Tagging a large library of images
-
#1. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 0
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Sun 04-Jun-17 09:51 AMWell, playing with Photo Mechanic here, I realize this can do what I want. More than!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#3. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 1
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Mon 05-Jun-17 03:23 PM>Well, playing with Photo Mechanic here, I realize this can do
>what I want. More than!
Photo Mechanic is not currently a good tool for that, as it requires scanning all photos each time to locate things; it does not have any persistent catalog. They have promised the new version will have one, but it's been a long time coming. That said, it is a VERY fast browser and may do what you need.
Lightroom on the other hand is exactly what you need, as it is a cataloging system. You can build virtual collections, allowing an image to be in more than one place, while of course existing only in one actual folder. The collections can be manual (drag and drop type) or automated (e.g. based on keywords or other metadata). Collections can be just for use inside lightroom, or can be published to web sites (etc.), and it automates updating them any time you change things (e.g. new keywords, or change the image itself with develop changes).
It is, however, not a product you can have a brief affair with, as you can with Photo Mechanic. You have to marry it, and use it for everything for it to be useful, BECAUSE it is a cataloging and non-destructive editing system. Trying to use it sometimes, and other tools other times, will be an exercise in frustration (e.g. you'll change images out from under its catalog leading to inconsistencies). That's not to say you cannot use tools with it (like photoshop), only that you use the tools from within it, not from outside while ignoring it. It does not like to be ignored.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#4. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 3
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Mon 05-Jun-17 08:13 PMAh.. If Photo Mechanic only scans upon searching, I agree this would be slower than what I have in mind.
What has worried me about Lightroom is how I've been managing my library to date. I don't think Lightroom will be very understanding, and it would require substantial changes to how I access my networked volumes. Or, I should say, it will require me to become more familiar with how to make my networked volumes persistent. At present the server requires I sign in everytime I want access to those files. That wouldn't be so bad if they were immediately available, but the Apple networking is not particularly swift, so I would not want to have to work on files across the network. But there is no way they will all fit on this machine.
All that said, I suppose I expected this response. I've been using ACR all along, so I'm pretty familiar with that part of LR's editing environment. That catalog though - how big might I expect it to grow with 50K + images?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#6. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 4
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Mon 05-Jun-17 08:35 PM>Ah.. If Photo Mechanic only scans upon searching, I agree
>this would be slower than what I have in mind.
Yeah, I did some experimenting. On the good side I opened up about 61,000 files as a contact sheet in right at 5 minutes (this is a very fast PC with pooled SSD disks. One issue is PM is a 32 bit application, so it can't handle large amounts of data without paging, or stashing it on disk.
So thinking "great, now it's all in memory" I asked it to select all 1 stars -that took about 2-3 minutes. Which is awful, as it was clearly going back to disk for the information (it wasn't paging, it was going back to the original files).
So I'd say other than maybe a one-off search, it's not the tool.
>What has worried me about Lightroom is how I've been managing
>my library to date. I don't think Lightroom will be very
>understanding, and it would require substantial changes to how
>I access my networked volumes. Or, I should say, it will
>require me to become more familiar with how to make my
>networked volumes persistent. At present the server requires I
>sign in everytime I want access to those files. That wouldn't
>be so bad if they were immediately available, but the Apple
>networking is not particularly swift, so I would not want to
>have to work on files across the network. But there is no way
>they will all fit on this machine.
Lightroom is not something I would adopt just for one change, but if you think you might use it as a primary tool, I think the disk issue is fixable. Lightroom is very flexible about whether a drive is on-line or not, it does not care, it just can do more with it online than off. You can even build smart previews which let you edit off-line files (with lower resolution; it applies the changes to the real file once online).
>All that said, I suppose I expected this response. I've been
>using ACR all along, so I'm pretty familiar with that part of
>LR's editing environment. That catalog though - how big might
>I expect it to grow with 50K + images?
Now that may be an issue. The catalog itself is pretty small, mine is 3 gig for about 70,000 images.
