The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Digital Asset Management

David K

Workshop Member
What I feel is important is that David doesn t establish subfolders within the wedding folder ..rather using some combination of flagging,rating and keywords to support his search requirements.
Roger,
I have been creating a Develops subfolder of late and, on occasion, a Selects subfolder which contains the images selected by the model. I think Jack has talked me out of the Develops folder and I suppose I could handle the Selects with flags or ratings.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Roger,
I have been creating a Develops subfolder of late and, on occasion, a Selects subfolder which contains the images selected by the model. I think Jack has talked me out of the Develops folder and I suppose I could handle the Selects with flags or ratings.
Lightroom and Aperture will both work end to end for most requirements...but I would expect that if you want/need to use another raw convertor ...your workflow would have to handle a post conversion file as well as the original raw. Otherwise you can not go back to the raw ...as the raw convertors improve. I had good advice on this in a previous post but still can t seem to get my arms around it.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
FTR, I am not anal about subfolders. I use them a lot on larger shoots, and rarely on smaller shoots. IOW their use is predicated on the shoot. So I would say use them if and when they make sense, don't bother with them if they don't; ou can always add them later. Your cataloging software will browse them regardless...

But you do have a workflow constraint with your Sinar raw files in that the software basically forces you to convert your camera raw file to another usable raw format (DNG?) before you can manipulate it in conventional programs. So I would definitely keep a pair of subfolders, one with just the original camera-generated raws and a separate one with the DNG raws (or whatever they are), so you can easily access the original files for future reprocessing when Sinar gets the workflow constraints ironed out, or if a better raw processor comes along...

Cheers,
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Don t we have a similar set of issues on the output end of the process. If I remember correctly (from Jack s workflow) ..you go back into CS3 for final sharpening and other adjustments tailored to your print or web output. I am assuming that these are ..overtime ..optimized for a specific printer/paper combination. Since I might want to print another exact print...don t I also save my print files? Right now I just create a folder of my print files..the volume is low enough that its not an issue.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Don t we have a similar set of issues on the output end of the process. If I remember correctly (from Jack s workflow) ..you go back into CS3 for final sharpening and other adjustments tailored to your print or web output. I am assuming that these are ..overtime ..optimized for a specific printer/paper combination. Since I might want to print another exact print...don t I also save my print files? Right now I just create a folder of my print files..the volume is low enough that its not an issue.
Let me try and clarify. One of my large shoot subfolders is usually going to be for "Print". I do work a file to it's optimal for output at its native size, then uprez or downrez and adjust output sharpening based on that final size. So my print files always have the size as part of the filename. Using my previous example, I might have both a CarolRedDress_16x24_8133 and a CarolRedDress_12x18_8133. Assuming this is a large shoot, I would have both of these in the same subfolder: Images/2008/Carol_080626/Print
 

David K

Workshop Member
Jack, do you have a specific file type that you always print from, i.e. jpeg, tiff, psd, or does it vary.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I have been creating a Develops subfolder of late and, on occasion, a Selects subfolder which contains the images selected by the model. I think Jack has talked me out of the Develops folder and I suppose I could handle the Selects with flags or ratings.
David
Not only do I not think you need a Develops subfolder - I think it's a bad idea . . . but not as bad as a Selects subfolder - just make a selects_smart_album within your project in Aperture - use 5* as the criteria, then as you mark shots as 5* they'll go straight into your album - if you mark them back they'll come out.

Instead of using a develops subfolder use versions in Aperture - if you're processing in CS3 / viveza / whatever, then do it from within aperture - it'll make a new version up and store it with the original in the same folder. You can easily see it in your aperture library (preferably kept in a stack with the original RAW file). If you must have a version for printing you can keep that there as well - give it a keyword 'printing' if you like.

The minute you shell out organisational work from within Aperture to something else, be it file structure or whatever, then you are missing the DAM point - instead of thinking what you want outside Aperture, think what you want inside Aperture. It makes life so much easier for backup and everything.

I understand that Jack has developed a workflow over a long period, and he may shoot me down in flames - I had a similar one before I held my breath and jumped in with both feet - I cannot possibly tell you the amount of time it's saved me.

Just an example - a client wanted a series of very large flower prints to decorate a new barn conversion - I made up a smart album with 4* and above rated pictures with 'flower' in the keyword and created a web page:

Flower Gallery

The whole process took less than ten minutes and he ordered a number of prints directly from the page.

If you're a 'real' pro, then shoots are going to be pretty much self-contained; a wedding is a good example, a PR shoot for a company is even better. It's going to be really easy to find the shots in a well organised file structure like Jack's.

If you're an occasional seller of photos you are often going to get requests for a type of photo you've shot before - using something like Aperture really REALLY helps here - before you allow any of your organisation to go outside the Aperture DAM you should think very hard about whether you can accomplish it from inside.

