Or rather, I prefer to use more text on a relevant title and as little as possible numbers to make them unique and still sort properly.
I don't understand why you prefer to have the title as the first part? I prefer to have the date because then the folders and files will be logically sorted by date when viewed in the filesystem etc. I put dashes in my dates simply to make it easier to read.
In theory - IF you had a camera in each hand and IF you fired both shutters simultaneously down to the very subsecond and IF, by some miracle, you had an identical number of shutter actuations on each camera, then you could get duplicate file names. But for me, that just is not going to happen!
Note that not every camera brand has subsecond or actuation in the Exif.
I asked Photo Mechanic for that shutter actuation variable because I wanted to use it as a unique identifier (when properly combined with other variables) and they added it !!!
You'd need to be sure the cameras are very accurately time synced too, I could imagine that would be a hassle ;)
Very cool that they added a feature you requested, I could imagine it was pretty easy for them to add though.
-
Example: newYorkCity_20151031_13442235_10987
In theory - IF you had a camera in each hand and IF you fired both shutters simultaneously down to the very subsecond and IF, by some miracle, you had an identical number of shutter actuations on each camera, then you could get duplicate file names. But for me, that just is not going to happen!
Note that not every camera brand has subsecond or actuation in the Exif.
I asked Photo Mechanic for that shutter actuation variable because I wanted to use it as a unique identifier (when properly combined with other variables) and they added it !!!
The inclusion of image no generated by the camera takes care of problems with identical file names.
yyyy-mm-dd-hhmmX-zzzz.nef will always be unique, even if seconds are not included (X is camera code, zzzz camera generated number.)
I also avoid descriptors in the file name unless I distribute to others for specific purposes (and slide scans can be an exception, but only after year and month). Descriptors in IPTC, and in folder names after the date is enough for me. When looking at image files, I usually look at thumbnails that reveal the content anyway.
The most important thing is to find a system that works long into the future for ones own preferences, and then stick to it. For myself, everything sorted by chronology is the main requirement.
-
I don't understand why you prefer to have the title as the first part?
Because the file name makes more sense for humans?
I prefer to have the date because then the folders and files will be logically sorted by date when viewed in the filesystem etc.
Well, for files, the project name is identical within a project, so the sort still works and I would not mix projects in a folder...
For folder names I do use the date first...
cheers
afx
-
Ordering files by chronology makes a lot of sense in that their positions will be unique. For all other access aspects, keep a relational database and use pointers to the file(s). It'll never work out trying to implement other sorting criteria into the storage scheme. Put such stuff into the database and use for searching.
-
I use date (YYMMDD format) to prefix most of my professional files, then followed by clear text. It is indeed the best way to avoid picking the wrong version or mixing up files about similar subjects (say, "budget") from different contexts. Also, they would get sorted properly, even when copied to new drives where creation dates lost its meaning, or saved by mistake although nothing changed, and then it is the last update that loses its meaning.
For photo files, I rely on folder numbering (YYYY-MM-DD) for the same purpose, but I should be more thorough and apply it to files.
I have no sufficient "use case" for relational databases in my amateur photography context, but even so, the keyword taxonomy implemented via LR has become indispensable. How else shall I find my old shots of organ X in church Y in Warsaw that I remember was shot with the D700 using shift...
-
A sequential number is unique when combined with a date and title as I do. However I can see the advantage of simply using the camera image numbering variable.
Jørgen, what do you feel is the advantage of renumbering files sequentially in a folder, as opposed to importing the frame number from the Exif?
-
Breaking the numbering scheme from the camera is not a complete deal-breaker, as the original sequence number still is accessible from the EXIF. However, I fail to see any advantage in doing so as matching files from a CF/SD card with files already loaded onto a disk dive becomes hopelessly inefficient.
Much better to keep the original numbering scheme and wrap extended meta data around that data point.
-
Jørgen, what do you feel is the advantage of renumbering files sequentially in a folder, as opposed to importing the frame number from the Exif?
