Hobbyists: How do you organize your photos? (Not professionals)

[canoeman]

Hmm not sure if this is common practice, but I very much like this idea of keeping the camera's index number..

Thanks for the indirect tip, good sir!

Something to keep in mind is that cameras (that I have) start the numbering cycle over at 10,000. I found that I had DSC_0001 in two places, one right below the other in the finder but obviously a year apart, then came two DSC_0002's, etc. Luckily I found out in the first download and started renaming the series each time it kicked over 10,000. DSD-0001, DSE_0001, etc. If you choose to add a descriptor before the camera number, it will help sort correctly. But, if you choose to use the camera number first, even with a descriptor following, it will get messed up in the finder and anything else that sorts them. It's good to be able to rename as you import. Bill

 

[canoeman]

Don't projects in Aperture have a limit of 10,000 photos?


Keeping the cameras index number sounds interesting. Why do you make it?

I like it because I can instantly recognize which camera took the photo by the way it names them. It also gives some kind of a reference to when it was taken compared to "that other" trip.

 

[Zer0]

Using iPhoto '06. This is my directory structure. There are subfolders under the directory ofcourse!

FamilynFriends
>Parties\Events with friends or family

Kids
>Sub folders with kid's names

Country
>If I stay in some country for an extended period then I create a folder for it.

Vacation
>Understood?

Events
>Ball games, festivals etc

Misc
>Wierd self portraits , gadgets etc

I rename all photos out of the camera with XXX_Description, where XXX would be the sequence numbers.

 

[thr33face]

i import all my photos into iphoto and give it random names.
then i import the (newly created) iphoto folder into lightroom.

so to break it down:

camera -> iphoto -> random name -> lightroom

yeah, that's it

 

[rhett7660]

Question for the iPhoto users.

I have a bunch of photos (10K +) that I am bringing over. My wife wants to use iPhoto. I haven't used. When I import the photos into iPhoto will the photos still be available in the original folders or will everything be brought over into the iPhoto folder? Or will it create a new set of folders on her computer and leave the originals on the server alone?

I don't want the photos taken off the server, but I want her to be able to use iPhoto on her computer.

Thanks

 

[canoeman]

Question for the iPhoto users.

I have a bunch of photos (10K +) that I am bringing over. My wife wants to use iPhoto. I haven't used. When I import the photos into iPhoto will the photos still be available in the original folders or will everything be brought over into the iPhoto folder? Or will it create a new set of folders on her computer and leave the originals on the server alone?

I don't want the photos taken off the server, but I want her to be able to use iPhoto on her computer.

Thanks

I take it that they are not in an iPhoto library at the present time, just a finder folder structure. An excellent source of info on this is Pogue and Story's book, the Missing Manual. I am using the one for iPhoto5, but newer ones should do the same.

You can open iPhoto and just drag onto the main iPhoto window. If you drag an image, it will COPY and import the image. If you drag a folder, it will copy and import the folder, and use the name of the folder as the name of the film roll. If there are folders within that folder, it will copy them and organize them into film rolls, using the folder names as the names of film rolls.

You are supposed to be able to drag the folders onto the source window at the left of the display, and iPhoto will copy and import them into an album which is named the same as the original folder. I am assuming that if there are nested folders in this situation, the folders will become the name of individual albums. I just tried this with a mock folder structure and this last method didn't work for me.

Back to your original question, the images will be COPIED into the iPhoto library structure and leave the originals where they are, untouched by future iPhoto adjustments.

There is a way to leave the images in there original position, rather than import them into the iPhoto library itself (kind of like referenced images in Aperature), but I wouldn't suggest that where two people are trying to do things to the same library and folder structure. You access that option by going to the preferences > advanced area in iPhoto. If you both want to use iPhoto, there is a way to merge libraries periodically using iPhoto Library Manager, an approx. $20 piece of software.

 

[mikeyPotg]

I just use iPhoto and make new albums for each event. Looking back on it, I wish I was a bit more organized as far as events/dates/keywords... but this works fine for me.

 

[yrsonicdeath]

Someone mentioned that Aperture limits libraries to 10,000 photos. Can anyone verify this? I'm in the process of deciding whether to purchase Lightroom or Aperture while at the same time deciding how to organize my photos. I had thrown around the idea of having all of my pictures in one folder, unorganized and then using keywords in a program like Aperture/Lightroom to organize/find them. Does anyone have any experience good or bad doing this?

