Most efficient cataloging option?
My Nikonians Gallery
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed
-
#1. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 0
Hi Gary,
You're going the wrong way . On a Mac you lose the option of IDImager or iMatch for a cataloger. I use iMatch. Depending on what you want to do that might be a good solution. I too briefly eval'd IDimager; that seems like a good product.
Photomechanic appears to be somewhere near the end of a very long process of bringing out at least a public beta of their cataloger, which will almost surely run on a MAC, as does their PhotoMechanic browser.
I don't use LR. I see a lot of discussion about how LR does not coexist well with CNX butI do not appreciate the details nor pay much attention other than it would be a point of research for me if I ever consider LR.-
#2. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 1
glxman Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008Sun 01-Jul-12 07:25 PMTks for the heads-up Neil,
"I don't use LR. I see a lot of discussion about how LR does not coexist well with CNX but I do not appreciate the details nor pay much attention other than it would be a point of research for me if I ever consider LR."
May have to do more research, hardware here is getting "shaky" so will have to up-grade shortly,
So many questions, If you see a post somewhere else on the "planet", it will most probably be me
Regards,
GaryMy Nikonians Gallery
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed-
#5. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 2
Gary,
Your big decision is which raw rendering app you want to use, and then the catalog decision more or less follows that.
LR gives you an all in one solution - rendering, browsing and catalog app. It can be very difficult to get 2 or 3 apps (rendering, browsing and catalog) to inter-operate properly. Mainly this inter-operating has to do with IPTC and XMP data - including and especially color coding and ratings.
Most or all apps, except Nikon, work with side car files (usually or always XMP). CaptureNX and ViewNX do not. Right out of the gate that causes problems because it is the sidecar files that allow these apps to talk to each other.
With iMatch, for example, it can and will update raw files with ratings, etc., but in the help text, in BIG BOLD RED LETTERScolor=red> it warns the user to do so at their own risk and warns of possible corruption.
And generally speaking, the way the developer discusses his issues with raw files (in his support forum) does not lend great confidence when I'm thinking about doing something like that to my 300,000 image archive. I'm a bit conservative about things like possible data corruption.
Because of all that, it is not clear to me how many people actually update their raw files with iMatch, and there is no way to know, no surveys available. Therefore no way to get a handle on how well tested it is in the real world.
CameraBits (PhotoMechanic) is very confident about their ability to work with and update raw files so a lot of users do it (including me) and have had no issues. It is well tested. But some people believe raw files should never be touched, especially by 3rd party apps and I certainly respect that and I may go that way too some day (it is a preference of mine too, to eliminate my Photomechanic updating of my raw files).
I got PhotoMechanic and iMatch to talk to each other, such that ratings applied by Photomechanic applied before the iMatch ingest are recognized by iMatch. I think I also have or had Photomechanic aware of changes iMatch made (ratings, etc.) but the way I use the two it is or should be a moot point because truly PM should not be updating images after they are cataloged.
If iMatch was a better browser that would work well for me. Since it is not good at browsing large folders or groups of images efficiently (at least for me) it creates some complicated issues that I am still, years, later, trying to work out. And waiting for iMatch's long awaited product update.
I went into all the above just to totally confuse you (as you should be from all that) and impress on you that if you can make LR work, it eliminates all that adventure. You just have to be happy with the way LR renders raw files, and generally be happy with the mechanics.
For example, in CaptureNX, I can update the raw file, save it, and the embedded JPG (which the catalog apps use for their display image) reflects my changes. That is hugely valuable for me, especially since iMatch does not really support proper versioning. Hopefully the next version, should it ever be released, will support that but there is no way to know for sure at this point in time.
CNX also eliminates the need for me to make huge TIF or PSD files incorporating my images. That saves me a huge amount of storage space, reduces the number of file versions I must maintain, and I generally like the way Nikon handles that. However, it is actually that feature that leads to the inter-operability issues .
It is not clear to me how LR would deal with that in my real world work flow, or how much I would be forced to change my old habits to conform to an LR-centric workflow.
LR will never update the raw file, but it deals with the problem in different ways and I think it has better versioning capability. From a catalog perspective I would now place a very high value on good file versioning, which would tie the various raw, tif, psd and jpg versions of a particular image together.
I have eval'd LR from time to time but they are a moving target, now on the 4th version. A lot of the issues I saw early on (especially performance for the image catalog size I would need) have been mitigated at least to some extent, and it appears that LR can better emulate Nikon's stock output via picture controls. But it will never "sync" with the camera's picture control settings. So there lies some important decisions and trade-offs.
If you stick with CatpureNX I would watch the developments with Camerabit's cataloger very closely for the following reasons:
1. It will surely interoperate with its own Photomechnaic browser very well since they control both ends. There are good reasons to pre-cull images before cataloging, and that leads to using a front end browser and that leads to the interoperability issue.
2. I think they figured out how to inter-operate with CaptureNX as well as anyone could, given Nikon's refusal to support sidecars. That is where my iMatch/PM/CNX flow does not work well and why I have to use CNX strictly as an image editor, avoiding the ratings, IPTC udpating, etc.
3. If you have a large enough database, performance can be crucial. A cataloger can be a huge consumer of machine resources. If Camerabit's catalog is as well written and thought out as PM, it will be a huge success in that way. And I have a lot of confidence they will do that.
4. Last, and maybe most importantly, if you want to go MAC your options will be far more limited than in Windows, and Camerabits will surely write the app for Mac. They are actually more Mac-centric than Windows-centric and windows is almost, but not quite a step-child variant. (maybe not unlike Adobe?). For example, their help manual is directed at MAC, windows users have to translate the control keys, and etc. Not a big deal to me as a Win user but it shows they are very focused on MACs and that is important to you.
