New DAM Workflow Questions
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
|
-
#1. "RE: New DAM Workflow Questions" | In response to Reply # 0
quenton8 Registered since 11th Apr 2010Tue 02-Dec-14 11:20 AM | edited Tue 02-Dec-14 02:16 PM by quenton8I am curious why Photo Mechanic and Media Pro -- since Lightroom does those too?
I am also curious why no backend editor (e.g. Photoshop). I find there are a number of things I cannot do without Photoshop (e.g. remove a garbage pale from an otherwise good wedding shot, remove ugly spots on painted wall, ...).
LR + Photoshop is now only $10US a month, pretty good deal.----
Dennis Smith. -
#2. "RE: New DAM Workflow Questions" | In response to Reply # 0
JosephK Nikonian since 17th Apr 2006Tue 02-Dec-14 01:59 PMI can see using Photo Mechanic for card transfer and triage given its reputation for speed. I use ACDsee Pro for similar purposes.
For cataloging, I don't know how Media Pro and Lightroom compare, but since you have to import the photos into Lightroom's catalog before you can edit them, I would reconsider the two catalogs.
As pointed out, you are missing a pixel editor. Corel's Paintshop Pro is a great alternative to Photoshop, but the Lightroom+Photoshop bundle for $10 per month is a hard deal to pass up.
Using the same process for your personal and professional images works great. My recommendation would be to keep them in separate catalogs.
My current workflow:
Transfer the images via card reader using Downloader Pro by BreezeSys.com.
Sort and triage the images into Grade-A, Grade-B, and Delete-Me-Now using ACDsee Pro (cataloging turned off).
Import the Grade-A images into one of the Lightroom catalogs.
Do a final round of triage to see which images get edited.
Edit the to-be-public images, export them.
Upload the public files to my website.
The delete-me-now files have already been deleted.
Archive the Grade-A files to DVD, maybe archive the grade-B files.
Maybe delete the grade-B files.
---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Joseph K
Seattle, WA, USA
D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II, TC20e3,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX
-
#3. "RE: New DAM Workflow Questions" | In response to Reply # 2
quenton8 Registered since 11th Apr 2010Tue 02-Dec-14 02:26 PMMy workflow, using just LR and Photoshop ...- Import the files via a card-reader into LR -- yes its a bit slow, but I just let it run. Filenames as-is, filed by LR, YYYY/YYYY-MM-DD/filename
- Do a gross cull -- get rid of accidental exposures, black photos, white photos, totally out of focus photos.
- Look at them in more detail, one at a time -- delete ones I know I will never come back to, flag the real keepers as 5*. Why keep the others? My wife and daughter never agree with my choices
- Assign keywords (usually multiple) to the photos that remain
- Run LR Develop on each 5* photo
- Pass photos needing pixel-editing through Photoshop. That would include cases needing cloning out of obnoxious elements, spot removal beyond LR's ability, in extreme cases copy/paste (e.g. one of a group with eyes closed).
- Export/Print as needed
- Backup the Catalog!! My images are backed up nightly to a second and third USB drive, one goes off-site each week
Note I am not a professional, I photograph for Family, Myself, my Church. I keep two Catalogs, mine and my Church's.----
Dennis Smith. - Import the files via a card-reader into LR -- yes its a bit slow, but I just let it run. Filenames as-is, filed by LR, YYYY/YYYY-MM-DD/filename
-
#4. "RE: New DAM Workflow Questions" | In response to Reply # 0
- At first glance it seems like there is quite a bit of overlap with those 3 programs. I can't work out where there is a need for Media Pro... I would have thought that Photo Mechanic and Lightroom would give you everything you need to manage your photos. Maybe you can be a bit more specific and step us through how a photo flows through your software.
> 2) Should I use sidecars or simply imbed the metadata into the file itslef?
- External files can get misplaced, imbedded data can't.
> 3) Are these software packages actively supported and updated, i.e. are they likely to be around for some time OR are there newer software packages that are establishing a stronger following?
- Photo Mechanic is definitely actively supported, as is Lightroom, but don't know enough about Media Pro to offer an opinion.
> 4) Except for the file naming conventions, can I use the same process for both my personal collection and a professional collection?
- I use the same process, including file name conventions, for everything I in my archive, from personal stuff to newspaper photos. In my opinion consistency is easier and probably safer.
5) Am I missing anything with this workflow?
- Not that I can see, but again, maybe with a step-by-step through the workflow we could be more helpful.
Cheers,
Gord.