However, LR also needs a preview cache, where it saves a preview of every image that has been touched. It will rebuild them anytime needed, so one can delete them, but they come back if you browse around (but not just from existing in the catalog). That preview cache is normally on the same drive as the catalog, and can be huge. Mine is 78 Gig.
The catalog ideally is on a fast disk, and by default these follows and that gives better performance. You can move the previews elsewhere, but I think they may be slow if on a NAS (and things will probably not work if the preview drive is offline, it presumes it is available if the catalog is).
Note this is not the ACR cache, which is a different animal and still needed.
I like lightroom, but it is not a tool -- it is an entire ecology, and you have to pretty much adopt it all, it's not something you can easily just adopt for a while and give up.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#7. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 6
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Mon 05-Jun-17 08:49 PMThanks Linwood, this is all extremely helpful. I'm not afraid to adopt LR as my environment - editing won't be any different in my view, and it will solve this other very sticky problem I'm dealing with. I started a LR course in Lynda.com a while back and then backslid. Guess I'll go finish it and get on with it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#14. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 6
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Thu 22-Jun-17 09:29 AMBringing this back to the top, as I've got to the next step and I'm not sure if I'm stumped or not.
After installing a NAS and moving my entire library there, I started Lightroom and created a catalog. When I point to my library, it starts ingesting the images. But there is a counter, in gigabytes, counting up (bottom of the left pane). I cancelled the import when that counter was approaching all available free space on my MacBook Pro's 1TB SSD. I don't think even half of the images were cataloged yet, but the counter had gone past 600GB.
Is this real? My library is 3.38TB - would the catalog approach a terabyte for a library of this size? If so, Lightroom is not my solution. If that counter, on the other hand, is displaying the size of the library that it has ingested so far, then I may be ok.
I don't seem to be able to find a reference to that counter anywhere, although I'm sure it's right in front of me somewhere. Anyone know what we're counting there?
Comments?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#15. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 14
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Thu 22-Jun-17 12:17 PM | edited Thu 22-Jun-17 12:19 PM by Ferguson>I don't seem to be able to find a reference to that counter
>anywhere, although I'm sure it's right in front of me
>somewhere. Anyone know what we're counting there?
Last question first - I have no idea. A MAC thing? I just did an import and see no counter of any sort.
>Is this real? My library is 3.38TB - would the catalog
>approach a terabyte for a library of this size? If so,
>Lightroom is not my solution. If that counter, on the other
>hand, is displaying the size of the library that it has
>ingested so far, then I may be ok.
There are two parts to the library, the actual library itself which is a SQLite database, and the preview cache. Lightroom keeps them physically together. For example, my catalog is stored in t:/Lightroom_Catalog/ and is named LR6. So I have a file:
t:/Lightroom_Catalog/LR6.lrcat -- actual catalog
t:/Lightroom_Catalog/LR6.lrcat-journal - database journal
These are the database, and may also at times have a .lock file, and temp files. Generally the .lrcat file is the largest, though the journal could conceivably grow large if you have a single, really long transaction. Mine is 3.5MB.
For perspective I've got about 72,000 images which take up 1.6TB of space. The catalog for them is 3.05 Gigabytes.
The preview cache resides for me here:
t:/Lightroom_Catalog/LR6 Previews.lrdata
That is a folder in the same folder as the catalog, which takes the name of the catalog, space and PReviews.lrdata. It's a folder that has a huge mass of folders underneath. These start empty, but grow as certain operations touch files to display as it builds its cache. This is not the "ACR Cache" you mean hear about (which is limited in size), this cache can grow to unlimited size. Mine has 77 GB of space. How much space it takes depends on usage patterns, and also how yous et the preference options for preview size.
There is no menu option in Lightroom to separate the preview cache from the library, e.g. to put the former on a separate disk for space or speed reasons; it is possible to do so with a symbolic link, at least in Windows (but I think also in Mac); you create a folder of the same name on some other disk, then create a link instead of a folder in the catalog directory.
Generally you want the previews on fast disks, so move them only if needed.