There is no big difference or advantage. I'm renaming it that way due to the fact that the tool I use can't extract exif data.
-
OK, thanks.
-
Jørgen: as an IT guy, using ExifTool should be a breeze ....
-
title_{datesort}_{timesort}{subsecond}_{act}
I put everything in there just so I could point to some useful variables in PhoMech. ;D
You can rearrange the title and variables as you wish. And/or drop some out. And/or add dashes.
The point is that the shutter actuation is unique on a per camera basis (for Nikons!!) and doubles as a sequential tag in the namestring. Not every camera coughs up its shutter actuation as easily as Nikon DSLRs. (My Pentax Q for example. Shutter actuation must be available somewhere for that little cam.)
My usual naming strings look like: subject_{year4}{month0}{day0}location_{act}.nef
Example: mapleTree_20150923bostonMA_23889.nef
After conversion/edit I auto-add a tag for the converter used or version numbers as needed
Example: mapleTree_20150923bostonMA_23889pnv2.tif for Photo Ninja, 2nd version of the original file.
These filenames can easily be searched & sorted on either the subject name or on the date string or on the location.
I also - sometimes - use a keyword set added via the IPTC stationary. You can build up your keywords in a nice organized manner in PhoMech. I need to do more of that but I never have any time even though PhoMech makes it so easy!! Could be that I am also somewhat lazy? :P ??? :D
-
Bjørn: Of course, though it seems like PM can handle it, so no need to use it.
Andrea: Thanks. I honestly haven't used tags that much. I seem to forget to do it when I edit my pictures. I wonder whether the tags/keywords I have added in LR is actually added as IPTC tags or LR only adds them to its catalog.
-
Jørgen, not i haven't yet. I'm still pushing it ahead. I do use catalog labels to label my family and relatives, so it should be fairly easy. But, i haven't tried it.
I installed Photo Supreme since it seemed like an interesting program to try out. I haven't spent much time with it yet, but here is my first impressions:
Importing works fine, though I think Photo Mechanic is faster. Configuring a custom naming scheme might be slightly tedious, but it works and you'll rarely, if ever, need to change it. I configured it to include an event name variable and was looking for where it got that, but it simply requested it when I hit the import button, nice! One of the things that made me interested was that it supported face detection. It seems I misunderstood what they meant. It does indeed support face detection, but it doesn't support face recognition. I personally don't really see the point in the feature then and the feature also stalled the program. I had imported 281 images, selected all and started the face detection feature and after a bit of time, the program was simply unresponsive and I had to force quit it. The implementation in Lightroom is clearly more advanced.
-
I used to use the precursor to Photo Supreme, which is IDImager.
When IDImager support was ceased, and Photo Supreme was the update path, after a trial, I removed it from my PC as it didn't seem to be as good(or flexible) or stable.
On updating to Win10, I never installed IDImager.
In the final few months of using Win7, and searching for all manner of cataloging software I eventually settled on Windows (free) Photo Gallery.
Reason was simply because it synced perfectly with my tagging software which was ViewNX2.
All tags are entered into NEF files in ViewNX2.
The issue was that very few, if any, other cataloging/tagging software would recognize the VNX2 tags, and vice-versa.
So in trying to maintain cohesion and a continuum(of my primary tagging method), about the only real option was Windows Photo Gallery.
The only point to note is that it's reliant on the Nikon NEF codec to be installed on Windows.
The the side benefits are that tags can be viewed/edited/added directly via Windows Explorer directly into the NEF file.
My long term plan is to acquire a proper open source Db setup as Bjørn has commented upon numerous times.
But until I can find a reasonably priced solution, or acquire the knowledge to build it all myself, I'm happy using the most humble of such software .. Windows Photo Gallery.
Very few tagging/cataloging software can actually embed the data directly into a raw file(which is important to me)
In essence I agree with Jørgen, in that Lr's cataloging is more advanced than some, it's not as advanced as it could be(re IDImager), and it's a closed system.
