Trying to get back into photography, but DAM it!

[Clix Pix]

I love DXO PhotoLab 4 and the Nik plug-ins.....for me, yes, very intuitive and not a steep learning curve at all. I also have Affinity Photo and I will say that I really have not gotten on well with that so far, just done some very basic stuff since it's not intuitive and it has been many years since I last used Photoshop.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I love DXO PhotoLab 4 and the Nik plug-ins.....for me, yes, very intuitive and not a steep learning curve at all. I also have Affinity Photo and I will say that I really have not gotten on well with that so far, just done some very basic stuff since it's not intuitive and it has been many years since I last used Photoshop.

Yes, Photo Lab 4 is the one I have, not 3 as I wrote before.

 

[Erlang]

There is another DAM, from IDimager

Photo Supreme https://www.idimager.com/

 

[Ray2]

The above comment on PhotoSupreme nudged my memory. I used it for about a year.

We're all familiar with making edits and viewing our finished versions in whatever edit + DAM app we use. Once we start looking at stand-alone DAM, that’s all gone. We see unedited raw. If one version was edited and another not, we don’t see which one was the one we thought better. So we begin using metatdata in ways that depart from our original meaning of stars and keywords, as well as either writing raw when possible (not with Fuji) or writing to XMP files as well as hoping the DAM we chose can read the metadata fields we used (interesting when it’s time to change DAM).

There’s a reason why Lightroom and C1 are so popular. And in the case of Lightroom, it’s likely not because of the Develop module.

 

[iAssimilated]

Another one I have run across recently, although I have not used it, is darktable.

 

[MevetS]

... snip ...

We're all familiar with making edits and viewing our finished versions in whatever edit + DAM app we use. Once we start looking at stand-alone DAM, that’s all gone. We see unedited raw. If one version was edited and another not, we don’t see which one was the one we thought better. So we begin using metatdata in ways that depart from our original meaning of stars and keywords, as well as either writing raw when possible (not with Fuji) or writing to XMP files as well as hoping the DAM we chose can read the metadata fields we used (interesting when it’s time to change DAM).

There’s a reason why Lightroom and C1 are so popular. And in the case of Lightroom, it’s likely not because of the Develop module.

I don't use Lightroom, although I do use Photoshop. So maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. But the DAM applications I've used over the years, and prefer, are standalone DAM systems. They are for asset management, not for photo editing. As noted I use Photoshop, and a couple of other products, for editing.

My current choice, Photo Mechanic Plus, allows me to see all the versions of my images. The RAW image, and any derivatives made from it. Side by side if I so choose. I just add all my images to my catalogs.

So I really do not understand this statement at all, "Once we start looking at stand-alone DAM, that’s all gone. We see unedited raw."

If this is the case, it sounds like you are not actually managing all of you digital assets.

 

[OreoCookie]

So I really do not understand this statement at all, "Once we start looking at stand-alone DAM, that’s all gone. We see unedited raw."

DAM apps with built-in editing functionality can do things that I suspect Photo Mechanic cannot, e. g. copying-and-pasting edits. That’s extremely helpful to have a consistent white balance across shots or to use the same crop on a series of photos. It also sounds as if you cannot have light-weight versions/virtual copies either.

I’m not arguing about your preferences, you should use what works for you, but having used old-school DAM-only software and DAM + good suite of editing tools, I prefer the other and find the former very limiting. That’s also my criticism of people who recommend to “just use the file system so that you can use whatever app you want” — they are forgetting that a lot of data is not reflected in the file system, e. g. stacks, albums and the like.

 

[Ray2]

I don't use Lightroom, although I do use Photoshop. So maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. But the DAM applications I've used over the years, and prefer, are standalone DAM systems. They are for asset management, not for photo editing. As noted I use Photoshop, and a couple of other products, for editing.

My current choice, Photo Mechanic Plus, allows me to see all the versions of my images. The RAW image, and any derivatives made from it. Side by side if I so choose. I just add all my images to my catalogs.

So I really do not understand this statement at all, "Once we start looking at stand-alone DAM, that’s all gone. We see unedited raw."

If this is the case, it sounds like you are not actually managing all of you digital assets.