-
#5. "RE: New DAM Workflow Questions" | In response to Reply # 4
jldodge Nikonian since 27th Sep 2009Sat 06-Dec-14 09:58 AMHere is my general workflow:
Transfer images via Photo Mechanic (rename, add metadata, create DNG file, file in folders by year)
Catalog images via Media Pro (rate pics, create folder for post processing in Paint Shop Pro/Lightroom)
Edit pics via Paint Shop Pro and Lightroom (resave files with updated file name)
Archive files on Blu-Ray disks for offsite storage
I selected Photo Mechanic because it has more of the features and functionality I wanted for the ingestion process. Media Pro was selected because it has better cataloging features, e.g. multiple catalogs can be open at the same time. I will be searching for pics across multiple years so needed the ability to have multiple catalogs open at the same time. Lightroom was selected because it appears to have some of the best post processing features.
I am very much against Adobe's "cloud" strategy as it handcuffs its customers for life. Software distribution is so cheap that they are not really saving money with their approach BUT they are significantly enhancing their revenue stream at the expense of their customers. Not my idea of a customer friendly software vendor. I may lose in the long run but will stand my position at this time since I have other options.
I have added Paint Shop Pro into the mix based on the suggestions here. Should it come before or after Lightroom in the workflow?
Can all of these software packages work with all metadata embedded in the file itself?
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#6. "RE: New DAM Workflow Questions" | In response to Reply # 5
JosephK Nikonian since 17th Apr 2006Sat 06-Dec-14 11:44 AM>I have added Paint Shop Pro into the mix based on the
>suggestions here. Should it come before or after Lightroom in
>the workflow?
I would put PSP in after/during Lightroom. Start with Lightroom. If it cannot do the edit you want, have it launch PSP. Lightroom will automatically handle the files passed to and from PSP.
>Can all of these software packages work with all metadata
>embedded in the file itself?
Most software does not read all the EXIF data to start with (Lightroom, PSP). Most software does not attempt to write to the original files by design (Lightroom, PSP).
---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Joseph K
Seattle, WA, USA
D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II, TC20e3,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX
-
#7. "RE: New DAM Workflow Questions" | In response to Reply # 6
jldodge Nikonian since 27th Sep 2009Sat 06-Dec-14 01:58 PMI like your suggestion on Paint Shop Pro. Thank you ...
As for the embedded EXIF data vs. the sidecar ... There appear to be "two sides" to the story. Is there a consensus view on sidecars? Are they more universally compatible? Can more EXIF data be stored and accessed in sidecars vs. imbedded? Would appreciate any thoughts on this topic as well ...
Thanks again for all the help/advice.Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#8. "RE: New DAM Workflow Questions" | In response to Reply # 7
JosephK Nikonian since 17th Apr 2006Sat 06-Dec-14 08:47 PMXMP files vs databases:
Databases are not shared between apps, so by default XMP files are the only method for shared edits. I don't know enough about the formatting of the XMP files to know if they are shareable between multiple software companies or not.
Sidecar vs imbedded:
Imbedding data requires updating the original raw file; that tends to be frowned on.
As with any "extra" data, the data format tend to be proprietary to the one company that wrote it, thus not really shared with anyone else.
However, there are standards for writing some "common" data, depending on the data you are looking to store.
---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Joseph K
Seattle, WA, USA
D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II, TC20e3,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX
-
#9. "RE: New DAM Workflow Questions" | In response to Reply # 7
F4Eman Registered since 23rd Jul 2014Sun 07-Dec-14 03:54 AM | edited Sun 07-Dec-14 03:59 AM by F4Eman> As for the embedded EXIF data vs. the sidecar ... There appear to be "two sides" to the story. Is there a consensus view on sidecars? Are they more universally compatible? Can more EXIF data be stored and accessed in sidecars vs. imbedded? Would appreciate any thoughts on this topic as well ...
I don't think one is any more universal that the other, or capable of storing more than the other. The more important consideration is how that metadata it is being written and read. One of the real beauties of Photo Mechanic is their firm belief in following ITPC/XMP standards and not making anything proprietary. Not only is PM arguably the most powerful metadata editor out there, but probably the most universal as well, because there are a huge number of options (in Preferences under IPTC/XMP) for configuring the reading/writing of metadata for almost any workflow. For example, Adobe handles metadata different that Nikon software, and these preferences let you set up PM to work better with Photoshop or Nikon NX-2, or whatever other software you use. Plus if you ever need to change the metadata behaviour in the future, there is even an option to batch-update existing images with your new configuration. You didn't mention where in the workflow you add metadata, but if you don't already use PM for that, I would highly recommend it.