If all I wanted to do was find a photo of Mum from my archive(on a specific drive) .. if I had to use Lr, that process would take a few minutes at least.
In my current setup, I open a drive in Windows Explorer, type in Mumin the search field and my (tagged)images are all listed .... in whatever order I select.
The other handy aspect of using the humble Windows Photo Gallery, is that bulk adding/editing of keywords is the most simple method I've yet had to use.
-
I have trialled Photo Supreme on two separate occasions, and each time I finished up deleting it from my computer.
I found it very complicated to get it to work properly, I often had to run additional commands to get it to do what should have been done by default, the online help manual was very badly laid out and it took a long time to find the right advice, and there were too many bugs.
I wasted a lot of time trying to work with it, and have no intention of repeating the experience.
-
My long term plan is to acquire a proper open source Db setup as Bjørn has commented upon numerous times.
But until I can find a reasonably priced solution,...
Check out iMatch if you are on Windows. Extremely powerful and very reasonably priced.
cheers
afx
-
I installed Photo Supreme since it seemed like an interesting program to try out. I haven't spent much time with it yet, but here is my first impressions:
Importing works fine, though I think Photo Mechanic is faster. Configuring a custom naming scheme might be slightly tedious, but it works and you'll rarely, if ever, need to change it. I configured it to include an event name variable and was looking for where it got that, but it simply requested it when I hit the import button, nice! One of the things that made me interested was that it supported face detection. It seems I misunderstood what they meant. It does indeed support face detection, but it doesn't support face recognition. I personally don't really see the point in the feature then and the feature also stalled the program. I had imported 281 images, selected all and started the face detection feature and after a bit of time, the program was simply unresponsive and I had to force quit it. The implementation in Lightroom is clearly more advanced.
Jørgen, photo supreme is a piece of software you need to stick with for a while. It can do so many things, but looks underwhelming at first (to say the least). Import is not particularly fast, but powerful. Face recognition, naahhh. Don't see the point without face recognition, as you point out. I tried it again triggered by this thread and stopped right away. For the rest though, really powerful. I use the server version with the PostgreSQL db.
-
I used to use the precursor to Photo Supreme, which is IDImager.
When IDImager support was ceased, and Photo Supreme was the update path, after a trial, I removed it from my PC as it didn't seem to be as good(or flexible) or stable.
On updating to Win10, I never installed IDImager.
I'd suggest trying it again. It really has progressed since version 1, which was rather limited. I believe it now offers much the same functionality as IDImager, Mike Buckley has started using it as well, that should count for something.
My long term plan is to acquire a proper open source Db setup as Bjørn has commented upon numerous times.
Not sure which kind of open software, but have you tried Digikam lately. Open source and also comes in a version with proper database (not sure whether it's PostgreSQL or MySQL). Runs (or should run) on all platforms.
-
The lack of face recognition is sadly something I would rather not live without.
-
The lack of face recognition is sadly something I would rather not live without.
Ah ... then PSU won't work for you.
-
With face recognition, as I'm currently in the process of adding tags to my older images via Windows Photo Gallery, it also has a face recognition feature and to begin with it didn't seem to be very good(or accurate).
eg. I may have added maybe 10 or 20 images of my mum as a set of faces for it to recognize, but most of the offerings when a new image with her face in the scene .. it would offer too many variables that looked nothing like her.
But over time as you add more images of specific people to the program, it begins to improve. So after a few more entries, it started to offer only mum as the person in the image.
It never automatically sets the face to a name, but simply asks if this is that person.
I'll give both those software(iMatch and Digikam) a trial run one day soon and compare the results to what I'm currently (90%)happy with.
PhotoSupreme will take a lot of convincing tho(but I'm not totally closed minded to it).
-
Ordering files by chronology makes a lot of sense in that their positions will be unique. For all other access aspects, keep a relational database and use pointers to the file(s). It'll never work out trying to implement other sorting criteria into the storage scheme. Put such stuff into the database and use for searching.
