What happens to your images when they leave the camera?

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HISTORY:

For as long as I can remember, I've been taking photos with whatever camera I pick for that day, then move the images to my computer.  Long ago I selected Adobe Lightroom to manage my photos - bought the software, and it was mine to use, until I bought an even newer version of Lightroom.  Lightroom allowed me to move my images into a logical location on my computer, keep track of images, so I could find them in the future, and edit the images.  My thoughts on this changed when adobe went to a subscription mode, so I would be paying a monthly fee to adobe from then on, forever.  I'm still paying, but I want to eventually get out.

Early this year, I bought my Leica M10, and created a new file storage location on my computer.  I wasn't sure what program I would use for editing, but after trying several, I settled on PhotoLab 3, which recently became PhotoLab 4.  PhotoLab is an image editor.  It doesn't replace the full Lightroom system including where and how to store images.  I create folders where I want, and copy my new photos there using my own organization system so I can find them later.  I followed the same format for photo organization as I have been using in Lightroom, separating images by country, then by the year they were taken, then by the location/purpose for the photos.  This has worked for me over all these years in Lightroom, and I replicated it with a brand new top level folder for PhotoLab

 

IMAGE TRANSFER:  How the images got from my memory card onto the computer was and still is handled by one of my favorite programs, Photo Mechanic.  Photo Mechanic "ingests" the images from the card, and quickly allows me to delete the junk images should I wish to.  It is very fast, even with hundreds of RAW images.  It can rename the images as they are ingested into something more useful than the ordinary file name, and it allows me to add lots of information to the "metadata", doing all this to every image as it is ingested.  After image review, until this year, I would then use Lightrooom's "Import" tools to get these images into my Lightroom System.  For other editors, such as Luminar or PhotoLab, I can move the images into an appropriate folder, in a location where I hope to be able to find those images years from now.

 

NEW:

Camera Bits, the company that provides PhotoMechanic, has now released PhotoMechanic Plus - which combines the previous software with a new DAM system (Digital Asset Management).  This does what Lightroom used to do for me, and goes far beyond it.  From what I've read, I will easily be able to find my photos based on many criteria.  Since I'm new at this, and am still learning, instead of describing it in my words, I'll just post this link:  https://home.camerabits.com/tour-photo-mechanic-plus/ 

 

People have told me that my photo organization is essentially the same as what my parents and grandparents did, placing photos in a shoe box with a label.  At first I laughed, but not any more.  My life seems to have changed so much now - taking photos with the Leica, editing them in my new software, and using the DAM function to allow me to find my images in the future - and all of it I "own" (well, the license, not the software), no need to make any monthly payments so that it can/will continue.

Having said all that, how do the rest of you deal with this?  When you take a photo today, how will you be able to find it ten years from now, or is the "digital shoebox" method still adequate?

[mujk]

LR6 still works even on newest Win10 (20H2). No need to pay subscription fees. Works fine, although newest LR features are missing and there are no Adobe-provided profiles for newer digital Ms. Because of DNG raw format, it is also not depenedent on latest ACR for raw conversion.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Good To Be Retired]

7 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Having said all that, how do the rest of you deal with this?

I prefer Photoshop and like the shoebox with a label on it   In 10 years I'll be in a nursing home and won't give a ratsazz about locating photos 

I don't use Lightroom in part BECAUSE of the digital asset management features.

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by Good To Be Retired

[Kwesi]

Hi Mike,

Great topic. Early on, I auditioned Capture One. at the time it was clear that it was geared for studio shooting and had no DAM component so I gave up on it. I tried apple's pro photo software and found that also wanting. I settled on Lightroom primarily because I needed to be able to organize and retrieve the thousands of images I was creating as an architectural photographer and also for my personal work.

I give Adobe a lot of credit for understanding very early on that we creatives are a messy, unorganized bunch that need all the help they can get in an easy and intuitive way.

I grew up shooting slide film so have always been very good at getting the exposure right in camera. so my primary need was organizational, that being said, I have only shot raw since my first digital SLR, the canon Eos 2oD so the raw conversion has and still is a very important factor for me.

I have stuck with Lightroom all these years because it gets me as a photographer, - from organizing to raw conversion to printing.

Like you I balked at the thought of paying a subscription fee but at the end of the day I've come to realize that that is the same model I use in the rest of my life. From Spotify to Netflix to my local carwash, the list goes on and on.

Computer processing power and ever increasing internet bandwidth is allowing photoshop, Lightrooom and others to be able to do things to bitmapped images that was impossible just a a few years ago. For my work, It is nice to be able to stay current effortlessly, and a subscription program allows me to do that.

[LocalHero1953]

I use Lightroom Classic because it is not a database management system, just an index to my own file system.
Having tried keywords (I lack the discipline), filing by year (doesn't work for projects that span years) and Lightroom CC's cloud based Sensei search facilities (occasionally wonderful for face recognition and feature classification, but you can't rely on it for everything), I have ended up with an irrational filing structure that works for me and lets me find things easily. I have a top level file structure based on Family, Friends, People, Places, Stage, Dance, Music, Projects, Assignments and a few others. I have an equally irrational classification below that level: Family is broken down by year, Places by country, region, city... - etc.

