storage/organize software
jme...@columbus.rr.com
GeneJones
> Anyone have suggestions for software to organize
ACDSee is fairly good, no need to get the latest one. v4.0 can be had for free
many places and does most of what latest versions do when it comes to cataloging
and searching. If you can find the ACDsee PowerPack for v4 then you also get
some very helpful utilities and add-ons that none of the later versions
included. Like ImageFox that is a Windows Explorer enhancement for putting
right-click editing tools on your Explorer context menu and image/multimedia
preview windows in all your open/save dialogue boxes in all your programs. It
also includes (among others) a utility called FotoSlate which is an fairly good
print-layout editor. Not as good as QImage, but almost as good if you have
nothing as good as that. If you can find ACDSee's "RealOptimizer" plugin for it,
then even better. It has an excellent JPG compression algorithm in it.
Compressing images as low as 30% (100% = no compression) in some photos with
little to no loss of details. I've not found a compression algorithm in any
other software that performs better. Once RealOptimizer is installed it's also
available from the right-click context menu of ACDSee's ImageFox in Windows
Explorer. Quickly and easily downsize and compress images for any application
for mail and web-pages. I still keep all of ACDSee v4's utilities installed on
my machines, even though I upgraded to ACDSee Pro v2.5 long ago. It takes a bit
of futzing around with ACDSee's system files to do so though, it disables
earlier utilities and add-ons with their upgrades. Not for the novice to try to
keep more than one version on your computer. If you want to keep all of v4's
extremely handy utilities and Window's add-ons then don't upgrade the main
program, unless you know how to work around system file incompatibilities.
For the best program dedicated just to cataloging, then ThumbsPlus Pro. Keeping
a database of all removable media, just scan all your backups. Among usual
keyword and filename searches it also allows you to search by image similarity.
Using percentage of color-metric, shape-metric, or both. Also set a maximum
number of results.
John
> Anyone have suggestions for software to organize
You could also try the excellent freeware program called 'FSViewer' here:
http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm
Regards,
John.
Don Stauffer
> Anyone have suggestions for software to organize
While I have a couple of programs that came bundled with image editing
packages, I keep going back to Windows Explorer. I find I get along fine
by making enough folders, and selecting the right image size option in
Explorer. And, the software does not automatically try to put my sound
and other files into one of the image folders when I plug something into
a USB port :-(
Peter in New Zealand
I would second that. I have been a keen hobby photographer since I was a
child (I'm 64 now), and so I have a vast collection not only of digital
photos, but literally thousands of old B&W prints and coloured slides
which are steadily being scanned into the computer. To manage all this I
looked at just about everything I could find out there, either freeware
or verycheapware. In terms of separate apps (as in separate from the os)
I really like Faststone. Picasa has some really nice features, but I
hate what it does to the folder display - IMHO its greatest weakness.
But I have now come full circle, and use Windows Explorer (running XP)
and have Irfanview (freeware) set up to open image files when double
clicked. Frankly I find that setup does everything I could possibly
need. The basic image management capabilities built into XP are excellent.
Hope this helps.
--
Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.
Jürgen Exner
>But I have now come full circle, and use Windows Explorer (running XP)
>and have Irfanview (freeware) set up to open image files when double
>clicked. Frankly I find that setup does everything I could possibly
>need. The basic image management capabilities built into XP are excellent.
The main drawback for any file/directory based system is the implied
tree hierachie. You cannot organize your files such that you can easily
find e.g. all photos from Christmas 2006, and all photos of uncle Bill,
and all photos of fall colors just to pick three examples.
If you organize them into different directories by date, then to find
photos of uncle Bill you will have to manually search in all the
directories covering 20 years because your organization system does not
use "uncle Bill" as a criteria.
And if you organize the photos by theme (e.g. occasion like Christmas or
Fall Colours) then again you don't know if uncle Bill is in one of those
photos or not and you have to manually search the whole archive.
And if you do it the other way around organizing the photos by people,
then you will have a hard time finding all photos from Christmas 2006,
because they will be in different directories again.
This is an inherent limitation of tree-like structures and the only way
around it is using a relational database system as typically is included
in many photo editing software packages and typically is called a
library or something like that.