If you edited raw in DXO, what do you see in Photo Mechanic?

In PhotoSupreme you preview an unedited raw file. In Lightroom I preview an edited file. If one is looking for a specific edit, say a crop, one can see it. Can Photo Mechanic do that? I’ve never used PM, I thought it was no more than a browser, though that recently seems to have changed. With that, can their new catalog based app preview DXO edited raw or just the unedited image?

I understand the benefits of stand-alone DAM apps when managing a variety of media types. But for photos only, not my choice.

 

[MevetS]

If you edited raw in DXO, what do you see in Photo Mechanic?

In PhotoSupreme you preview an unedited raw file. In Lightroom I preview an edited file. If one is looking for a specific edit, say a crop, one can see it. Can Photo Mechanic do that? I’ve never used PM, I thought it was no more than a browser, though that recently seems to have changed. With that, can their new catalog based app preview DXO edited raw or just the unedited image?

I understand the benefits of stand-alone DAM apps when managing a variety of media types. But for photos only, not my choice.

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, life intervenes some times.

As to your specific questions and comments:

Photo Mechanic was until recently just a browser, and it is still available as just a browser. Photo Mechanic Plus, which was released in late 2020, adds the cataloging features.

Photo Mechanic Plus allows you to create multiple catalogs, and for my workflow I have two, one for my originals, including raw files, and one for derivatives, which has all of my saved edits. You could have one catalog with both raw and edited files. It is also possible to search across multiple catalogs to return a set of images which would include both the original and processed images, allowing comparison between them. But only saved images can added to catalogs.

I could see a workflow where I create a catalog for each current photo project, containing all my files, originals and processed images, while still adding the files to my two archival catalogs (originals and derivatives as mentioned above) and once I have completed the project I could then delete the project specific catalog. I've only been using Photo Mechanic Plus for about a month now, having upgraded from regular Photo Mechanic.

Note that certain file formats are not supported, such as Affinity .afphoto files, as Affinity does not publish file specs. So if saving files in one of these formats is important, Photo Mechanic is not the tool to use. I don't have this issue, and files can always be saved in a supported format. This is true of both versions of Photo Mechanic.

And I prefer a standalone DAM which just creates a catalog on top of the file system as tools come and go, and I don't want to have to migrate. With the catalog tools I've used I just need to point the tool at my file system and build a new catalog.

As I've not used Lightroom nor Aperture, and quickly gave up on Luminar as the integrated catalog feature brought my system to a crawl given my catalog sizes, I have no real experience with the benefits of an integrated system. As I note below I've been doing this for awhile, and have found a workflow which works for me. I also understand that keeping everything within one application, or application family, would have its appeal and benefits as well.

And some background info as to why my workflow is as it is ...

I started with Photoshop in the late 1990's, before Lightroom, Aperture, and integrated DAM/Image Processors where a thing. And I started using iView Media well before the sales to Microsoft and Phase One. And I've been a Photo Mechanic user for many years as well. I say this not to claim any special status because I've been at it so long, but rather to show that I've built my workflow habits over time. And perhaps more importantly that I'm old and set in my ways!

Second, back in grad school I studied Computer Science, and used Unix quite a bit. One of the philosophies of Unix is a specific tool for a specific job. I bring this up for two reasons as well. One, I'm thus predisposed to using single purpose tools. Two, I do not mind working at the computer. Unlike many photographers I actually enjoy post processing. It also takes me back to my wet darkroom days (I told you I was old!). And so moving between programs is not an issue for me.

Finally, photography is a hobby. If it was instead a job, and I was under time pressure to process images, and processing images took me away from time spent on client photoshoots, then I may be more predisposed to the perhaps more efficient workflow an integrated system would provide.

Anyway, I hope this answers your questions. And like many such applications, Photo Mechanic Plus has a 30 day free trial.

Have fun.

 

[Ray2]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, life intervenes some times.

As to your specific questions and comments:

Photo Mechanic was until recently just a browser, and it is still available as just a browser. Photo Mechanic Plus, which was released in late 2020, adds the cataloging features.