The other thing that can make a big difference is smart previews. These, despite the name, are stored in the catalog. They are useful only in limited circumstances, and almost certainly you do not want them for all your images, only ones you are still editing. If you selected that on the import that could cause rapid catalog growth.
My recommendation for the initial import is to have the minimal preview selected (top right panel, under file handling, choose minimal or just embedded and sidecar), and not choose smart previews. However, I did not THINK it started those preview builds until the import completely finished, so I am not at all sure that is your issue.
Now all that said, being a database, there are optimization steps that make it smaller. It is also possible that by trying to import so much at once it is not getting a chance to clean up. You might want to import a few hundred gigabytes, then close and optimize the catalog, repeat until done. Not sure if this will matter or not; it can't hurt.
Sorry for the long rambling note, am hoping something in here rings a bell for your issue. I would start by seeing if indeed your catalog really is the thing growing. Or....
Are you sure your import is set to "Add" and not "Copy"? If set to copy it will copy to the default location, probably on the OS drive in some personal folder. You can tell quickly now from the import done by right clicking (or whatever a Mac context menu is) on the folder name in the folder panel, and "Show in Finder".
Linwood
PS. If it runs amok, you can always delete the preview cache or any parts of it, and they get rebuilt automatically as needed, though browsing photos is slower if you do as it is rebuilding on the fly.
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#16. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 15
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Thu 22-Jun-17 07:21 PMThank you for that. Very useful information. You can see the counter in the attachment. From what you've said I think the counter must be measuring the actual data, not the catalog size, so I'm going ahead and build the catalog. If it uses more space than I have available, I'm sure it will tell me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Attachment#1 (png file)
-
#17. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 16
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Thu 22-Jun-17 07:29 PM>Thank you for that. Very useful information. You can see the
>counter in the attachment. From what you've said I think the
>counter must be measuring the actual data, not the catalog
>size, so I'm going ahead and build the catalog. If it uses
>more space than I have available, I'm sure it will tell me.
Interesting, I'll look again next time, I don't recall seeing this.
It can never hurt to do things in stages though, take stock, reorganize the files, etc. THough leaving it running over night and seeing what you have in the morning is entertaining as well.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com -
#18. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 16
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Thu 22-Jun-17 07:38 PMWell this answers the question I suppose, since there is no way the catalog could be 1TB on an SSD that also contains the OS and all the apps.
Thanks again for the help!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Attachment#1 (png file)
-
#19. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 18
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Thu 22-Jun-17 07:47 PM>Well this answers the question I suppose, since there is no
>way the catalog could be 1TB on an SSD that also contains the
>OS and all the apps.
Indeed, looks like images, and 72000 and 1TB seems of the right order of magnitude for a bunch of DNG's or raw images.
Glad it's working.
Now let us know when you've looked individually at every image and tagged it appropriately, maybe post processed it again, etc.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#20. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 19
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Thu 22-Jun-17 08:11 PMAnd that was only 1/3 of the way to the end. Still importing here...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
#21. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 14
JosephK Nikonian since 17th Apr 2006Fri 23-Jun-17 07:01 PM>After installing a NAS and moving my entire library there, I
>started Lightroom and created a catalog. When I point to my
>library, it starts ingesting the images. But there is a
>counter, in gigabytes, counting up (bottom of the left pane).
>I cancelled the import when that counter was approaching all
>available free space on my MacBook Pro's 1TB SSD. I don't
>think even half of the images were cataloged yet, but the
>counter had gone past 600GB.
When you are doing the import, make sure you are doing an "add" import, not a "copy" import (top center of screen), assuming that you want the image files left on the NAS.
---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Joseph K
Seattle, WA, USA
D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 D,
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, TC20e3, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX
-
#22. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 21
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Fri 23-Jun-17 07:58 PMYes, thank you. I was doing an add. The counter is apparently counting the file size of the SOURCE, not the CATALOG. I'm not sure how that helps me, especially when the counter is not documented that I can find, but it did confirm for me that it saw all 140K of my images when the catalog was constructed.