Another example - I have an ongoing project of photos of scarecrows - I have a smart album which has 'scarecrows' as a criteria - any new shots taken and keyworded will automatically end up in that album.

For me, the original file structure needs to be logical in case of disaster, and because it's easier to organise backups . . . but after those RAW files have been copied to my photography drive, everything else is done from within Aperture - even if I'm shelling out to another program.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Jono I am with you if you decide to use an integrated solution (aperture,lightroom etc). But Jack s workflow is really "best of breed" . He may use a number of different raw convertors ..either by choice or because its required by the manufacturer. This necessitates a raw file (for full backup and the opportunity to reprocess as raw convertors improve) and a converted file . So it would seem that a logical folder/file structure would be maintained by OS x . The files once converted would then be imported (referenced) in A/L to have access to the DAM tools. Does your workflow provide for this? or are you converting in Aperature. IMHO the perfect solution would be to have a virtual stack for any image....raw,converted,maybe BW conversion,print 13x19 etc,share web,large web etc. Obviously not for every image but once created ....stored(or referenced) as a stack. I dont care if the folder structure has a print folder,web folder etc..because the view is managed by the DAM software. Roger
 

LJL

New member
Just wanted to echo some of Jono's comments. Aperture will let you manage things pretty much to whatever your needs.

As Jack does, I create a new folder from a shoot. I dump all the RAW images from that particular outing into that folder. I then rename those files, by simply adding a date prefix to them, retaining the original camera naming convention (e.g., _X5Dxxxx.cr2 for shots from my 1DsMkII, or _L100xxxx.dng from a Leica M8, etc.). So the new files become 072708_X5Dxxxx.cr2, as an example from a July 27, 2008 shoot. That name stays with all files, regardless of what I do with them. Any that get processed, get another letter added to the end (p for PS, a for Aperture, C for C1, etc.), and print files get a "size" associated also. So a file processed in PS to a 11x14 size for printing would become 072708_X5Dxxxxp11.psd, or if done also in C1 it would become 072708_X5Dxxxxc11.tif as an example. (I keep the size telegraphic...4 for 4x6, 5 for 5x7, 8 for 8x10, etc., or if odd sized, use that size, such as 8x12, 22x26, etc.) All of those files stay in the original folder with the RAW files, so they never get separated. The naming allows me to know which have been processed, and even by which method and to what printing size. All of those also get referenced in Aperture, so that they can be arranged in whatever folder or sorting structure I want. The utility here is that Aperture allows me to place things into whatever folder structure is convenient, such as Jono's "Scarecrows" smart folder, or whatever, but I can still go back to the the original folder to retrieve RAW or processed images to use any other way I want.

The concept of stacks applies nicely here also. I can keep the RAW and any versions of that image in a single stack in Aperture, so I may have 3-4 sizes, B/W, Viveza, different crops, etc., all in the same stack. As long as you keep the links back to the originals intact, you can work on new versions of things in Aperture, saving them back to the Aperture Library, or exporting those versions out to whatever folder or place you want, including back to their original folder (recommended). That keeps all files and versions of things processed differently or sized for printing all in one place. So if you need to pull up a file, make a print, or create a Web gallery from something other than Aperture, for example, all of the files are easily accessible. With the coding, you can do simple searches on file type, or even wild card searches for specific processing or sizes if you wanted. Very flexible. Things stay managed in Aperture, but are completely organized in their original folder for access/use by other apps as needed.

One of the main reasons I have kept this structure from the very start, was that I did use Bridge and ACR/PS for a ton of my event stuff, and still do. I can access the files from Bridge by simply pointing to the original folder, no matter where it is, or from C1 the same way. The use of ratings and color codes help in sorting there. I have been able to find files very quickly, and know how they have been handled just by the file name. Nothing ever gets lost or misplaced, and by having things referenced in Aperture, I am able to take advantage of all the DAM and other offerings, but still not lose my original file structure. If having separate special folders is needed, that can always be done, but I still keep things with the originals as much as possible. The only exception is for client prints from an event. I keep a separate Prints folder that has each client in a sub-folder and all print versions for each client get copied there. (I started this practice to allow easier access and retrieval or images for clients, and also to permit easier use with a RIP. The RIP opens the Prints folder and I just cruise down to the client name and select images for printing or reprinting.) That Prints folder can get pretty big, but it is an independent file of all prints made for all clients, kept mostly as a business disaster recovery tool, and stored on an external FW drive to be accessed by any computer as needed.

It sounds complicated, but in reality, it is quite simple and very flexible.

