Photo workflow and organizing questions

tipsinartok

I've been spending the last little while searching through the forums here and on other sites, as well as Google, trying to get some tips/tricks for workflow and photo organization. Like others I have seen post here before me, I have hundreds (if not thousands) of pictures on my hard drive in a huge hodge podge and would like to start cleaning them up, as well as come up with a better system for the future. I'd like to eventually get The DAM Book (it's not available at the library here unfortunately), but the next thing I spend photography money on is going to be Lightroom or PSE. I have a couple of questions that I haven't really found much info on.

I think I want to organize my photos in a year/year-month/shoot or date structure. Within that last folder (shoot or date), would it be beneficial to have separate files for "raw", "edited", "web", etc, or do you keep all of your photos in the same folder? I've been naming them YY-MM-DD_001.xxx where the 001 is the order within the folder. I figured as I edit I can rename the file so it's YY-MM-DD_001_8x10.xxx (just for example). Currently I use Windows Explorer as my organization software, I assume that if/when I choose something better to use, the folder structure probably won't be as important? I've read some programs have stacks where you can have the same picture with it's various edits in one spot in the program, even if they're not together in folders, which is something I'd really like. Can PSE 7 do that? (I am going to be downloading the trials, but right now my computer won't run them. Hoping to get it reformatted as soon as I have a chance to figure out a few glitches I've run across.) Are there any programs that can do that and keep similar pictures together as well?

Right now, all I have on my computer are Picasa (which I'm iffy about so far and I've heard using that gives Google the rights to your photos?), DPP, and Photoshop 6 (not Elements). Until I get organized and figure out what software I'm going to buy, is it feasible to use DPP for most of my workflow/organization and use Photoshop for any details or editing DPP can't do?

I would love any advice or tips too. I'm watching the DPP tutorial right now and have gotten some great info from that, but would love to hear from people who are actually doing this every day! Thank you!

T. Bombadil

tipsinartok wrote:

I think I want to organize my photos in a year/year-month/shoot or date structure. Within that last folder (shoot or date), would it be beneficial to have separate files for "raw", "edited", "web", etc, or do you keep all of your photos in the same folder? I've been naming them YY-MM-DD_001.xxx where the 001 is the order within the folder. I figured as I edit I can rename the file so it's YY-MM-DD_001_8x10.xxx (just for example). Currently I use Windows Explorer as my organization software, I assume that if/when I choose something better to use, the folder structure probably won't be as important? I've read some programs have stacks where you can have the same picture with it's various edits in one spot in the program, even if they're not together in folders, which is something I'd really like.

I use Aperture (Mac only), so I can't help you choose software for a PC.

Having said that, I would recommend you move away from the idea of organizing your photos with directories/folders. Check out Lightroom (or Aperture, if you would consider a Mac).

If you think about why you are keeping the images (to be able to find certain ones later) you will find that folders don't help that much. Far better to be able to search for images based on a variety of attributes (sometimes you will be looking for photos with certain subjects, captured at a particular time, with a particular lens, etc., etc.). If you take a few minutes to add keywords to your images when you load them on your computer and have software that can search on that basis (plus other metadata already captured by the camera) you will be able to easily find the images you want. With a tool like Lightroom (or Aperture) you don't need to spend any time thinking about file names or folder structure - and you can easily change your mind about how the images are organized at a later date (which isn't so easy when the organization is accomplished through naming conventions and directory structure).

I think you will be much happier once you see what these newer tools can do.

mercphoto

tipsinartok wrote:

I'd like to eventually get The DAM Book (it's not available at the library here unfortunately), but the next thing I spend photography money on is going to be Lightroom or PSE. I have a couple of questions that I haven't really found much info on.

The DAM Book is great. But note that PSE has little to do with organizing files. Lightroom (and Aperture) however have lots to do with organizing files. I'd highly suggest using either and letting them manage the library for you. That removes one chore for you to do yourself.

I think I want to organize my photos in a year/year-month/shoot or date structure.

I'd actually suggest letting Lightroom manage your library for you.

Currently I use Windows Explorer as my organization software, I assume that if/when I choose something better to use, the folder structure probably won't be as important?

In other words you let the file system organize your images, which means that its you who is organizing your images. When you start using Lightroom let it import and manage the files for you. Then when you're confident they are all imported properly simply delete your existing folders and files.

jfriend

T. Bombadil wrote:

Having said that, I would recommend you move away from the idea of organizing your photos with directories/folders. Check out Lightroom (or Aperture, if you would consider a Mac).

If you think about why you are keeping the images (to be able to find certain ones later) you will find that folders don't help that much. Far better to be able to search for images based on a variety of attributes (sometimes you will be looking for photos with certain subjects, captured at a particular time, with a particular lens, etc., etc.). If you take a few minutes to add keywords to your images when you load them on your computer and have software that can search on that basis (plus other metadata already captured by the camera) you will be able to easily find the images you want. With a tool like Lightroom (or Aperture) you don't need to spend any time thinking about file names or folder structure - and you can easily change your mind about how the images are organized at a later date (which isn't so easy when the organization is accomplished through naming conventions and directory structure).

I think you will be much happier once you see what these newer tools can do.

I strongly disagree that organizing by sensible folders doesn't help you find things. I use Lightroom extensibly, but I don't entirely trust it's database to file away all of my photos so I put them in a logical hierarchy in the file system and then have Lightroom index on top of that. I use a directory structure like this:

Photos
....2009
........2009-01-25-Kevin-Soccer

As part of the process of downloading my images from my card reader, Lightroom is configured to automatically create a directory with the date in it and I add a meaningful "event name" to the directory. Greater than 90% of the time when I'm trying to find a given photo, I know the approximate date and then when I see the events in that approx date, I find the folder right away that contains the image. Yes, I do occasionally use Lightroom's extensive cataloging functions, but that is more often around generating collections of photos for a particular use (a holiday card, selecting photos to put up on the web, etc...) than it is to find a particular photo.

So, I wouldn't discount the usefulness of using a sensible directory structure. In this way, I could still find a RAW file I needed, even if my LR database was corrupted or unusable or if I had to find it in a backup image. You can have your cake and eat it to with both a sensible directory structure and no sacrifice in LR features.