Someone needs to write a more coherent explanation of all this but it won't be me, today . It is a very complex subject and can be a quickly moving target as these apps evolve. Especially LR, which has gone through 3 evolutions while, for example, Camerabits and iMatch have worked on beta 1 or their next version, respectively.-
#6. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 5
glxman Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008Mon 02-Jul-12 06:52 AMWow!
Scary stuff there Neil!
Thank you for you very detailed input, to be honest, and your right, I don't fully understand it all but get the gist of what you are saying, I think?
I was hoping to live in two worlds that is manage two platforms, that is keep the systems, ViewNX2/CNX2 and LR separate, and maintain my NEF edited files on an external drive,
I have been also going through pain of having formatted drives that Mac will read to get all my files across, FAT32 will only do 4gb at a time apparently but NTFS, Mac can read and receive large volumes of files
I appreciate your concern, for the start, I will be only using ViewNX and CNX2, (the new 64 bit system!)
I am also over on the Mac forum who have some Nikon guys there, will make a post tonight and see if they have a handle on any conflict with CNX2/LR4
In any case, my computer is grinding to a halt, hope it hangs in there, I'm sure when I open some space, it will sigh with relief!
Regards,
GaryMy Nikonians Gallery
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed-
#7. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 6
Hi Gary,
It's not really "scary". It is really a matter if you want to make the editing/browsing/cataoging effort a hobby unto itself, where you spend your evenings (for at least some significant amount of time) reading various support forums to learn how to put it together, and testing, or you "cave in" and just learn to Love Big Brother... err... Lightroom .
And really Lightroom seems to be improving and it's making me rethink things too. And I have most of this figured out, or at least it doesn't take much time to brush up when I need to revisit my configuration.
People that try to make CNX work with LR seem to be paddling furiously upstream. I'm really not sure it makes sense from a "systems" point of view, meaning cost/benefit, time spent, aggravation, and workflow complexity. Just to say, look carefully at what others are doing and see if it makes sense and the effort is worth the benefits of CNX.
How many images (roughly) do you now have to catalog? A thousand, more like 10,000, more like 100,000?
Your first imperative is to get your hardware situation stabilized because if you are where I think you are, you may be on the edge of some hardware disaster or "system" failure. Windows does not like tired old poor performing systems with tired old copies of Win installs. Been there.
I would suggest "locking your external drives down" now, to the extent that if you need to go to NTFS, keep the FAT32 volumes intact and untampered with. And make sure you are WELL backed up (at least 3 copies total of your images- even if it pains the wallet). You can always use the drives later.
You can buy a BlacX dock, or something similar, and raw drives, which is what I do for much of my work. Saves some money and usually results in longer warranties than buying a pile of WD Mybooks or similar. Although the drive makers seem to be reducing their warranties- WD is now 2 years where until recently they were 3 years (and typically 1 year on cheap external Mybook enclosures).
(I have not used FAT32 on any hard drives for a decade now, and don't trust it- it wasn't intended for modern data capacities and whatnot)
As I understand things, FAT32 cannot handle a file larger than 4GB but it handles large volumes and if you are using FAT32 now for some reason, it's obviously working. I don't think there should be an issue moving FAT32 volumes to a Mac. As I understand it, MACs can read but not write to NTFS, but really you should be building MAC volumes on fresh NEW drives, with your old drives "locked down" for backup, so that should be irrelevant no matter how you go about things.-
#9. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 7
glxman Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008Mon 02-Jul-12 08:10 AMTks Neil,
I'm typing this as we speak on my old laptop which has a FAT32 formatted HD, and is a 32bit system
Never heard of the BlacX dock before, what a novel idea, you see, taught myself everything I know and I still know nothing
May pick up another WD tomorrow, they are going cheap ATM, will also have a look at the BlacX dock option
Your right about being on the edge of catastrophic failure, have everything pretty much backed up but on FAT32 and millions of DVDs, my main aim tomorrow is to also backup on an NTFS formatted drive, I think they come that way now, if not, I will change it
Regards,
GaryMy Nikonians Gallery
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed-
#10. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 9
Just a tip: check what interfaces your MAC will have, and try to coordinate the interfaces so you can get away from the USB2 you are probably using now.
USB2 is slow but it actually works, and at least in the Win world anything else, while faster, can cause problems with being recognized, showing up in Safe Removal, and etc.
I could vent for hours about how it's 2012, well into the 21st century, and the world has gotten nowhere on these basic issues . But for starters if your MAC will have USB3, then get that. If it has eSata, then get that. If it has both, get something with both because between the MAC and the old windows machine, you are lucky if either faster interface works .
If you don't have a terribly large amount of data it may be easier to do the original transfers in USB2 even if your laptop supports something else.
I would also suggest you run Chkdsk on your FAT32 drives, but WITHOUT doing any updates. You can do that on a command line or within the Windows GUI.
FAT32 is not nearly as robust as NTFS. As a result, old FAT32 volumes tend to be dirty(er).
I run Chkdsk frequently on my drives, any time I get a bad shutdown, and sometimes just for good luck . Never had it kill a file system.
People that don't run it regularly seem to be susceptible to it destroying the file system. Maybe not common but it comes up in support forums more than one would like. More accurately the file system was already degraded badly and arguably one step from destroyed but that gets into technical religion and philosophy ).
For that reason I am a bit leery about doing an update on the way out the door, but doing a read-only would give you a rough idea where you stand and then take it from there and make a decision.
You don't want corrupt data going to the MAC, nor do you want to lose the data a week before you exit Windows. Threading a needle here.
On 2nd thought I would run it in command line mode just so you get a proper log. The GUI won't give you that.
chkdsk d:
(Don't enter any parameters except the drive letter. Anything else will do some sort of update)-
#11. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 10
glxman Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008Mon 02-Jul-12 06:00 PMTks for all your help Neil,
Off shopping today!
