Storing/managing photos on multiple Macs

[abeck510]

Hi all. I recently bought an MBP in addition to my previous iMac. Having both is great, but it has been quite tricky to manage my files between the two computers. Of interest, I have not found a good way to manage my photos.

Previous (when I was only using iMac), I used Photos to store and manage photos. I found it easy to organize into albums and to select albums to import to my iPad and iPhone. I uploaded and organize photos from my digital camera and iPhone. I am not a professional photographer - Photos allows me to do very basic photos and I am not looking for any more intensive editing capabilities.

I have two questions -

1) Is it possible to share and manage (add/organize) photos from both my MBP and iMac using Photos app? i.e. share one Photos library (read & write privileges) between the two computers? I was able to do this with my documents folder (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204445), couldn't figure it out with Photos.

2) Is there a better photos managing program I should consider? Again, I am looking for simplicity and affordability. I would prefer to not pay for a cloud-based system.

Any input helps. Thanks!

 

[Easttime]

Sorry, I missed that you prefer not to use the cloud. So ignore my post below.

(I simply set up photos on my desktop Mac and MacBook so that the app on both devices downloads high res versions from iCloud Photo Library to the photo library on both devices. So I see the same photo library on both Mac OS devices. And the Macs make separate backups of my photo library using my various backup systems, so I have lots of additional redundancy for safe-keeping. My iOS devices have less on-device storage memory, so I configure them to optimize photos instead.)

 

[robgendreau]

Hi all. I recently bought an MBP in addition to my previous iMac. Having both is great, but it has been quite tricky to manage my files between the two computers. Of interest, I have not found a good way to manage my photos.

Previous (when I was only using iMac), I used Photos to store and manage photos. I found it easy to organize into albums and to select albums to import to my iPad and iPhone. I uploaded and organize photos from my digital camera and iPhone. I am not a professional photographer - Photos allows me to do very basic photos and I am not looking for any more intensive editing capabilities.

I have two questions -

1) Is it possible to share and manage (add/organize) photos from both my MBP and iMac using Photos app? i.e. share one Photos library (read & write privileges) between the two computers? I was able to do this with my documents folder (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204445), couldn't figure it out with Photos.

2) Is there a better photos managing program I should consider? Again, I am looking for simplicity and affordability. I would prefer to not pay for a cloud-based system.

Any input helps. Thanks!

Basically you need a common repository for the images you wanna access from both machines.

Since you don't wanna use the cloud, Photos is out. So is Dropbox, Google, Amazon, etc.

You could use an external HDD that you share from say the iMac over your LAN. It would be like the Documents folder you mentioned. But that's tough with Photos. Photos by default uses a managed library where it stores your images, and it likes that to be local, not over a network. But it can also reference images by turning off the "copy into" option in it's prefs. It could then reference images on a shared volume, say. From two different libraries. But the edits are still stored in those libraries, even if the images aren't, so it probably wouldn't help you.

I'd suggest you look at Mylio instead of Photos. It does a great job of synching images over your LAN between devices without using cloud storage.

 

[kallisti]

For Lightroom I store my library on an external SSD (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073H4GPLQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1).

I use the 2 TB version as I have a large photo library, but it comes in smaller capacities at more affordable prices. It is extremely small and light, making it ideal for portable use with a MBP. It also doesn't require an external power source, adding to it's portability.

I connect it locally by plugging it into the machine, so it isn't over a network. I know that Photos lets you select the volume where you want your library stored. Though I haven't tested this with Photos, I think it would work for your setup as long as you set the path to the library on the SSD in Photos for each Mac.

The other advantage (at least for me) is that it's very easy to get a second SSD and regularly clone it (for example with Carbon Copy Cloner). You then have a second physical copy of your library to keep in another location. These drives are small enough that they would easily fit in a bank safety deposit box (for example).

I initially purchased one of these because my photo library was expanding (it's now over 1 TB) and there wasn't enough space on the hard drive of my MBP to store all of my photos. I wanted a portable solution so I could have my library with me even when I wasn't at home. Rather than buying a new machine with a 2 TB hard drive, I got one of these. It works perfectly (at least with Lightroom--but I think it should work with Photos as well since it is possible to map your library to a different local drive).

 

[k27]

I'd suggest you look at Mylio instead of Photos. It does a great job of synching images over your LAN between devices without using cloud storage.

This is true. I like mylio too. Folder monitoring is great too. However it is expensive for home use (apart from the free version).

Another option might be digiKam.

 

[ChrisA]

I am looking for simplicity and affordability. I would prefer to not pay for a cloud-based system.

You don't want to pay for a cloud based system. What you pay for is simplicity. You pay them and they set up up for you. You can of course set up your own cloud-like system.


This is like asking "What is the simplest way I can remodel my kitchen?" Answer: Hire a contractor and take a long vacation, when you come back it will be done. But that is expensive. Hw to do it for 10% of that price? Answer do all the work yourself and you will pay only for materials used.

It is the same with a central data storage. You can set up a file server and connect it to your home network and the Internet via VPN. Older PCs work well for this and can cost literally nothing. But it takes some time and effort

You can weigh the pros and cons animist people decide to simply pay Apple $5 a month for some storage. If you time has any value, it is cheaper to outsource this.

 

[OreoCookie]

This is like asking "What is the simplest way I can remodel my kitchen?" Answer: Hire a contractor and take a long vacation, when you come back it will be done. But that is expensive. Hw to do it for 10% of that price? Answer do all the work yourself and you will pay only for materials used.

I think this is a good analogy that should be explored a little further: doing it yourself can also mean that the cabinets are crooked or have large gaps in them, or that a shelf collapses. Also, if you spend that little on materials, you are not spending money on best-in-class parts.

What that translates to is that connectivity might be flakey for reasons you don't quite understand (e. g. because your ISP doesn't really want you to run your server off of that “consumer-grade” internet connection). Or a misconfiguration could lead to data loss — something that might be worth much more than $60 or $120 that you pay over 2 years for a $5/month cloud service.