Now to tag them... did I say 140K? Ouch.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#23. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 22
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Fri 23-Jun-17 08:48 PM>Now to tag them... did I say 140K? Ouch.
We'll look to hear from you about Christmas. Maybe. Good luck!
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#24. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 23
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Fri 23-Jun-17 11:35 PM
-
-
-
-
#25. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 6
>ecology, and you have to pretty much adopt it all, it's not
>something you can easily just adopt for a while and give up.
I'm seeing this very clearly now. For example, Lightroom assumes it is fine to convert my raw files to DNG, but I hadn't wanted that. Nevertheless, I see no other option. I do get to choose upper/lower case for the file extension!
I know all about DNG - was using it for quite a while and did not like certain aspects of the changes it brought to ACR.
Am I really forced to use it if I use Lightroom?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#26. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 25
ericbowles Nikonian since 25th Nov 2005Sat 24-Jun-17 09:35 AMNo - there is no need to convert images to DNG. Ther eis no need to do any kind of conversion when you import images. The embedded converter is ACR and it has lots of flexibility. LR will work just fine maintaining everything as a NEF. If you need any other kind of output, LR is flexible and can export many other formats.Eric Bowles
Director - Nikonians Academy
Nikonians Team Moderator
My Gallery
Workshops and Private Instruction
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera-
#27. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 26
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Sat 24-Jun-17 10:00 AM | edited Sat 24-Jun-17 10:24 AM by benttopHm. I confess I see no choice in Lightroom Preferences or Catalog Preferences. In the File Handling tag, I can affect how the DNG conversion is done, but there is no checkbox to turn it off. I'm missing it here somewhere...
EDIT: Never mind - I found the missing choice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Attachment#1 (png file)
-
#28. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 27
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Sat 24-Jun-17 10:05 AM | edited Sat 24-Jun-17 10:05 AM by Ferguson>Hm. I confess I see no choice in Lightroom Preferences or
>Catalog Preferences. In the File Handling tag, I can affect
>how the DNG conversion is done, but there is no checkbox to
>turn it off. I'm missing it here somewhere...
That option only has effect, I think, if you choose "Copy as DNG".
Honestly I never noticed it before.
Did yours convert?
Lightroom can convert to DNG in place (Library, Convert Photo to DNG), but honestly until you posted that note I would not have said there even WAS an option to convert on import, just ignored that pane in preferences all together. It is certainly not required.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#29. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 28
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Sat 24-Jun-17 10:33 AMI found the selector. Rather than being a preference, it is a choice at the top of the screen where you choose Add, Copy, Move, or Copy as DNG. I hadn't noticed it, and assumed it would be a preference.
Growing pains and learning curves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
-
-
#2. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 0
I also have ACDSee Pro installed, but I don't use its cataloging features.
---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
Joseph K
Seattle, WA, USA
D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 D,
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, TC20e3, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX
-
#5. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 2
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Mon 05-Jun-17 08:24 PMThanks for that. I think.
Yes, it is getting to where I have numerous apps, each for a given purpose. Used to be we only needed one set of tools, but now I have Photo Mechanic, Photoshop, Bridge, Lightroom, Luminar, the NIK collection, Aurora HDR, Photomatix Pro, and some kind of de-noise toolset, not to mention the entire IT department worth of equipment...
Sorry, got carried away. Ha! Thanks again - I'll have to learn one more tool I guess.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#8. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 0
I'd start with the main keywords and only dig deeper as needed. So if you have generic keywords that can be applied to an entire folder of images, that's worthwhile. Getting specific on a small number of images within a folder from several years ago would only be done as needed.
Eric Bowles
Director - Nikonians Academy
Nikonians Team Moderator
My Gallery
Workshops and Private Instruction
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera
-
#9. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 8
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Wed 07-Jun-17 01:55 PM>It does not completely solve your challenge, but if you
>keyword in Photo Mechanic before importing to LR, the keywords
>are carried into LR and you can use the LR library to search
>metadata as needed.
Yeah, if you actually bought Photo Mechanic, it's a great front end. I use it for (almost) every shoot, and do my culling and crop/straighten in PM which is MUCH faster.