I thought I should have got into computers when I was young,
Then I realized, we did not have computers then!
Regards,
Gary
My Nikonians Gallery
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed-
#12. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
#3. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 0
My experience says get opinions from people who have used multiple systems when making an informed choice.
Tip: Right click each of the half dozen panels and tick 'Solo Mode'.
Colin
"We don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are" - Anaïs Nin
Please visit My Nikonians gallery
-
#4. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 3
glxman Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008Sun 01-Jul-12 10:05 PMTks Colin,
Good Idea, yes I have spent a lot of time watching YouTube about lightroom,
Will have to wait until I upgrade this computer, 2-3 weeks, I would rather spend the money on glass but this is a priority
Will have a look at the trial then,
Regards,
GaryMy Nikonians Gallery
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed
#8. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 0
In a CNX2-centric world, "what you see is what you get". You edit a raw file in Capture and it embeds a full size JPG in the edited raw file. That JPG looks like what you last saw in CNX2 before you saved it.
Your image cataloger generally reads that embedded JPG and uses that as a small thumbnail, or a larger preview image (whatever the catalog app does and how you configure it).
If you save the raw file as a JPG or TIF and then edit it in Photoshop then you have two image files to tie together but at least each file looks right in the cataloger.
In a LR-centric world, you would edit your NEF in CNX2. Your NEF embedded JPG would reflect your edits. When you import it into LR, then LR's thumbnails and previews will presumably reflect the edits. But when you open the NEF in LR for edits, your starting point is the original, unedited, out of camera edits, displayed as LR would display any fresh new out of camera image. So it won't look like your original did in Capture, nor your edit. It will have a 3rd brand new look .
(The above assumes LR uses the embedded JPG(s) for thumbnails and larger previews, as most catalog apps do. That is the path of least resistance (avoiding rendering NEFs whenever possible) and by far the most efficient in terms of processing time, which can be quite extensive if you need to batch render hundreds or thousands of images at a time. It may even be configurable now? I could make iMatch do at least 4 different variants of this theme, thus the uncertainty)
That would drive me nuts, but maybe it's something I would get accustomed to . Tough to tell without living it for some time.
One of your issues is how you deal with new images in a LR-centric workflow (with CNX2 on the side) but also how your thousands of existing images will be dealt with, and that depends on your existing workflow and how much you relied on the edited NEFs as your "golden copy".
My NEFs are my golden copy whenever possible but some people routinely save as TIFs so those TIFs become the golden copy and then LR probably works better in terms of how you are viewing things.
There is another matter of what CNX2 does to the metadata when it edits an image, and what the cataloger (including LR) does when it detects a change and re-imports it. Metadata can get lost, or older metadata can over-write new metadata, depending on how things are configured. Ideally the cataloger would ignore metadata changes on a re-import and that is what I basically do in iMatch.
And that is where you can spend some time in support forums learning how other people have dealt with the metadata problem. But that is always solvable in some way (maybe not the way you prefer but something that keeps your metadata work intact).
I think the general workflow, and how LR displays edited NEF images to you, and the confusion that can cause is a deeper issue, more fundamental to the workflow.
#13. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 0
I'm going through exactly this issue at the moment. I’ve decided on NX2 as my RAW editor and am looking at catalog and browser options. I shoot exclusively in RAW, set up versions in NX2, and only extract JPGs for sharing.
Lightroom and Aperture are both out for me for the same reason - they don't respect the NX2 edits and they don't use the embedded JPG preview. Both will render and generate their own previews. Tested this on LR and from what I've read Aperture does the same. This is ok if you want to use LR/Aperture as your Raw engine but doesn't work for me.
IDImager have just released a new piece of software for the Mac, Photo Supreme, that handles the embedded Raw files correctly so this is a real option. It still has some teething problems and isn't particularly well documented but has some real promise. I'm waiting on a couple of bug fixes before deciding if I’m going to stick with it. Might be worth a look but still early days.
I'm going to check out the Photo Mechanic catalog tool as their browser looks good - still tossing up whether I need this or can get by with either View NX2 or Photo Supreme.
The other option is to run some of the Windows cataloging programs in Parallels - not my preferred but may be forced down this route.
Cheers,
Mark
-
#14. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 13
glxman Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008Thu 05-Jul-12 08:45 PMTks Mark,
I have spent many hours researching this problem, (retired! )
Apparently, most have tackled the problem by increasing their storage ability, and keeping the NEFs on a separate folder for safe keeping,
It may be a challenge, but with a separate folder for "archived" NEFs, everything should be OK
I'm also moving from widose to mac so have some more hoops to jump through ,
As for LR, I'm going to "go for it", and learn along the way, I will still "cook" my presets in CNX2 first, I tend to get more "pop" factor out of a lot of images with CNX2 and have become very familiar with the abilities to adjust
I'f I have to to go back, I'm sure its no big deal, I'm sure I will learn something along the way
Regards,
GaryMy Nikonians Gallery
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed-
#15. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 14
Hi Gary,
huh, just throw more storage space at it. Works for me. I'm interested in your approach for dealing with the CNX2 edits in LR. Are you saving your edits as TIFF and then opening in LR?
When I switched to Nikon I saw enough in CNX2 to invested in Jason's tutorials - great stuff. I've got a version 1 licence for LR (from the Rawshooter buyout), have tried all versions since, but I haven't had a compelling reason to upgrade yet. CNX2 just seems to work brilliantly for me.
Also I'm not a fan of Adobe's predatory pricing in this part of the world. With currency exchange factored in an upgrade would end up costing me around $USD100 - that’s a 28% premium! Don't know how this can be justified as they don't even have local support and everything is digital download.