There you can assign any number of hierarchical labels to a specific
photo, e.g. "Christmas 2006" which is in the group "Events 2006", and
"Uncle Bill" which is in the group "Bill's Family" which in turn is in
"Relatives" which in turn is in "People", and "Snow".
If now you want to get that photo, where your cousins were playing in
the snow just search for "Bill's family" and "Snow" and the library will
find that photo immediately as long as you tagged it correctly when you
added it to the library. And it doesn't matter at all where on the HD
the photo is located.
Is is worth the effort? Well, that's something only you can decide.
jue
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
> Anyone have suggestions for software to organize
Lightroom.
Paul Furman
Excellent points.
I do manage to muddle through all that using mostly just explorer.
Searching whole folder trees is not bad in vista, just type in the
top-right & click the option to search inside file contents. The tough
part is annotating or tagging. I keep annotations on my web pages &
those can be google searched on the web or in my local copy.
I have big hesitations committing that annotation to a proprietary system.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
ray
> Anyone have suggestions for software to organize
Personally, I use the built-in hierarchical file system to do that.
tony cooper
<jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>This is an inherent limitation of tree-like structures and the only way
>around it is using a relational database system as typically is included
>in many photo editing software packages and typically is called a
>library or something like that.
>There you can assign any number of hierarchical labels to a specific
>photo, e.g. "Christmas 2006" which is in the group "Events 2006", and
>"Uncle Bill" which is in the group "Bill's Family" which in turn is in
>"Relatives" which in turn is in "People", and "Snow".
>If now you want to get that photo, where your cousins were playing in
>the snow just search for "Bill's family" and "Snow" and the library will
>find that photo immediately as long as you tagged it correctly when you
>added it to the library. And it doesn't matter at all where on the HD
>the photo is located.
I use FastStone as my primary viewer, I name images by date
(2008-12-02-0001), and I use a tree system with folders by year
(Images2008) and special projects (Shoot-In).
Therefore, the Christmas 2006 images are all in folder Images2008 and
arranged by month. If I want Bill in the snow, I have to know
approximately when I photographed Bill.
>Is is worth the effort? Well, that's something only you can decide.
I've tried tagging systems, but it's just too much work. A good
folder system is much easier for me.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Paul Furman
When I put the folder system up on the web, it's theoretically going to
be searchable by location/event name & date. I don't really have it set
up right for the search bots though.
Flicker is amazingly easy for throwing things into 'folders' and or
tagging, annotating, etc. but I wouldn't want to commit my annotation
system to them. Nice model though. I have copied over some of my
annotation to flickr as well as tagged everything I uploaded there and
it sure is easy to search.
Clair Johnston
I use a directory structure similar to described above. Mine is
Photos>>Year>>Month and the the file is renamed to YYMMDD-seqno when I
bulk copy the files. I also use Faststone as my primary image viewer as
described by Tony.
With 20000+ images finding the image I want is sometimes slow. I have
been using KPhotoAlbum http://www.kphotoalbum.org/ on Linux as a
classification tool. I have tried others (windows and Linux) but all
pale in comparison. It is a pain to switch back and forth, but is
usually less time that manually hunting trough all the directories. The
most important aspect of classification software is when you first set
up the classification system. KPhotoAlbum allows the flexibility to set
up multiple views.
That is what I use, YMMV
Clair
Peter in New Zealand
That's a valid point. I'm kind of old fashioned I guess, and prefer to
use just the folder hierarchy to organise. I must admit though it leads
to a fantastically complicated folder structure with multiple layers.
Perhaps there will come a time when I have to consider something more
sophisticated. Thanks for the points you raised.
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
I believe the product would do the job, but it is a bit of
overkill for the specific use. The price is also a little high for
the intended use. Thanks anyway.
Stephen Bishop
Yes, it is higher priced, but it is an all-in-one solution that does
everything well. I also use it for RAW file conversion and 99% of
my image adjustments. Its catalog/sorting/keywording ability is
excellent. But if you only want to sort/store existing picture files
on your HD there are other options available. Picasa is good, and it
is free.