Image Catalogue - About Adobe Element 6

ifocus

This is always a very open question but what do you think of Adobe Element 6 to cataloge images? I am using Imatch but not happy, it does not fit my needs. Idimager seems alright but ACDsee looks easier to use. However, I would like the versioning capability. I have no need for the image editing part. Any toughts?

--JY

dadwtwins

I feel most software for image orginazation is way bigger and complicated then i need. If you do not need all the features of programs like lightroom, then I would go with the easy, simple, stable, sensible ACDSee. Its cheap, simple to use and works like a charm.

I used lightroom for a few months but I realized it was more effort then i needed and I was forcing myself extra work for nothng. I went back to ACDSee 10 and felt an instant gratification of ease.

claudermilk

How does IMatch not fit your needs? Just curious.

BTW do you mean Photoshop Album? Elements is the cut-down version of Photoshop--unless it's morphed into a half PS/half Lightroom kind of thing. I don't think Elements is what you're looking for.

Other DAM options are iView (or whatever MS is calling it now), IDImager, ACDSee, LR.

MarkR

I believe that Elements 6 comes with the full version of Adobe Bridge -- same version that comes with CS3.

EDIT: apparently the Album product has been rolled into PSE.

ifocus

The Hobbyist wrote:

I believe that Elements 6 comes with the full version of Adobe Bridge -- same version that comes with CS3.

EDIT: apparently the Album product has been rolled into PSE.

Yes, the album product seems to be in PSE 6 so what the heck, if it is there may as well use it! It also has versioning capability.

About Imatch; well it is really slow to load on my computer for one point. I spent 80 hours cataloguing all my images and the database got corrupted so could not open. I had a back-up but not of the full database. The categuory assigment is not as friendly user as ACDsee or Idimager for example.

Moreover, I know nothing about scriting and too many features so I ended up being overwhelmed but the one I really need is versioning. Imatch might be great for some but it is too hard to use for me. Beside, I am still mad about my hours lost despite it might have happen with other application as well.

--JY

Duffy Pratt

I used Album, packaged with Elements, for a couple of years. It had some features that I thought were very convenient, including the automated versioning, and the automated packaging for e-mail delivery.

As the catalog got bigger (appox. 2500 pictures), I started to notice a decline in performance. The speed for searching started to get slower and slower. Also, the versioning worked great, until it didn't. If there was an OBDC connection problem, you could get a photo that did not get put into a version. And I couldn't find any way to do it manually.

The other big headache with the software was that it did not behave well if a file either moved to a different location or disappeared. You could only move locations of files from within the program, if you wanted to keep the database features. But the tools for moving were slow, and not all that reliable.

I've switched to Bridge now, and traded one set of headaches for another. But overall, I like Bridge better. It's harder, so far, to find a particular photograph. And there isn't anything like the version capability, although with some intelligent naming and filtering, that isn't too much of a problem.

I never updated Elements past Elements 3, and I don't know if the Album component has been updated or not, so the product may be more flexible now than when I used it. But I have shied away from Adobe's photo database problems because of the ODBC connection problems I had with my version of Album.

Hope this helps,

Duffy

ifocus

Duffy Pratt wrote:

I used Album, packaged with Elements, for a couple of years. It had some features that I thought were very convenient, including the automated versioning, and the automated packaging for e-mail delivery.

As the catalog got bigger (appox. 2500 pictures), I started to notice a decline in performance. The speed for searching started to get slower and slower. Also, the versioning worked great, until it didn't. If there was an OBDC connection problem, you could get a photo that did not get put into a version. And I couldn't find any way to do it manually.

The other big headache with the software was that it did not behave well if a file either moved to a different location or disappeared. You could only move locations of files from within the program, if you wanted to keep the database features. But the tools for moving were slow, and not all that reliable.

I've switched to Bridge now, and traded one set of headaches for another. But overall, I like Bridge better. It's harder, so far, to find a particular photograph. And there isn't anything like the version capability, although with some intelligent naming and filtering, that isn't too much of a problem.

I never updated Elements past Elements 3, and I don't know if the Album component has been updated or not, so the product may be more flexible now than when I used it. But I have shied away from Adobe's photo database problems because of the ODBC connection problems I had with my version of Album.

Hope this helps,

Duffy

This is really useful. I am evaluating a few software right now and I will post my impressions. Stay tuned! --JY

claudermilk

Back when I was getting started with the whole DAM thing I played with Album & found the same. It had a nice UI and a couple of handy features, but performance and stability fell off alarmingly rapidly. So, I went looking more. It actually took me two times looking at IMatch before settling on it. Yes, it's UI is not up-to-date (for now, things are changing), and the sheer number of fetures is a little intimidating at first--kind of like Photoshop, but it can do whatever you need one way or another.

I did have similar issues with my v3.5 database a couple of times. Since updating to v3.6 those are gone. I've also utilized the IPTC fields to back up the categorization (dot-notated hierarchial category storage in the Supplemental Categories fields--works like a charm & saved my butt on those lock ups).

Using scripting is optional and there's so many useful ones already written all you have to do is copy the file & run it. It is nice to have the option if needed. Oh, and there's several script gurus on the support site that have thrown together scripts to help out other users many times, so you might not even need to code it yourself.

A new update was just released yesterday incorporating some of the next version's technology (side-by-side image comparison). Versioning is the top of the list of new things to add as that's probably the biggest weakness in the current version--though through scripting users have made a few workarounds.

I know I come off as a fanboy, but I find the app immensely useful, probably one of the best photographic investments I've made. D

ifocus

I really appreciate your insight and I think IMatch is a nice piece of software; it accomplishes a lot. However, my machine is 4 years old despite I have 2 gig RAM and a nice video card. I updated Imatch last night and here is what I found;

1. I open the program and it takes at least 30-45sec to load the database. I have only 10,000 images, not that big. Version 3.6.50 was doing the same. I have time for a coffee sometimes a snack.

2. Category assignment using drag&drop is very slow. It makes Imatch too much pain.

3. SBS Window crash the program every time when I close it. Once again, might be my configuration.

Well, I am pretty sure my machine cannot run IMatch smoothly; it is probably not the software. I am giving up after a few hours of trying. So far, ACDsee 10 is the simplest, fastest and smoothest on my computer.

I bought IMatch so I will follow its development and keep trying as new versions are coming out, may be it will get better.