The Photo Mechanic offering looks very interesting especially as it supports both Mac and Windows. Especially if it's close to the performance and capability of the browser.
I'm loving the Mac environment. Things seem to hang together nicely. There's some great apps out there that you can't get for Windows. Have fun!
Cheers,
Mark-
#16. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 15
glxman Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008Fri 06-Jul-12 03:00 AMTks for your handle on it Mark,
I used to be indecisive, now I'm not so sure,
I have not actually purchased or tried LR yet,
Others have said their experience is OK, but!
They had to do all their edits in CNX2, and kept them in a separate folder,
Only then, they copied into LR as dng or Tiff, I'm guessing they were retaining the NEF files,
Trouble is, I done that much searching, I forgot where I read it,
Will take another look at Photo Mechanic,
Regards,
GaryMy Nikonians Gallery
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed
-
-
#17. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 0
I would like to add my 2 cents to the discussions here.
FAT32 and other early file systems are less reliable and they have slower performance than the current file systems. For example, if the power is suddenly turned off from a hard drive (or the computer) while it is writing a file, you may get a corrupted file. More modern file systems have many safety features to support recovering (automatically) such cases.
Regarding hard disks attached to the (old) USB2 interface; although cheap and easy to add, the interface is slow which may show up in frustration while editing the images. However, they work fine for one-time back-up destinations (e.g., when importing pictures to the cataloging program like LR).
I would hesitate to try to set up a system which composes of multiple programs, process flow paradigms, tool sets, folders, file types, etc. when performing such a straightforward task as importing, managing, retouching, printing and exporting photographs. I believe one must have a lot of special requirements if it is not possible to do most of that with programs like Lightroom or Aperture.
I would also hesitate to try some exotic or unknown solutions which almost nobody else is using. It is much safer to stick to the marked leaders and leave the testing to others. With Lightroom and Aperture, the price should not be an issue although both require a relatively fast computer to do the job efficiently.
Best regards,
Kari
-
#18. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 17
glxman Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008Fri 06-Jul-12 05:22 AMMuch appreciated Kari,
I'm shortly moving up from my "clunky", "glitchy" FAT32 system to iMac with 16gb of ram,
As for the programs, curiosity has got to me so I will try lightroom,
In saying that, I will not abandon my trusty old raw editing software, CNX2 just yet
Many here just use LR alone with great success, we appear to have to camps, CNX2 and LR,
Googling around the net, some are happy using both but making sure their nefs are kept in a separate folder, albeit, as mentioned earlier, more memory used
The biggest complaint from the LR users appears the inability to read the raw data camera settings and being able to adj them in LR which is possible in CNX2
I cannot give an honest opinion without trying out LR for myself, as I mentioned earlier, surely you can "cook" raw edits in CNX2 then carry out other and numerous options and filters etc in LR
Regards,
GaryMy Nikonians Gallery
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed-
#19. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 18
Hi Gary,
it's true that Lightroom does not read e.g., camera's white balance (WB) settings from the image when importing pictures. However, I have been wondering, especially when using the RAW format, why should it be even necessary to decide how the image should be post-processed (that's what the different WB setting like 'Vivid' do) while you are shooting, anyway?
I would leave all that to the post-processing using the computer. It's also much better to see the options and differences on the computer than on the DSLR screen. Furthermore, I would not consider the WB settings in the camera any more 'true' or 'real' than the presets found in Lightroom, for example. After all, it is the end result that should matter and it should be the photographer who says the last word.
The 16 GB of memory sounds plenty. You're going to have a lot of fun with your new computer! A tip which you probably knew already: make sure to calibrate the monitor (soon). Then you can rest assured that the images are true to the colors.
Best regards,
Kari-
#23. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 19
glxman Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008Fri 06-Jul-12 04:05 PM>Hi Gary,
>
>it's true that Lightroom does not read e.g., camera's white
>balance (WB) settings from the image when importing pictures.
>However, I have been wondering, especially when using the RAW
>format, why should it be even necessary to decide how the
>image should be post-processed (that's what the different WB
>setting like 'Vivid' do) while you are shooting, anyway?
>
>I would leave all that to the post-processing using the
>computer. It's also much better to see the options and
>differences on the computer than on the DSLR screen.
>Furthermore, I would not consider the WB settings in the
>camera any more 'true' or 'real' than the presets found in
>Lightroom, for example. After all, it is the end result that
>should matter and it should be the photographer who says the
>last word.
>
>The 16 GB of memory sounds plenty. You're going to have a lot
>of fun with your new computer! A tip which you probably knew
>already: make sure to calibrate the monitor (soon). Then you
>can rest assured that the images are true to the colors.
>
>Best regards,
>Kari
Much appreciated Kari,
I think the Mac guys need to employ some image editing staff, you always get a blank look when talking about what you want the product for,
My local pro camera shop has those calibration gadgets!
Regards,
Gary
My Nikonians Gallery
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed-
#24. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 23
glxman Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008Fri 06-Jul-12 04:12 PMHave to go and stock some rainbow trout,
I'll be back!
Regards,
Gary
My Nikonians Gallery
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed
-
-
-
#20. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 18
This thread got me to downloading LR4 and giving it a spin to see if any of my prior issues were resolved (probably not).
I attached a screen print comparing thumnails for the same 3 image files in PhotoMechanic (PM) and LightRoom4 (LR4). These are 3 versions of the same file:
1. The original out of camera NEF, unedited.
2. A copy of the NEF, edited in CNX2 to brighten it up a bit, just to distinguish it from an unedited NEF and illustrate that basic requirement of a cataloger- distinguishing versions.
3. A JPG saved from the edited CNX2 image, from CNX2
Notice that the PM version clearly distinguishes the two NEF versions, and it is similarly clear (as it can be in a tiny thumbnail) that the JPG is "associated" with one of those NEFs.