IMHO this is good advice. It gives a tree like structure as well which helps humans and file systems.
Bjørn mentioned Exiftool, which may help bringing files back in place that have been renamed in the past as long as the exifs are intact.
For those who find Exiftools a bit too geeky the batch rename / batch conversion of Irfan View has a lot to offer.
I use it ocasionally for non photo files as well.
-
Happy New Year everyone!
I deleted my prior post before I wanted to do some research and testing first. That's what the vacation time is for, isn't it. No shooting, just playing behind the computer. ;-) I played with photo mechanic (PM), capture one (C1), photo ninja (PN), Lightroom (LR), Photoshop (PS), Affinity Photo (AP), NIK suite, Topaz suite, the Perfectly Clear LR plugin (PC) and, the desktop version LuCid).
I am now thinking about the following workflow:
1. Use PM for ground work: photo selection, keywords, naming, selecting PN-candidates, copying selected photos to Photo folder in Dropbox
2. "Import" in LR for photo management, using one my import-presets. I was thinking about conversion to dng but I've left that out for now.
3. Reprocess PN-candidates in PN and convert to tiff (no compression).
4. Further editing using one (or multiple) of the following: a) VSCO-preset; b) Topaz; 3) NIK; 4) PC; 5) McPhun; 6) LR-edit (eg tone curve, sharpening); 7) PS-edit (mainly for spot/area healing, dust removal). Topaz and PS are hardly used. VSCO and NIK (and now PC) mostly. McPhun (and Topaz Glow/Impression) for, uh, fun.
5. Uploads: tbd; currently I use LR with plugins from Jeffrey Friedl. PM might be an alternative as it includes uploads to zenfolio, flickr
6. Printing: tbd; currently I use PS for printing
An alternative to 2 and 3 might be to batch process all raw files into jpeg or tiff files and import those in LR for refinement with one of the plugins. But I need to do some more testing to find the most efficient way of working (including impact on file structure).
I haven't been able to cut out LR/PS. I could not make C1 to work with VSCO and PC. And I really like those 2. I tried to replicate results within C1 but haven't been able to do so. I am sure that is due to my lack of skills but using the plugin saves me quite some time. Lucid is not an alternative to PC (very limited adjustments available). And when I use Topaz, I usually conclude that one of the other tools works better for me.
Suggestions how I could cut out LR while still being able to use the plugins mentioned are very much welcomed!! Comments about the workflow as well!
PS: I work on Mac and (currently) use RAF and NEF raw files.
-
Update from the OP.... i have worked PhotoMechanic into my routine, it is not as "natural" yet as I had spent so much time on LR only, but it is fast and that makes all the difference.
I still have my eye on Capture One, tempted by all the #ditchadobe out there. I listen to Martin Bailey sometimes, and he has a podcast on switching: https://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/2016/08/01/jumping-ship-from-lightroom-to-capture-one-pro-9-podcast-534/
But I don't have time for that at the moment.
I have tried some film-like presets for LR from Mastin Labs (https://mastinlabs.com/) which are aimed at people that are hybrid film/digital, which I am not but I appreciate the film look.
I have been using LR mobile a bit more, it has matured for some basic editing.
Cheers,
Rob.
-
I finally came to Lr/Ps after having been abandoned by Aperture. Lr/Ps may have some weaknesses and some other applications are, may be, offering better solutions. But, now, my first aim is to find a stable environment which has fair chances to still be there tomorrow. In my view, it is also the only application which is good in both photo database handling and editing. I also invested considerable time in learning Lr/Ps. While saying that, I keep a regular eye on new developments of the competition - C1 being the most appealing to me -. But, within my little world, the threshold to change is far from reached.
Addendum: Lr Mobile became a mature application. It allows me to do a first selection of images, without having to be in front of my computer. Most of the basic editing can now also be done with a tablet, and often in a more user friendly way. Color editing and WB is still a task to be handled in front of a calibrated (computer) screen.