What's Your Workflow & Directory Structure?

cdub

Hi everyone,

I'm starting to accumulate a lot of photos in Aperture, which I bought about a month ago. Until then I'd been using iPhoto for basic/non-RAW PP and archiving.

Regarding Directory Structure: I'm debating building the foundation of my organization as projects and albums of chronological order and then using keywords to group them. This seems to be the normal way to go. I wonder, though, if this is the simplest and best way to manage photos in Aperture?

I'd like to know who out there has a directory structure they find to be efficient and easy-to-use on either Aperture or LR, and what it is.

Regarding Workflow: Currently, I d/l photos into a pre-sort project folder, where I Quick Preview them and eliminate losers. From there, I do a 100% crop scan of similar images (stacked images) and pare down even further. Remaining photos are then cropped, adjusted and otherwise processed. Then I move the finished images into their respective organizational project and album folders.

I'd also like to know who has a workflow they find works for them, being straightforward, easy and manageable, and what it is.

Thanks all.

W.W. Webster

My directory structure is dead simple, because I have no clients or other such issues to address:

Images -> YY Shoots -> YYMMDD Shoot Short Name

In other words and by way of example, each 2009 shoot is in an individual folder with all folders in ascending date order within the folder "09 Shoots". Images are managed in place as referenced files under Lightroom, and are heavily keyworded to ensure quick search and retrieval as may be required.

This works for my purposes but YMMV. Others can comment on workflow.

T. Bombadil

cdub wrote:

Regarding Directory Structure: I'm debating building the foundation of my organization as projects and albums of chronological order and then using keywords to group them. This seems to be the normal way to go. I wonder, though, if this is the simplest and best way to manage photos in Aperture?

A big part of the appeal (for me) of Aperture is that organization can be tailored. You can use a chronological approach for images where that is useful and something else when the time frame is not so much the point. If you think about what reasons you will have for going to find particular photos, you will guide yourself to the right organization (hint: you will not often be looking for "Pictures I took in July 2008" so much as you might be looking for "Pictures of ____ event").

I (total amateur) typically establish a Project for a particular subject. Projects of similar subjects get put in a Folder together (you can have Folders _of_ Projects, and a different kind of Folder _in_ a Project).

Generally, I don't find it useful to have a chronological arrangement of Projects, though sometimes . . .

For example, I have a top level Folder named "Sports" which holds the following sub-Folders and Projects:

Baseball (a Folder that holds Projects named by the date of the game they concern)
Karate (a Project which holds all Karate images)
Tubing (a Folder which holds two Projects, each named by the Year of capture)
Winter (a Folder which currently holds only one Project named 2009 Skiing)

Similarly, I have a top level Folder named "Travel" which contains sub items with country names. Most country names are Projects, but some are sub-Folders containing Projects named after a region.

My Sports photography is primarily of my son. My travel is primarily for fun, with Family. I have a Family Folder also). So why put photos of my son in the Sports Projects or Travel? Because those images are going to be used/shared in the context of a web posting or photo book about Sports or a particular vacation.

So I guess my point is you shouldn't feel as though you need a rigid approach. Some topics will warrant several layers of organization while others will be plenty convenient dumped all together.

When I have a "Client" (I'm never paid, but sometimes do work for non-profit orgs), those images are organized by Organization, and put in Projects by event date.

Put the pictures that you think of as belonging together, together (captured together, or for the same purpose). You will still have the ability to pull particular shots out for other purposes keywords (especially if you have done a good job managing keywords). If I want to see all photos of my son in a certain time frame with or without other family members/pets - I will use keywords (Smart Albums) to find those - so it doesn't matter where they are filed.

cdub wrote:

Regarding Workflow: Currently, I d/l photos into a pre-sort project folder, where I Quick Preview them and eliminate losers. From there, I do a 100% crop scan of similar images (stacked images) and pare down even further. Remaining photos are then cropped, adjusted and otherwise processed. Then I move the finished images into their respective organizational project and album folders.

I do something similar. I have a top level Project named " Inbox" (yes, there is a leading space in the name - so it will appear first in the Library) to which I import all new images.

I spend some time culling images from the Inbox, assign keywords, and give a rating (zero, one, or two stars. no star means i haven't looked at it closely enough to even be sure i should keep it. one means don't delete, two means it is worthy of some time adjusting and may be good enough to share). Then I move all images out of the Inbox to an appropriate Project (which sometimes means creating a new Project). More images get deleted later when I have given thought to all that were captured (did I get that person enough times, this is a good shot but that is better and has same objectives, etc.)

Many of my Projects have a Smart Album in them which pulls images from that Project which are rated 2 or above (sometimes 3 or above) to show me a subset of "share worthy" images. I often change ratings up or down to include/exclude images in the pool of photos that will be posted on a website or printed. You could do the same thing with a regular Album instead, but I have no other interest in star ratings than knowing which are good enough to show to others and which are not.

W.W. Webster

I should have added that I used exactly the same structure while an Aperture user, until I saw the light!