Photo Mechanic Plus allows you to create multiple catalogs, and for my workflow I have two, one for my originals, including raw files, and one for derivatives, which has all of my saved edits. You could have one catalog with both raw and edited files. It is also possible to search across multiple catalogs to return a set of images which would include both the original and processed images, allowing comparison between them. But only saved images can added to catalogs.

I could see a workflow where I create a catalog for each current photo project, containing all my files, originals and processed images, while still adding the files to my two archival catalogs (originals and derivatives as mentioned above) and once I have completed the project I could then delete the project specific catalog. I've only been using Photo Mechanic Plus for about a month now, having upgraded from regular Photo Mechanic.

Note that certain file formats are not supported, such as Affinity .afphoto files, as Affinity does not publish file specs. So if saving files in one of these formats is important, Photo Mechanic is not the tool to use. I don't have this issue, and files can always be saved in a supported format. This is true of both versions of Photo Mechanic.

And I prefer a standalone DAM which just creates a catalog on top of the file system as tools come and go, and I don't want to have to migrate. With the catalog tools I've used I just need to point the tool at my file system and build a new catalog.

As I've not used Lightroom nor Aperture, and quickly gave up on Luminar as the integrated catalog feature brought my system to a crawl given my catalog sizes, I have no real experience with the benefits of an integrated system. As I note below I've been doing this for awhile, and have found a workflow which works for me. I also understand that keeping everything within one application, or application family, would have its appeal and benefits as well.

And some background info as to why my workflow is as it is ...

I started with Photoshop in the late 1990's, before Lightroom, Aperture, and integrated DAM/Image Processors where a thing. And I started using iView Media well before the sales to Microsoft and Phase One. And I've been a Photo Mechanic user for many years as well. I say this not to claim any special status because I've been at it so long, but rather to show that I've built my workflow habits over time. And perhaps more importantly that I'm old and set in my ways!

Second, back in grad school I studied Computer Science, and used Unix quite a bit. One of the philosophies of Unix is a specific tool for a specific job. I bring this up for two reasons as well. One, I'm thus predisposed to using single purpose tools. Two, I do not mind working at the computer. Unlike many photographers I actually enjoy post processing. It also takes me back to my wet darkroom days (I told you I was old!). And so moving between programs is not an issue for me.

Finally, photography is a hobby. If it was instead a job, and I was under time pressure to process images, and processing images took me away from time spent on client photoshoots, then I may be more predisposed to the perhaps more efficient workflow an integrated system would provide.

Anyway, I hope this answers your questions. And like many such applications, Photo Mechanic Plus has a 30 day free trial.

Have fun.

I think you did a superb job of not answering my question.

However, "But only saved images can added to catalogs." pretty much says it all. Edited versions of raw files processed in any app cannot be imported into PM+. Therefore they cannot be viewed in PM+. To view the edits one would have to export to a file type standalone DAM can read (jpeg) and have duplicate files just to be able to view what edits I performed. Sort of like creating my own preview files rather than letting Lightroom, or whatever, create them for me. That is, assuming I maintain the original file names or provide some sort of link between the unedited raw file and the exported jpeg.

I've been there. No thank you.

In all candor, there's a reason why PM+ has not received the big embrace many were expecting. For photography, PM is a fast culling app. It wasn't and still is not a viable DAM.

 

[r.harris1]

I think you did a superb job of not answering my question.

However, "But only saved images can added to catalogs." pretty much says it all. Edited versions of raw files processed in any app cannot be imported into PM+. Therefore they cannot be viewed in PM+. To view the edits one would have to export to a file type standalone DAM can read (jpeg) and have duplicate files just to be able to view what edits I performed. Sort of like creating my own preview files rather than letting Lightroom, or whatever, create them for me. That is, assuming I maintain the original file names or provide some sort of link between the unedited raw file and the exported jpeg.

I've been there. No thank you.

In all candor, there's a reason why PM+ has not received the big embrace many were expecting. For photography, PM is a fast culling app. It wasn't and still is not a viable DAM.