And speaking of universality, it is possible to have an archive that does not use the proprietary databases that catalog programs use. At the newspaper I used to use PM for ingest and metadata and Portfolio for cataloging. I thought I HAD to use catalog software because at the time our server space was limited and I had to store images offline on DVD. One of the software developers at Photo Mechanic suggested to me a simple method of dealing with offline images without using a catalog program (I can elaborate if you're interested). So I dropped Portfolio, and haven't used a catalog program since. I have thousands of news photos plus a freelance archive and personal archive, and can find and manage anything I need in seconds, whether on my computer or offline. And the added bonus is that I have no proprietary systems or databases, so I'm not tied to any software.
As for the imbedded vs. sidecar debate, I'll throw in my 2 cents worth. I understand that some folks like to keep RAW files 100% untouched, suggesting that any editing increases the possibility of corruption. Personally, I ingest using PM, and during ingest I rename and attach keywords, copyright info etc.. I've done this for tens of thousands of images at the newspaper plus my own personal archive. I've never had a single archived image become corrupt, I've never talked to anyone it has happened to, or read about it happening. Even if a file did become corrupt, I'm not sure how anyone could determine that adding metadata had anything to do with it. So personally I just don't see any identifiable issue there.
PS... for your metadata questions, I'd suggest posting on the Photo Mechanic forum. Their support is amazing and very fast. 99% of the time you will correspond directly with one of the software engineers, so you will be getting answers "straight from the horse's mouth" (as opposed to MY answers, which are straight from the other end of the horse!!!).
Cheers,
Gord.
-
-
-
#10. "RE: New DAM Workflow Questions" | In response to Reply # 0
>up with the following workflow: Photo Mechanic (for
>ingestion), Media Pro (for cataloguing), and Lightroom (for
>editing, enhancing, etc.). Here are some of my questions for
>which I would like your observations, suggestions, or advice.
While speciality needs exist - from non-standard requirements for print output to highly creative and complex photo editing - and while amateurs and enthusiasts alike pursue such things just as ardently as pros who get paid to do so, I'm not sure your pursuits require learning and maintaining more than one or two pieces of software. That's a decision only you can make. So how many pieces of software do you want to purchase, learn and maintain?
I'm a long-time proponent of ACDSee Pro (for both Windows and Mac) for sorting, tagging (IPTC standard, etc.), rating, searching, cataloguing, and most important of all, converting (NEF to TIFF or JPG or whatever) and editing. I've also used ACDSee Pro quite successfully for print output.
ACDSee Pro or the ACDSee Photo Editor provide excellent tools for removal of (as mentioned by another member in an earlier post) errant garbage pails and other detritus spoiling an otherwise good photo. The tools are far more complex than that though, with full control over levels and curves, a very powerful (and fast) light EQ feature that has helped easily salvage more photos than I are to admit, and lots more besides. Healing, cloning, etc., etc. - it's all there.
Having Photoshop in your back pocket as well for the occasions on which you have to salvage a photo because an aforementioned garbage pail is spoiling it is too costly. Photoshop for print output, Photoshop for complex and difficult creative edits, Photoshop for layered edits, Photoshop for its vast range of powerful native and third-party plug-ins, and Photoshop for features such as the almost magical content aware functions is a great idea, but I think photographers have to take themselves firmly in hand to determine quite clearly whether they actually need Photoshop before simply spending the money on something they've been influenced into believing that all photographers are supposed to have. All the brilliant features of Photoshop come at a cost because none of them are employed automatically - they have to be learned. And Photoshop is difficult to learn; the most effective users actually use the software many times every week, thereby maintaining skills, the memory of where features and functions reside within the interface, and retaining previously learned technique.
ACDSee Pro falls down with its effects filters. One or two of them offer sophisticated effects application and editing, but most fall flat. ACDSee Pro picks up beautifully though in that it has been around for a very long time, has been marketed at amateurs and advanced amateurs and enthusiasts for a very long time, and has a mature and refined interface that is easy to understand and use. ACDSee Pro offers non-destructive JPG editing too, although all versions (in different competing editors) of non-destructive JPG editing have their limits. NEF/RAW conversion is very good - ACD Systems has been updating its RAW converter on a consistent lag for many years.
ACDSee started life back in the mid-nineties as a very fast photo viewer - the best on the market for many years, IMO. The software development team and the company (through a number of corporate changes and shifts) gradually moved the software into the full blown digital asset manager, cataloger, editor and output engine that it is today. Highly recommended.