[Mikep996]

"People have told me that my photo organization is essentially the same as what my parents and grandparents did, placing photos in a shoe box with a label."

 

Frankly, it was easier for me to find photos in the film days than it is now.  I shot mostly slides so everything was in slide trays with a label on the box!  Now I can't find anything!

 

I absolutely refuse to subscribe to a program.  It would be like paying monthly to have (rent) a screwdriver.  Admittedly if you need all the high-powered stuff to do whatever you do, then I guess there is no other option.  But for what I do, I don't need it. I shot slides most of my life so I'm comfortable with the idea that the pic in the camera is what you got!  Sitting there trying to "fix" it later is not something I have the interest in...or the patience for.  Heck, Apple Photos has far more capability than I ever use!

Edited November 20, 2020 by Mikep996

[Pyrogallol]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Michael Markey]

Always used Photoshop elements .

Basic but I don`t do too much editing .

Probably missing a few tricks but there you go.

All stuff including analogue stored on two hard drives with back up.

Negatives in numbered in sleeves which match the entries on  the hard drives

Digital stuff stored by date and maybe the odd title with a place name to make locating the file easier.

Nothing fancy and it works for me .

Well most of the time and when it doesn`t its always a nice surprise finding stuff which I`d forgotten about .

 

[Stephen.s1]

I love Adobe's kool ade...   A pittance every month (or year) and I have the latest and (for me) the greatest.

And as someone else has said, when I'm gone who gives a rat's ass what happens to those records.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Stephen.s1
addenda

[pippy]

I've used Photoshop since the days when it came on 20-odd floppy diks!

Pay once to have the program and it is then YOURS? Absolutely fine. I have not bought into the full version since it went subscription-based. I use two different laptops; on the newer one I have installed the latest version of Elements. On the older one I still have the full CS6 package (as well as an earlier version of Elements) and for those infrequent times when I really do need to use various tools not in Elements on the newer laptop I transfer files from one to the other and back again.

Another thing about Elements while we're at it; there are various settings and parameters which have been changed quite radically to make Elements a much more annoying version to use in comparison with the earlier version (such as the way pre-set image cropping and resizing works for example). At the outset I thought it was just a case of me being a bit dim but having spoken to Adobe Technical they confirmed that these tools had specifically been altered to work the way they now did. What was unsaid was that Adobe had seemingly decided that perhaps some (a great many?) professionals had not adopted the 'new world order' and so the tools in the newer versions of Elements (I've bought and tried the latest three) had been changed so as to make life for a serious worker to be FAR more convoluted and time-consuming than neccessary in an attempt to 'persuade' Pro's to go down the rental route.

Shameful behaviour IMO.

Philip.

Edited November 21, 2020 by pippy

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, pippy said:

I've used Photoshop since the days when it came on 20-odd floppy diks!

.........................................

Tattooed?

ROTFLMAO

[250swb]

I think a lot of people forget, or never knew, that Lightroom was promoted by Adobe initially for the new digital age professional who needed to make instant adjustments and then quickly send photos off to clients or newsdesks while knowing those adjustments weren't accidentally made permanent. So perhaps a sports photographer etc.

So amateurs thought 'oh this is great, it saves me from doing anything like file management, I can save ten seconds on every amazing image I process!'.

Then an even wider base discovered that Lightroom had a simpler editing suite than Photoshop, not that anybody ever used all of Photoshop anyway, but they found all the elements in Photoshop they didn't actually need to learn somehow intimidating. And because picture editing in Photoshop was a chore that only made their photos look better Lightroom became 'good enough' in a 'take my brain out' sort of way.

And you know what, it hasn't changed an awful lot. Lightroom is still great for people who can't be bothered with file management, and the simpler editing software is still 'good enough'.

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by 250swb

[pippy]

53 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Tattooed?

ROTFLMAO

Even better! Braille!!!

I originally typed 'floppy-discs' and, realising that was not right, tried to correct it. Was the newer version an improvement?

Mea (obviously) Culpa!...Carry On!

P.

Edited November 21, 2020 by pippy

[Jeff S]

47 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I think a lot of people forget, or never knew, that Lightroom was promoted by Adobe initially for the new digital age professional who needed to make instant adjustments and then quickly send photos off to clients or newsdesks while knowing those adjustments weren't accidentally made permanent. So perhaps a sports photographer etc.

So amateurs thought 'oh this is great, it saves me from doing anything like file management, I can save ten seconds on every amazing image I process!'.

Then an even wider base discovered that Lightroom had a simpler editing suite than Photoshop, not that anybody ever used all of Photoshop anyway, but they found all the elements in Photoshop they didn't actually need to learn somehow intimidating. And because picture editing in Photoshop was a chore that only made their photos look better Lightroom became 'good enough' in a 'take my brain out' sort of way.