To me keywording and other metadata changes are about the same speed in each (but done quite differently) and is largely a matter of taste. Though PM has much more flexibility in data driven metadata, e.g. setting one value based on others, though there are some plugins in LR which can do the same.
But yes, PM is a terrific front end if speed is important in doing initial culling; it's expensive for that, but if you keep a small percentage of your shots, a real time saver (if you keep the vast majority of your shots not so much as they all still need to be ingested and processed in LR).
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#10. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 9
ericbowles Nikonian since 25th Nov 2005Wed 07-Jun-17 02:26 PMThe front end value is huge for me. I seem to have a lot of times when I need fast turnaround - 24-48 hour turnaround of 500-1500 images from an event. Using wildcards, keywording, and rating in PM before going to LR makes the LR side a lot faster and more efficient. Once you have the program and use a few of the basics, it's very fast. It also handles images that are RAW files or processed in a wide range of different programs.Eric Bowles
Director - Nikonians Academy
Nikonians Team Moderator
My Gallery
Workshops and Private Instruction
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera -
#11. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 9
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Thu 08-Jun-17 10:19 AMI like the idea of using Photo Mechanic as the front end, as it seems fairly quick to load and tag a set of images. I can't really alter my workflow until I resolve a secondary issue here (I'm running out of room and have to revamp my storage/network locations etc.). Once I get my working files moved off to a new NAS I'll be able to configure everything the way I'll need it for the next decade or so...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#12. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 11
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Thu 08-Jun-17 12:37 PM>I'll be able to configure everything
>the way I'll need it for the next decade or so...
There a law (or should be) that says: "The length of stability of a configuration is inversely proportional to how long the configurer thinks it will last."
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#13. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 12
benttop Nikonian since 15th Jul 2016Thu 08-Jun-17 01:12 PM
-
-
-
#30. "RE: Tagging a large library of images" | In response to Reply # 0
To convert my workflow from Bridge>ACR>Photoshop to Lightroom, I wanted my entire library on one drive. Doing this simplified things for me, but required adding a NAS to my network. I decided on a Synology 16TB (4 drives) NAS configured as Raid 5, giving me roughly 10.x Terabytes of room.
Then I started classes on Lightroom. You were all correct - Lightroom is exactly what I needed for the tagging effort I envisioned. But the good news is Lightroom envisioned substantially more than I had imagined. I didn't realize, for example, that Lightroom could use face recognition to help me tag people. I've already put this feature to good use. As I confirm and correct names, Lightroom seems to be learning who these people are and it's getting better with each sub-folder that I choose.
I also managed to process my first set of images with Lightroom, even though I haven't hit the processing lessons quite yet. Much of the controls are nearly identical to ACR.
So if you're wondering about the question I asked, Lightroom is most definitely your solution.
Here's my Eagle catching lunch, fully processed in Lightroom.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
G
I've been shooting digital since 1999, and I've accumulated almost 3TB of image files. In the beginning it seemed I would need to be able to find things so I created a folder-based system that used both the date and event name to help me locate images - like this:
2017-05-15_CedarRiverTrail
2017-05-28_Mom-Birthday
2017-05-31_Osprey
The obvious problem with this method is what if you shoot an Osprey while on your walk on the Cedar River Trail? Where did you shoot the Osprey on 5/31/17? In a few years that information has faded from your memory and those images are not findable. I now have thousands of these folders, all in chronological order by year, but I'm lost to say the least.
It is clear I need to tag every image with as many tags as applicable to enable me to group that image with others that have like tags. I'm aware I can add tags to metadata, but all of these images are not on local drives - I only keep this year's images on the laptop, and all other years are on backup drives across the network.
So I need to have the ability to locate tags in a large library of images located on the network. Can Lightroom or Photo Mechanic do this? Ideally I'd want to supply a set of keywords and have a screen full of images appear that match the keywords, with their locations.
How are you guys doing this?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Steve Cavanaugh -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit my Nikonians gallery.