My Photo.Net Gallery
My Nikonians Gallery
Howard Carson
#11. "RE: New DAM Workflow Questions" | In response to Reply # 0
I used to *love* MediaPro, whenever a Microsoft or a Phase One wasn't dipping into it. Its great merit, I thought, was its ability to hook into a variety of post processing software and the broad variety of image files it could handle for cataloging. As well, one could have multiple catalogs open at one time; meaning for me that I could have one with NEFs and another with textures, backgrounds, and ornaments, for example. No way to do that in LR, which wouldn't even consider PNGs, a very typical file format for textures to support transparency.
Then Phase One took over MediaPro, I think, to take out some yummy code so that could add cataloging into Capture One. MediaPro became unstable for a very long time. Lately, under Yosemite, it seems to have improved. At least, I can now update my largest catalog, with around 100,000 NEFs in it; and it doesn't crash like it used to. Nonetheless, Media Pro is a very natural DAM tool if you are going to work with Capture One. I do. I find it to be the best RAW processor available, but that's just my personal opinion.
My wife loves working in LR, and so my workflow, accounting for her and me, is to use Nikon's Transfer v2 to ingest files and rename them. I bring them into a disk/folder area that I point LR v5 to to "Add" files to its catalog. So there's a copy for my wife. Then I open up Capture One and bring the same set of files onto another disk in a folder structure for a Capture One session. Then I add that set of session files into Media Pro, making me happy. In this set of steps, there are now two independent copies of all the RAW files.
Having said that, if it was just her, ingesting files into two redundant locations and doing all of the cataloging and keywording work in just LR would be sufficient. If it was just me, doing the same thing in the combination of MediaPro and Capture One would be sufficient. However, we each politely agree to disagree about what's a suitable tool for work: she does a ton of batch processing on studio shots and I prefer to focus on just a handful of images that I work to death on. Two different styles and sets of goals.
Back to you... if you intend to use LR to edit images, I'm not sure I see the value of cataloging in MediaPro. Why not just use LR for all of that? You do not *have* to import images into your LR catalog; you can "add" them in place and they will still be accessible to other programs. While PhotoMechanic is a fine tool, and if you've already purchased it, I would not suggest throwing it away; but if not, Nikon's Transfer v2 is very effective at renaming files during ingestion, creating redundant copies, and adding basic IPTC data.
If you really do want to stick with MediaPro as a DAM (and it seems to be back into stable terrain), why not consider Capture One as your RAW editor? You can download a trial version and they too have a "cloud" licensing arrangement for a modest monthly price; although you might prefer the straight purchase. Unlike LR, Capture One allows you to employ any number of color spaces for your images, including the built-in ones from Nikon. Try comparing and contrasting images processed in LR with ACR and in Capture One to see if you have a preference. Even with proper camera calibration in LR, I personally prefer the results from Capture One. That comes down to some pretty technical stuff about the color model in ACR versus Capture One. But that's just me.
As well, Capture One allows you to do layer editing on your images, including such niceties as setting white balance under a mask, useful for those images with two or more lighting sources. And finally, Capture One supports cataloging for NEFs as well as file ingestion so it could be your go-to product for just about everything you want to do. Ingested and cataloged files are out on your machine's file system, so they are still accessible for independent backups and other programs.
There is one place where Adobe's products kill Capture One, and that is in printing. If you want great, easy printing then, IMHO, the print package in LR5 or PS cannot be beaten. You didn't mention how much you go to print at home versus sending out TIFFs to a print shop or JPGs for web. If you out-source printing, then Capture One stands up well. If you run your own big Epson, then printer calibration and color management become incredibly important. For that, stick with Adobe would be my advice.
Visit my Nikonians gallery
G
After a fair amount of research and forum reviews, I have come up with the following workflow: Photo Mechanic (for ingestion), Media Pro (for cataloguing), and Lightroom (for editing, enhancing, etc.). Here are some of my questions for which I would like your observations, suggestions, or advice.
1) Are there any issues or inherent conflicts with this workflow that I should be aware of or consider?
2) Should I use sidecars or simply imbed the metadata into the file itslef?
3) Are these software packages actively supported and updated, i.e. are they likely to be around for some time OR are there newer software packages that are establishing a stronger following?
4) Except for the file naming conventions, can I use the same process for both my personal collection and a professional collection?
5) Am I missing anything with this workflow?
Thanks in advance for your help on this project ...