If you viewed these 3 thumbnails in ViewNX or iMatch, for example, the displays would all look like the PM version. I suspect most other catalog apps or browsers would be the same because they are displaying the embedded thumbnail and full size JPG in the preview, thus eliminating confusion in terms of any CNX2 editing.
By contrast, the LR display shows me two identical NEFs. The JPG doesn't appear to belong to either NEF. This is because LR is only showing images it rendered from the NEF, not the embedded JPG images.
That makes sense in an LR-centric world where the original camera files are input to LR, and then edited, and then working copies made. It makes no sense in a world where CNX2 is doing most of the editing. It also makes no sense, at least for me, in the context of the 335K images I already maintain under catalog.
Also note that while PM (and iMatch) always display the full path to the selected image file, in at least this case, in this view, LR shows me only the top level folder. I have no way of distinguishing those two NEFs without somehow investigating further.
Unfortunately for me, I have a workflow where I leave the out of camera NEF intact and make a working copy (called my "Nef Select" or "Nef Adjusted", per the folder structure). I have various reasons for doing that. I don't see any simple way to deal with that in LR. That may be a unique quirk in my own workflow that makes LR particularly problematic for me.
I also have probably thousands of NEFs that have had some editing done but no work output (JPG,TIF,PSD) that would illustrate my edits in LR. As a result, I would never know what I did to those images without opening each image in CNX2. And all of us NCX2 users know we do not want to "browse" images by opening them in CNX2. Life is way too short for that . The result for me would be chaos.
From my point of view, having cataloged images for 4 or 5 years now with iMatch, the "Holy Grail" is versioning, which is a feature iMatch has never had, but promises... some day. It's all a secret at this point so I do not know how it will work and how I will magically get my 335K images versioned with the click of a button .
Actually, since iMatch supports scripting, and me being a software developer, I have been working on how I will go about that, hopefully via camera shot taken timestamp (including sub-seconds, which LR does not support). Or some combination of time and (partial?) file name
Because LR's "versioning" (they call it stacking) cannot cross folders, and because my duplicated versions are identically named whenever possible, and require separate folders to support that, I can't use LR to stack my images without man-months of work renaming and reorganizing my image folder structure.
Some of this may apply to you, some may not. I mainly wanted to point out why it can be very difficult to make LR work in a CNX2-centric editing workflow. Especially in terms of what you do with your accumulated image archive, assuming it is large enough that restructuring it would require tremendous effort, as it would for me.
If I were you, I would get my laptop back in full working order before making the decision to leave Windows. Not because I am a Win bigot but simply because leaving Windows entails giving up a lot of cataloging options. I don't think there are any good solutions for me, at this moment in time, in the MAC world. YMMV of course.
(In other words, from a systems point of view, in this case I think the software requirements should be established, and then suitable apps chosen, and then let the hardware (and OS choice) follow that decision. You are very arguably going about it backwards, especially because of all these CNX2 problems)
Your laptop probably just needs a good cleaning of the CPU exhaust vents and fan, and a reload of Windows, and then it will probably work like new. I am not you, though, and I have my product keys and some other tools to make that general plan easier.
In your case you would probably want to re-load a 30 day eval copy of CNX2 before committing to anything, and doing that decision making effort within that time period. Worst case, reload the OS again and get another 30 days. Once you reload a laptop and get it working, the 2nd time is a snap . (just keep good notes and copies of required drivers, etc. And hopefully you would have what you need to reload Windows).
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
-
#21. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 20
Hi Neil,
without being a Lightroom evangelist (and having no experience of Aperture or other cataloging programs), I must say that using complex software for just one evening may not reveal all the important aspects of the software. One might even say that it may be necessary to review the process flow from time to time. To me, the process is usually very simple: import with a backup, add tags, edit as necessary and (usually) build a web collection of the best.
I may have misunderstood some of your comments but I think using the name of the file or actively referencing physical folders and image files is not considered the main aspect of the program when managing images in Lightroom. What I mean is that the name or location of the file should not be the top priority when managing images in the cataloging program. Yes, you may need to know it sometimes (e.g., for performing backups or restoring images) but that should not be necessary in normal process flow - except to import from the memory card to a consistently named folder.
In Lightroom and other cataloging programs it is more likely to use tags to identify the images; file name is just one (quite fixed) property of the file. In my opinion, embedding a lot of information in the file or folder name doesn't help much. That's what the tags and other properties are for.
Regarding 'image versions', I though you would mean whatever editing has been done to the image - as in software versioning. That information is shown in the History panel of the Development mode. It seems that you mean that it is important to have several copies of one image instead, all with different properties like cropping. Lightroom supports 'virtual copies' for this purpose.
As I said above, it should not matter where the image is stored; the catalog in Lightroom keeps that information for us. Therefore, I wouldn't worry too much about file naming.
Please remember that all editing is non-destructive in Lightroom and the original NEF file is kept unchanged. Thus I don't see the need for having "original", "adjusted" or "JPEG" versions in the catalog, unless it is modified in another program. Normally, Lightroom users don't bring JPEG version of the images into the catalog.
Also the virtual copy is not really a physical copy of the NEF file but a collection of editing commands performed on the NEF file in that particular virtual copy. What is important is that the user is capable of having multiple copies of the image and may export it to JPEG or TIFF for whatever purposes it is exported (e.g., to be shown on web) and whenever it's needed.
When Lightroom imports images, it also creates a preview of the image (the size of the preview in pixels can be adjusted). Previews are cached in the disk (the size of the cache is adjustable). It seems (I'm not sure), Lightroom first imports all images and then creates the preview of all images, in that order. During the import process you may see a copy of the JPEG image loaded from the NEF file if looking at the images at the same time but once the preview has been created, Lightroom uses previews instead.