Right now canoeman's approach is making the most sense to me.

 

[rhett7660]

canoeman

Thank you for the explenation. That is what I was hoping for. I was just concerned. I don't want my originals to be brought into iPhoto.

Thanks again.

 

[GT41]

I have an ever growing list of photos as I take close to 10000 keepers a year. I started about 2 years ago to use Adobe Bridge. I sort my photos by year then date and some brief title for the shoot.
Within Bridge I have I use a set of keywords for location (city, country), infrastructure (bridges, houses, churches, historical buildings etc), groups of people (friends from high school, college, work, family etc), nature (birds, bugs, trees, flowers), and types of photog (sports, scenic, macro, portrait etc).

I try to limit the addition of new keywords with the exception of locations and that way I have a pretty easy time searching by any of keywords, date, year, or some brief title.

I assume this is a bit more a professional way of organizing but it makes searches really easy. Also it only takes about 5 minutes to tag everything after a shoot and I don't need to worry about it afterwards.

 

[ChrisA]

Someone mentioned that Aperture limits libraries to 10,000 photos. Can anyone verify this? I'm in the process of deciding whether to purchase Lightroom or Aperture while at the same time deciding how to organize my photos. I had thrown around the idea of having all of my pictures in one folder, unorganized and then using keywords in a program like Aperture/Lightroom to organize/find them. Does anyone have any experience good or bad doing this?

Right now canoeman's approach is making the most sense to me.

I've never heard of a limit to the number of photos and if there is one it is way more than 10K. Many people have more photos than that. I know Aperture works with 100K photos and maybe a lot more. There maybe a practical limit if so it's big.

The best way to organize the images is with keywords, comments and titles. I keep the keyword list short with only enough words to describe the kind of photo. Th exact subject goes in the comment field. Then I can use smart albums to organize the images many differnt ways all at the same time.

 

[yrsonicdeath]

Thanks ChrisA. That makes sense. I Think I have an idea of how I'm organizing things, now to just decide which software I want to use to do it!

 

[66217]

Someone mentioned that Aperture limits libraries to 10,000 photos. Can anyone verify this? .

It was me. It is good you bring this up because the 10,000 photo limit per project was for Aperture 1 and 1.5.

In Aperture 2 the limit is 100,000 per project.

Nonetheless, having big projects is not the best advice, it makes navigating thru your photos slower.

 

[rhett7660]

I have been using bridge also, but since the wife is now getting a mac, I showed her iPhoto and she loved it. I just want to make sure I can keep what I have and how I have it setup.

 

[yrsonicdeath]

Nonetheless, having big projects is not the best advice, it makes navigating thru your photos slower.

Let me see if I have this straight. So the general consensus is that it's best to have Aperture set up with a library with tons of projects and utilizing keywords. That's what makes sense to me, but I could be completely missing something.

Sidenote: Anyone have any experience with Aperture with 2GB vs. 4GB RAM in a MBP?

 

[canoeman]

Let me see if I have this straight. So the general consensus is that it's best to have Aperture set up with a library with tons of projects and utilizing keywords. That's what makes sense to me, but I could be completely missing something.

Sidenote: Anyone have any experience with Aperture with 2GB vs. 4GB RAM in a MBP?

That is what I have with a 2.33 Gh machine. It goes faster than I do and moves right along. Hopefully someone with a 4G machine can respond. Bill

 

[tao guru]

As I download images from my cameras, I give them a batch title, but keep the camera's index number, eg. "Victoria trainyard 2008 - 42623". Keywords can be added as required.

FYI - Aperture should capture the original file name from the camera which typically includes the index number.

You can view this by selecting a picture, click on the "Metadata" tab. At the bottom of the metadata tab, click on the "EXIF" button. Check the box next to "Image File Name".

Now when you look at the Metadata for the picture and choose the "List Expanded" filter (top left of the Metadata dialog) you will see the original filename applied by your camera.

Note: the "Image File Name" is not the same as the "File Name".

File Name = name you applied when importing.
Image File Name = name the camera gave the original file.

Displaying the Image File Name in the metadata does not affect the naming convention you have applied.

See example below.

Cheers!