Well first off, if you took it in 2004, it wasn't keyworded by LR then because LR wasn't even a product yet. You had to at some point go back, spend an enormous amount of time and energy to get ALL(?) of your images into LR's library and keyworded, no?
HI there Jack - well, you could have keyworded in metadata before lightroom, but that's not the point.
Yes - I went back and spent a lot of time and energy keywording old files (in Aperture). I used to do a month a session, which took about an hour (for around 1000 shots), so, I guess that means 12 hours a year (if you see what I mean). Not an enormous amount of energy, and of course, nowadays when 'importing' images into lighroom or aperture (wrong word as I always leave them in their original position) you can apply generalised keywords to the shoot, and then specifics if relevant.
If you shoot any stock, or, indeed, if you want to produce a book of your sister's grandchildren for their Christmas present, then it's a huge and wonderful resource.
Of course, keywords can be exported and saved in metadata, so if you change software then you don't have to repeat the procedure.
In my case, I simply look in 2002, 03, 04, 05 and 05 for the "June Cornwall" folders and browse images for my buddy Neil. (And I guarantee you that took me less time than you spent keywording all those old files when you imported them into LR the first time!)
But you have to remember that such a file exists - it means that to be sure of finding them, you have to 'know' every file in your library. If you don't atually remember what pictures you have of Neil, then you're going to have to look through your entire library, folder by folder.
But even if you do remember the file - what if there are 20 more you need, you'll have to remember all of those as well, and perform the same sort of search.
I'll accept that finding one picture of Neil will be quicker than keywording all those pictures - but if you add in the time for finding pictures of Venice, Aunt Cynthia and Joey Bogdavitch's jewellery, then I'm going to start gaining on you!
When I find them, I edit them saving the variant as "Neil's Website" and output them all to a dedicated project folder. Note that the variant is not a separate file, just a sidecar set of adjustments like ACR's snapshot, though the new project folder contains processed files.
and
I can do the same with C1 under variants, although I prefer to keep the actual processed versions in their dedicated project or subfolders. I repeat, for my uses, storage space is cheap, so I do not worry a bit about having to add hard drives to my array or even having differing versions of the same file in different project folders.
I think that the 'variants' concept is well covered by quite a lot of programs now, My point having got my 256 (already rated) pictures of Neil, I can simply drag them to a web album and output them complete to a folder to ftp to whatever website. . . . then delete the output files leaving the web album with Aperture, which takes up virtually no disk space (although I recognise that isn't so important).
What's more, my Aperture library (and it's the same for LR) is on a small external hard drive which I can take with me, or take from one computer to another. All the files are referenced there with full screen thumbnails, so that if I'm away from home / office, I can still do a quick search and bring up a slide show or gallery - of course, Aperture and Lightroom are not alone in this ability - but there aren't other options which do everything.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, I've never tried it. Bottom line is C1 works so well, I don't look anywhere else -- EXCEPT I do continue to use ACR for files not supported by C1, like the G1's for example.
Again, not saying my system is the best, only that it works for me and I do not care one iota about LR's DAM features -- especially because it is not universal, but also the time required getting the files all keyworded. I get all the keywording I need by proper naming of my session folders to begin with
D). Moreover, I find a basic ability to search by metadata probably more valuable when in conjunction with the session and that is somewhat universal.
Cheers,
Well, the proper naming of session folders is important to me as well - in fact, I use your method as far as that goes, but the keywording is universal if it's stored in the ITPC data.
Whilst I'll agree that keywording is a pain, I can't agree that you can find pictures you've forgotten without it.
'I do not care one iota about LR's DAM features' sounds awfully like 'I have absolutely no need for autofocus'!
Whatever - Jack - I'm continuing this discussion because I think that it's relevant for people who haven't tried LR or Aperture to understand that there is a level that you can't go to with C1 or CS4 and ACR on their own.
I'm not saying that my system is best either - and, with a nod back to the original title, I use C1 for some files not supported by Aperture (notably the D-lux4) - I output them as tiff files and import those into Aperture, it works fine, but it's an extra step and an extra file.