And you know what, it hasn't changed an awful lot. Lightroom is still great for people who can't be bothered with file management, and the simpler editing software is still 'good enough'.

 

Spoken like someone who never uses LR.  It now does far more than what it used to do, eliminating my need to switch over to Photoshop for most tasks, which I still do if necessary.  The two can be well integrated. Not about being not bothered, brainless or good enough.  ImagePrint is the icing on the cake for me, even beyond Photoshop nor LR, for printing.  And, yes, I’ve used Silver Efex. Funny how you almost always completely dismiss and deride anything you don’t personally use and embrace, as if there’s only your way or the highway.  Even worse when you lack the facts, Steve.

Jeff

[pippy]

20 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Spoken like someone who never uses LR.  It now does far more than what it used to do...

Well thanks for that update, Jeff.

I used LR in a very early version and didn't get on with it at all (understatement) but I know that most of my fellow snappers are now very happy using LR. Perhaps it's time to try again? From my point of view I don't really get the advantages (as I understand them to be) which LR can offer over Ps.

I should still give it a go, I suppose............

Philip.

Edited November 21, 2020 by pippy

[jplomley]

Ripped three prints today. One 16x24, the other two 13x19. Two from the M10-R the other from the SL2. It's not real until you can hold it :-)

[Jeff S]

17 minutes ago, pippy said:

Well thanks for that update, Jeff.

I used LR in a very early version and didn't get on with it at all (understatement) but I know that most of my fellow snappers are now very happy using LR. Perhaps it's time to try again? From my point of view I don't really get the advantages (as I understand them to be) which LR can offer over Ps.

I should still give it a go, I suppose............

Philip.

It works for me, but I think that one tends to like the software that he/she take the time to learn and get comfortable with, provided the interface is not a turn-off.  There are plenty of options these days.

Jeff

[pippy]

31 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

It works for me, but I think that one tends to like the software that he/she take the time to learn and get comfortable with...

I understand that approach, Jeff.

My situation is quite a bit different from that of my friends and fellow 'smudgers' in that (professionally) these days I'm a 99.9% studio-based still-life chap (my closest photographer friends are both corporate photographer / portraitists) who, by the unique nature of the stuff I receive to photograph, has to treat each image in much the same way as if I was capturing the images in the Old Days using sheet film with my 5"x4" Sinar so all the benefits of batch corrections don't arise. Not even close. Each picture I take is, in effect, a one-off in terms of lighting and so on so the processing advantages - as far as I understand them to be! - which LR offers to those same friends who shoot perhaps 1,000 frames under identical conditions cannot be utilised.

As you quite rightly say; there are plenty of options these days and some are more suited to the workflow and needs of some photographers and other options are more suited to the needs of others. Like almost everything in life there is not a One Size Fits All answer to the needs of we snappers.

And that's a Good Thing in my book.

Philip.

Edited November 22, 2020 by pippy

[Guest]

On 11/20/2020 at 10:42 PM, Mikep996 said:

"People have told me that my photo organization is essentially the same as what my parents and grandparents did, placing photos in a shoe box with a label."

 

Frankly, it was easier for me to find photos in the film days than it is now.  I shot mostly slides so everything was in slide trays with a label on the box!  Now I can't find anything!

 

I absolutely refuse to subscribe to a program.  It would be like paying monthly to have (rent) a screwdriver.  Admittedly if you need all the high-powered stuff to do whatever you do, then I guess there is no other option.  But for what I do, I don't need it. I shot slides most of my life so I'm comfortable with the idea that the pic in the camera is what you got!  Sitting there trying to "fix" it later is not something I have the interest in...or the patience for.  Heck, Apple Photos has far more capability than I ever use!

I am exactly the same as you and to be honest trying raw and using lightroom has made me depressed and i really miss slides!!

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

12 minutes ago, pippy said:

I understand that approach, Jeff.

My situation is quite a bit different from that of my friends and fellow 'smudgers' in that (professionally) these days I'm a 99.9% studio-based still-life chap (my closest photographer friends are both corporate photographer / portraitists) who, by the unique nature of the stuff I receive to photograph, has to treat each image in much the same way as if I was capturing the images in the Old Days using sheet film with my 5"x4" Sinar so all the benefits of batch corrections don't arise. Not even close. Each picture I take is, in effect, a one-off in terms of lighting and so on so the processing advantages - as far as I understand them to be! - which LR offers to those same friends who shoot perhaps 1,000 frames under identical conditions cannot be utilised.

As you quite rightly say; there are plenty of options these days and some are more suited to the workflow and needs of some photographers and other options are more suited to the needs of others. Like almost everything in life there is not a One Size Fits All answer to the needs of we snappers.

And that's a Good Thing in my book.

Philip.

I’m happy to shoot a couple thousand frames per year, not much different than film days, so count me out of the batch mode.  Picture and print quality, not quantity, is the goal.  But I’m just an enthusiast, not a pro.

Whatever floats one’s boat.

Jeff