There are settings applied to the initial preview; due to being a RAW file, some settings must be applied, I guess. For example, after importing, I can see that the image has been sharpened by 25. On the other hand, Nikon's programs read the WB and other setting from the image file and adjust the image according to that. Therefore, comparing "non-edited" images might be interesting but makes comparisons difficult. Whatever comes in binary format from the sensor needs to be processed and Lightroom needs to do something - or so I think.
Best regards,
Kari-
#22. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 21
walkerr Registered since 05th May 2002Fri 06-Jul-12 01:42 PMI tend to agree. Things that you have to do in NX2 are often unnecessary in Lightroom, so it can be awkward meshing the two. That's why I tend to advise picking one or the other, but not both. You lose a lot of the benefits of LR by trying to create a hybrid with NX2. The other thing I've seen is that those using a more traditional workflow and file management scheme often carry baggage into LR unnecessarily. You have to unlearn some past practices to really reap the advantages of the program. In my case, it included deleting a huge number of redundant derivative files that I longer needed or wanted.Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography -
#25. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 21
Hi Kari,
You and I are talking about two different things. What I said above, and my illustration, was purely in the context of attempting to explain to Gary why his current plan to continue to use CNX2 as his primary editor may not work in the real LR world.
I've eval'd LR several times the past 4 years or so and I think I have a good handle on the basic concepts and how they are fundamentally incompatible with Nikon's editing methodology.
And in fact, it is not really LR that is the "odd man out", it is Nikon because Nikon is probably the only raw editor that embeds edits in raw files. But many of us like Capture, for various reasons and some like the "Nikon way". It is only a problem when trying to marry these disparate approaches, as Gary seems to be trying to do.
As far as my use of duplicate images and folders, and my file naming strategies, I do it for two reasons:
1) I have serious concerns about long term issues of potential corruption of NEF files. In a recent thread I posted examples of how this can happen (and did happen to me) silently, where one flipped bit in 12 million (or 36 million) can destroy a NEF file, and in most work flows it might not be discovered for years.
Backups cannot solve that problem. Most backup strategies continually "update" backups with "changes" to the working file set. Data corruption is indistinguishable from "intended changes" and therefore corrupt data inevitably replaces good data in backups.
Not true of optical storage but I don't use optical in my backup strategy, and optical has its own corruption issues.
2) More importantly, I want a simple exit strategy - going in - from any cataloging/work flow software I use and my file structure (and file naming) is designed with that in mind. I don't want to be permanently and inextricably married to LR, or anything else.
It is not clear to me how one would exit *gracefully* from lightroom, assuming it was used as intended. Mainly because most the raw edits are virtual and they are very proprietary, and they are interwoven into the cataloging side of things.
The same could be said about the whole idea of raw (and the typical CNX2 workflow) and the fact that it too is the ultimate "vendor lock in", but I think that is an inescapable consequence of the technology. I don't want to add even more lock ins. And in fact, this whole discussion (the discussion I am trying to have here) is about the "CNX2 Lock In" and how to deal with it in another paradigm like LR.-
#26. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 25
Hi Neal,
I partially agree on 1) if you are talking about performing scheduled backups from the computer and the images and the backups are always overwritten. Partially, because I have daily versions of the files in the backups since December 2011 but as you wrote, only changes are written (unchanged files are not copied). Of course, the bit could flip in the backup as well, making the file unusable when necessary. I could also drop the USB drive.
To me, however, the most important point is to keep the originals safe and by backing up catalogs regularly from Lightroom and keeping a few of the latest versions I can save the edits. Anyway, losing the changes from the original is not that important to me personally because. Having two backup strategies I have at least 3 copies of the originals at home (I used to have the fourth by mirroring my hard disks). Only the daily backup could also copy the flipped bit. I also carry a removable hard disk to a bank vault every now and then just in case my house burns down but I do that also due to my profession as a software engineer. Finally, some of the best images I have taken are on my web site but, of course, all that would disappear very quickly if I didn't pay the bill or if the company shut down.
What comes to 2) I agree that we are already deeply locked in to the high tech around us and it is well possible that the images I have taken and carefully edited (just about 10 000 imgaes so far) do not exist anywhere in 50 years if my 13-year old daughter or her children in future do not know how to store and handle them. I'm already 52 years old and it would be a pity to let all or most of the digital memories taken in the last 13 and perhaps the next 25 years go like smoke in the air. A large number of our generation's memories vanish everyday because people misuse or crash their computers and there are no backups.
However, looking for an exit strategy, I don't know if there can be any, without sacrificing the benefits of the current tehnology. It is a very interesting question, though. Having said that, it would be possible for me to print paper copies of those once-in-the-lifetime images which I would like not to forget, whatever might happen in future. Printed photos have survived in surprisingly good conditions since American Civil War, about 150 years ago and I can only wonder the quality of the color pictures taken by Albert Kahn and his employees in early 1900 (I highly recommend googling him from the net).
Storing images optically sounds promising but having learned from tests (a couple of years ago) where some self-burned CDs started to fade information in just two years it does not look too good. Furthermore, one would again have to stick to the technology of the year 2000. It might very well be that there are no physical CD/DVD/BR readers in general availability in the end of the 21st century or software to recognise the file system or file formats used today.
Perhaps we should periodically let Google and other search engines crawl the image folders in our computers to back them up for us?!Encrypting the files first would make them unusable for others.
Best regards,
Kari-
#29. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 26
Hi Kari,
My concern about exit strategies and "lock ins" is not for the next generation that might inherit my images. That's a whole different subject.
My concern is that I spend a year or two (or whatever) converting over to LR, and then at some point in time I decide there is a better alternative, or I am simply not happy with LR. Or maybe Adobe triples the price after getting a million photographers locked into it .