LJ
 

David K

Workshop Member
It's clear I need further work on my Aperture skills... I'm reviewing the tutorials yet another time and am in the process of batch changing the IPTC info on my projects. Pretty simple actually, but a bit time consuming if you haven't kept up to date. Jono, I like the concept of smart albums replacing subfolders but not sure I'm quite with you yet. Let's say I want to post an image here on the folder. I'll typically open Finder, navigate to my Develops folder and pick the jpg (rather than tiff) image inside it. Of course if I set up my folder structure to sort by file type I guess I don't need the Develops folder. With regard to the Selects subfolder, I'm with you 100% on the smart album solution. Much more elegant.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I think we're all singing from the same prayer sheet - i.e. keep all files outside Aperture/LR, but use it for all organisation.
The only difference is the amount of outside work one does - I have sooo many converters:
Bibble
NX2
Silkypix
Capture 1
ACR
Lightroom
Aperture
(and that's just off the top of my head).
But on the whole I've decided to use Aperture for everything I can, because my extra skill with it (from using it more often) more than outweighs the extra features in different converters under different circumstances (if you see what I mean). If the camera isn't supported . . . then I convert to DNG (I'm thinking of doing that for everything anyway).

Of course, I do understand that I'm not a professional - I don't mess with RIP software for printing any more (again, I've got good at beating Aperture in to what I want - 2 is really very good for printing, and if it's bigger than A2 (22X17") then I get it done outside anyway).
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack, do you have a specific file type that you always print from, i.e. jpeg, tiff, psd, or does it vary.
I usually flatten my final print files and save them as 16-bit tiffs. I save my working CS files at native image size with all of their layers, and will usually use PSD/B and occasionally tiff -- I have no distinct preference for one over the other and use them interchangeably depending on the original file. I almost never print from a jpeg unless it is a small file or requested as such by the customer.
 

David K

Workshop Member
Jono, Roger, couldn't agree with you more. One of the truly great things about this forum is the way people are sharing their experience and knowledge. I've been on many forums but never found one with as much good information (and less bickering about "my stuff is better than your stuff"). Just a great place to hang out and learn.
 

sizifo

New member
One question. I've been using aperture, and really like it a lot. I've imported all the photos into the Aperture library, and in hindsight feel like this is a mistake, simply because I'd feel happier to manage the directories myself. However, I see no practical reason for doing this. So my question is - especially to those who use aperture for most of their work - what are the practical benefits of keeping referenced files?
 

LJL

New member
Well, for one thing, the Aperture Library will not be as large if you are only storing thumbnails and preview images for the referenced files, rather than storing the entire file also. This speeds up doing things in the application, especially if the image files being referenced are stored on another drive.

The "downside" is that you do need to be connected to the referenced files if you want to print, export, etc., as the thumbnails and previews are just meant for viewing in Aperture, and possibly for creating Web pages.

By having the original files stored in their own folders, it will allow you to access them by other applications. If you have everything stored in Aperture, it will be a bit harder to get at things, or you will have to export the master file. However, Aperture will let you shell out to other apps for doing things, such as to PS, etc., but it sends a TIFF or PSD file, unless you export the master and then pick that up from the other app. (In other words, if you have RAW files in Aperture, if you shell out to PS or something, it will use a processed file as a PSD or TIFF or JPEG, and not send the RAW file to be processed in some other application like C1. By leaving the RAW files outside of Aperture and just referencing them, that external folder structure lets you get at those files with other apps, should you need to.

LJ
 

sizifo

New member
OK. I've cleared this up with myself. The only benefits to have a ref. library are to save disk space, if you're on a laptop, or if you're using other programs for raw conversion.

I Recently got 300 gigs for my macbook. This should last for a long time.

Am I happy to use aperture as the sole raw converter? Yes

So, there's no problem really.

I guess what I was afraid of was being locked into aperture long term, because of the managed library. But apparently it's quite easy to go from managed to referenced if I ever choose to: File->Relocate masters for library :thumbup:
 

jonoslack

Active member
OK. I've cleared this up with myself. The only benefits to have a ref. library are to save disk space, if you're on a laptop, or if you're using other programs for raw conversion.

I Recently got 300 gigs for my macbook. This should last for a long time.

Am I happy to use aperture as the sole raw converter? Yes

So, there's no problem really.

I guess what I was afraid of was being locked into aperture long term, because of the managed library. But apparently it's quite easy to go from managed to referenced if I ever choose to: File->Relocate masters for library :thumbup:
Absolutely - I have referenced files because . . . . . . I'm a coward.
I think you may be right - and if you use the 'vault' for backup, what is there to worry about.
 

sizifo

New member
Absolutely - I have referenced files because . . . . . . I'm a coward.
I think you may be right - and if you use the 'vault' for backup, what is there to worry about.
There's one benefit right there - Time Machine vs. vault. Time machine is MUCH better, and it doesn't work with the managed library, at leas not in a very useful manner. For example, I tend to erase files permanently, and keep only the photos which I think are worth keeping. With a terabyte time machine disk, they could all be kept, in case of a change of heart.

To be fair, the vault also keeps the stuff you erased in a special directory, but the time machine interface would be much more useful.

If I was starting clean, I'd also keep all the files referenced, but don't think I can be bothered to rearrange, at least until a very long boring weekend comes along.
 
Top