I'm not real clear on what you mean. In my PM+ catalogs I can (and do) have all of my files - edited and raw. I have it watch specific directories and sync them. If you mean that the edits I perform in Capture One - as in steps I performed to get to the finished result - are not available to PM+ - that's true, but as far as I know that's true in any system - if I edit something in LR and then edit it in C1, I'd have to start over since the two raw processors are different under the hood. Standard metadata usually transfers - like star ratings, colors, tags, etc but that's it. Maybe though, I'm not clear on what you're saying.

Edit: Or maybe a better way for me to say it is that in PM+ I can see the base raw files plus renders of final edits - JPGs, etc. The steps to get there I can't see in PM+ (or any program that didn't do the editing).

 

[Ray2]

I'm not real clear on what you mean. In my PM+ catalogs I can (and do) have all of my files - edited and raw. I have it watch specific directories and sync them. If you mean that the edits I perform in Capture One - as in steps I performed to get to the finished result - are not available to PM+ - that's true, but as far as I know that's true in any system - if I edit something in LR and then edit it in C1, I'd have to start over since the two raw processors are different under the hood. Standard metadata usually transfers - like star ratings, colors, tags, etc but that's it. Maybe though, I'm not clear on what you're saying.

Edit: Or maybe a better way for me to say it is that in PM+ I can see the base raw files plus renders of final edits - JPGs, etc. The steps to get there I can't see in PM+ (or any program that didn't do the editing).

And that's my point. Standalone DAM's require a workaround for the most basic of use cases, viewing edits. Seeing what you've done. Selecting what you want. Standalone DAM's put us in the position of repeatedly opening the editors to view edits or continually exporting jpeg "versions" to view what we've done to raw files. Its why many of us chose to pay the price and use an integrated catalog and editor. If Lightroom were $50 for a perpetual license, how many people would use browsers or file systems for DAM? I don't include standalone DAM like PM+ as I really do not believe they're of much use when it comes to photography.

When I used PhotoSupreme, I would religiously keyword images. That would show in PhotoSupreme. But all I could see were the original raw files. It could drill down across folders/drives and show me a bunch of tagged images that bore no resemblance to what I was looking for. So, open (at the time) Aperture or C1 and find it there. Which made me wonder why I was using standalone DAM in the first place.

Just my view. You have yours. They both seem to work for us.

 

[r.harris1]

And that's my point. Standalone DAM's require a workaround for the most basic of use cases, viewing edits. Seeing what you've done. Selecting what you want. Standalone DAM's put us in the position of repeatedly opening the editors to view edits or continually exporting jpeg "versions" to view what we've done to raw files. Its why many of us chose to pay the price and use an integrated catalog and editor. If Lightroom were $50 for a perpetual license, how many people would use browsers or file systems for DAM? I don't include standalone DAM like PM+ as I really do not believe they're of much use when it comes to photography.

When I used PhotoSupreme, I would religiously keyword images. That would show in PhotoSupreme. But all I could see were the original raw files. It could drill down across folders/drives and show me a bunch of tagged images that bore no resemblance to what I was looking for. So, open (at the time) Aperture or C1 and find it there. Which made me wonder why I was using standalone DAM in the first place.

Just my view. You have yours. They both seem to work for us.

Yes, and if I came across as confrontational, that wasn't my intention . Just trying to make sure I was clear on what you were saying. Indeed I think of DAM as fairly personal anyway - it's literally just a process to help you manage your digital assets. While there are certainly applications that can help, they tend to fall into the camps of "One Application for Everything - cataloging, raw processing, etc" or "A collection of different tools to help get you where you want to go". There doesn't seem to be a bridge between the two (at least that I am aware of). I either have to go "all in" on Capture One (or Lightroom or..) or I have to get used to some level of cognitive dissonance. For some reason I prefer the latter, dunno why.

 

[Ray2]

Yes, and if I came across as confrontational,

Not at all. I think its beneficial to others to see our pov's.

 

[MevetS]

I think you did a superb job of not answering my question.

However, "But only saved images can added to catalogs." pretty much says it all. [... snip ...]

In which case I guess I answered your question.

But I'll be sure not to waste your time in the future.

 

[ssmed]

Adobe Bridge 2021 is free - not sure if this a change, but reported in a number of places. I thought it was bound to CC!