(not a far fetched idea at all, e.g. Adobe Acrobat)
There is no solution to that problem. If I go to LR I lose all the edits I did in CNX2, to the extent that I am still working with raw images, which is very different than trying to solve the problem by rendering the edited files into TIF or PSD.
Because of that problem I will, forever, have to "subscribe" to CNX2, to the extent I need to update it to keep up with things. If I stop editing raw in CNX2 then I don't have to buy updates to keep up with future cameras (they presumably being edited by LR or something else). But the nature of the technology beast is that it is hard to stick with old software for very long (and I tend to try to do that).
With LR however, those edits are intertwined with a far more complex cataloging scheme so LR, and the catalog, would have to be maintained indefinitely alongside whatever replaced it. That is far more complicated, and a potentially expensive annoyance than simply maintaining a copy of CNX2. Hope that made sense.-
#31. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 29
walkerr Registered since 05th May 2002Sat 07-Jul-12 06:08 AM | edited Sat 07-Jul-12 06:28 AM by walkerrI think you're assuming the catalog is more essential to edits than it is. While edits are stored there, they can also be stored in parallel with xmp sidecars and the latter updated automatically if you wish. In that mode (which is how I use LR), edits, ratings, labels and metadata are visible outside of the application in Bridge/ACR and partially in other apps like Photo Mechanic (ratings, labels, keywording, crop marks). The only things you lose when you step out of the catalog (which I do all the time), are pick flags, virtual copies, and collections. While those are very handy, and I like them a lot, it would be pretty easy to set up a corresponding manual file structure or their equivalents if I chose to use something other than LR.
Also, xmp sidecars have to be about the most open form of editing language out there. They're just text files with easily discernible parameters. Again, Photo Mechanic will not only read them, but will also generate them if they're absent. Here's an extract from an amp sidecar that I got simply by using a text editor on the file. It's not hard to figure out what parameters have been set.
crs:Version="7.1"
crs rocessVersion="6.7"
crs:WhiteBalance="Custom"
crs:Temperature="5600"
crs:Tint="+16"
crs:Saturation="0"
crs:Sharpness="60"
crs:LuminanceSmoothing="0"
crs:ColorNoiseReduction="25"
crs:VignetteAmount="0"
crs:ShadowTint="0"
crs:RedHue="0"
crs:RedSaturation="0"
crs:GreenHue="0"
crs:GreenSaturation="0"
crs:BlueHue="0"
crs:BlueSaturation="0"
crs:Vibrance="+20"
crs:HueAdjustmentRed="0"
crs:HueAdjustmentOrange="0"
crs:HueAdjustmentYellow="0"
crs:HueAdjustmentGreen="0"
crs:HueAdjustmentAqua="0"
crs:HueAdjustmentBlue="0"
crs:HueAdjustmentPurple="0"
crs:HueAdjustmentMagenta="0"
crs:SaturationAdjustmentRed="0"
crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange="0"
crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow="0"
crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen="0"
crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua="0"
crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue="0"
crs:SaturationAdjustmentPurple="0"
crs:SaturationAdjustmentMagenta="0"
crs:LuminanceAdjustmentRed="0"
crs:LuminanceAdjustmentOrange="0"
crs:LuminanceAdjustmentYellow="0"
crs:LuminanceAdjustmentGreen="0"
crs:LuminanceAdjustmentAqua="0"
crs:LuminanceAdjustmentBlue="0"
crs:LuminanceAdjustmentPurple="0"
crs:LuminanceAdjustmentMagenta="0"
crs:SplitToningShadowHue="0"
crs:SplitToningShadowSaturation="0"
crs:SplitToningHighlightHue="0"
crs:SplitToningHighlightSaturation="0"
crs:SplitToningBalance="0"
crs arametricShadows="0"
crs arametricDarks="0"
crs arametricLights="0"
crs arametricHighlights="0"
crs arametricShadowSplit="25"
crs arametricMidtoneSplit="50"
crs arametricHighlightSplit="75"
crs:SharpenRadius="+0.7"
crs:SharpenDetail="40"
crs:SharpenEdgeMasking="10"
crs ostCropVignetteAmount="0"
crs:GrainAmount="0"
crs:ColorNoiseReductionDetail="50"
crs:LensProfileEnable="1"
crs:LensManualDistortionAmount="0"
crs erspectiveVertical="0"
crs erspectiveHorizontal="0"
crs erspectiveRotate="0.0"
crs erspectiveScale="100"
crs:AutoLateralCA="1"
crs:Exposure2012="0.00"
crs:Contrast2012="+10"
crs:Highlights2012="0"
crs:Shadows2012="0"
crs:Whites2012="0"
crs:Blacks2012="0"
crs:Clarity2012="+20"
As for the pain of setting up a new catalog when you've been running with LR, I have a copy of Media Pro 1 (the Capture One catalog solution). It took me very little time to get it up and running with the essential data present. Most of that was just its batch importation. It read the sidecar files and applied keywords and ratings correctly. It's not something I would use (I prefer sticking with LR), but it wasn't difficult, and I doubt it will be difficult with Photo Mechanic's new cataloging tool when that goes to market.
Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography-
#32. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 31
Good point, Rick, but I would consider virtual copies an integral part of my edits. Aren't those just multiple edit versions that would not survive outside of LR?
Although in principle sidecars are "universal", in practice I see a lot of problems discussed in the iMatch forum, for example, where people have problems getting Adobe sidecars to inter-operate with other various combinations of editors, browsers and catalogers.
I've never studied the problem in detail because, without regular access to LR, it is difficult to assess the discussions without being able to reproduce the issues. It's just a point of research for me, should that become relevant to my decisions.
The bulk of those issues, at least in the iMatch world, seem to involve keywords verses categories, hierarchical categories, and how various apps deal with all that and move keywords/categories back and forth. iMatch has their method, Adobe seems to use a different method, other apps just support keywords but not hierarchical categories.
And while that sounds rather obscure, the keywording/categorization of images is, at least for me, the most time consuming part of the "cataloging" process. In particular, because of the difficulty of IDing many bird species. A task I never want to revisit .
A lot of bird species cannot even be accurately ID'd from images alone, but require a study of habits, calls and songs, something impossible to do long after the shoot unless one has a better memory than I do .
Other species can only be ID'd from certain angles, and those angles may not be generally considered "photographically artistic" and thus are easily culled. That is one major reason I don't cull my wildlife images very intensely, and why I have so many images to catalog.
-
#34. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 32
walkerr Registered since 05th May 2002Sat 07-Jul-12 09:19 AMYes, virtual copies are good and I certainly take full advantage of them, but if I were migrating, I know exactly how I would handle them. I'd use LR's ability to filter by virtual copy, combined with other selection criteria such as ratings, and find the virtual copies I wanted to preserve. I'd then export them to new or existing directories, and they'd appear not as virtual copies, but new raw files, with edits applied and metadata intact. In the process, I could also rename them with whatever convention I preferred. It's not hard.
I can't talk about the problems with iMatch because I've never used it. I do know that Photo Mechanic and LR are easy to keep in synch with heirarchical keywords because I regularly synchronize the two using an exported text file out of LR. If they can do it, I'm confident others can do it. Looking at the exported text file, it's about as dirt-simple as things can get. I could certainly screw it up via incorrect configuration settings, but it wasn't hard to configure for Adobe products.Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography
-
-
-
#35. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 31
Hi Rick,
thanks for pointing this out. I have also set Lightroom to use sidecar files to store the edits.
Best regards,
Kari
-
-
-
-
#27. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 0
Neil, Kari, and Nick
for their detailed response and replies, much appreciated!
In the past, I have managed very well with CNX2 IMHO, albeit, my own style which may not suit everyone I guess,
I have always wondered how LR users achieved similar results without having the ability to adjust picture controls, for example, from standard to landscape?
I guess all the others, like WB, can be handled in LR, during the research, I was quite impressed with the "additional" editing options that LR has, the filters and sharpening options which "appeared" to be quite simple and somewhat a lot easier to understand than CNX2,
Have a lot on my plate ATM, so I guess I should sit back and re-think this once again, but I find the LR trial "irresistible"
It would be interesting to know by poll,
What people are using as their primary editor and cataloging program
Even the DNG option is another mystery
Regards,
Gary
My Nikonians Gallery
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed
-
#28. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 27
I'll start:
Browser: PhotoMechanic
Raw Editor: CNX2
Cataloger: iMatch
>> In the past, I have managed very well with CNX2 IMHO, albeit, my own style which may not suit everyone I guess,
Your "style" is all that counts. I don't think there is any "best" solution.
I really like certain features of iMatch. It provides scripting, which is great for someone familiar with software coding. I do some neat things with scripting that I could not do with any other cataloger.
It provides an "offline cache" on my laptop such that I have access to 1400 pixel wide images of my entire database even when I am not connected to my file server, which stores my complete image collection. The size of the off-line cache image is adjustable to any size but it takes some thought as to how large you want that to be. As storage sizes increase, in principle the cache could be enlarged too.
It seems to work as well as anything can with CNX2 edited files.
Most people that use iMatch seem to have a technical background and the nature of the package is such that it would tend toward that. Some users don't have a tech background, but it is not the "prettiest" package out there, partly because it has not been seriously updated in 4 years or so and we are still waiting for the next update to get out of private beta, no timeline given.
Some consider the iMatch interface "clunky"; I consider a good nuts N bolts interface where function was considered over form, as I think things should be. That's just something everyone needs to determine for themselves.
Having used iMatch, there are things about LR I don't think I could live with, or maybe more accurately LR would be a step backwards in some ways. But in other ways it would be a major improvement in workflow. So it is a very tough decision and I would not want to even try to suggest one over the other for any other user. It's just too personal.
I can point to lots of posts in the iMatch user support forum, from people that migrated from LR to iMatch. I have no doubt you could do the same in the LR forums, with users happily migrating the opposite way . You will never get an answer for yourself via a poll .
I really think you should try to eval LR as soon as possible, and if at all possible before you make a hardware decision. These apps are too complicated to reduce to simple assessments of which is better or best, even for me, for example. Just too many issues to consider.
-
#30. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 27
Hi Gary,
there are probably a number of threads on DNG vs NEF vs JPEG question. You may like to check the pros and cons in one had quite recently:
https://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=319&topic_id=7968&mesg_id=7968
Best regards,
Kari-
#33. "RE: Most efficient cataloging option?" | In response to Reply # 30
glxman Nikonian since 04th Oct 2008Sat 07-Jul-12 06:42 AMTks Kari,
Much appreciated,
regards,
Gary
My Nikonians Gallery
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed
-
G
Firstly,
I do most of my editing in CNX2, and am now "testing the water" in photoshop elements for some other options, although I find CNX2 usually all I need, there are some occasions, only PS has the added "tricks"
At present, my browser and catalog has only been ViewNX2, I have been tempted to start with Lightroom but do not know enough about the program to make an informed decision
I'm thinking Lightroom?
Is this my best option? I understand all my edited NEFs remain as is in this program?
FWIW,
I'm upgrading from windose to iMac with 16GB ram in 2-3 weeks, (wife says, maybe 4-6 ), As I'm coming from 32bit, some new software is needed, (my old activation code for CNX2 went out with the rubbish!
Regards,
Gary