Recommendations on How to Organize Photos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidedric

I haven't graduated to the "Continent" level

---

If I were to do it all over again, I'm not sure I would include the continent level. Surely my wife knows what country a particular image was taken without having to first figure out which continent it is on. Worse yet, photos taken in Turkey are displayed in the Europe and Asia folders because some parts of Turkey are on one continent and other parts are on the other continent. Sheesh!

Quote:

---

Worse yet, photos taken in Turkey are displayed in the Europe and Asia folders because some parts of Turkey are on one continent and other parts are on the other continent. Sheesh!

---

:)

Hi Mike,

I read in another thread (which I am following with some interest) that you are new to Lightroom. If you become committed, you really might want to take a look at "Collections". They are essentially a series of virtual overlays on your folder structure. So, for example, it would be trivial to have your Turkey images (all of them) under both an Asia and a Europe Collection, without duplicating any images.

Another advantage is that the Collections are visible in ALL of the Lightroom modules, whereas the folder structure is only available in the Library module. So if you decide which images you might want in your new book, create a Collection containing them, and it will be there waiting for you when you go into Book. If you want to tweak one or two, then again when you go to Develop, they are there waiting for you.

As I said before, the downside is that the Collections are only available within LR itself.

Regards,

Dave

Thanks for the heads up about Lightroom Collections, Dave. Everything makes sense. I'm alrady using a Collection to create a book, so I have minimal experience at least with the concept.

One aspect of organizing photos is the ability to sort them in various orders without having to change the file name. Is there a way to do that in Lightroom?

Hi again,

Select your Collection, and in the Library module (easiest to see in Grid view), then under the View menu item you will find "Sort", which gives you quite a variety of options. That rearranges the images on the grid and also on the "filmstrip". So far as I can see, the Filmstrip of your Collection in the other modules, including book, is maintained in the new Sort order. Hope this helps.

Dave

Thanks again, Dave. Perhaps "User Order" will make it possible to do what I want. By the way, I see that the sort method is displayed in a toolbar near the bottom of the window, making it possible to access the various items without opening the View menu located at the top of the window.

Within a collection one can simply click and drag images to reorder the set. Useful in conditions where no logical sort will get you the results you want. Simplicity itself.

That's exactly what I was hoping, Hendrik. Thanks for confirming that it can be done, as I have not yet tried to do that.

One last question: Once the photos are sorted in a custom order within a collection, is it possible to automatically produce another copy of the physical image files in that collection that are renamed to maintain that custom order, as an example, for presenting slide shows on a television or projector that is not connected to Lightroom?

If I'm not much mistook, Lightroom's Slideshow module will handle all that for you, producing a stand-alone slide show.

I suspect Hendrik knows a lot more than I about LR. However, if you plan to Export from LR to some other package, there are extensive re-naming options which should both maintain the Collection's order and produce a name that will maintain that order in whatever other product

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidedric

if you plan to Export from LR to some other package, there are extensive re-naming options which should both maintain the Collection's order and produce a name that will maintain that order in whatever other product

---

No doubt, but my point (which I soft pedaled), is that, if the intent is to produce a slideshow, it can be done more simply within Lightroom - no outside assembly required. It can be run and edited within LR and different versions (different selections, ordering, etc.) produced at will. It can be exported as either a .pdf or as a video. If there is another reason to export in some order with names that preserve that order then the collection can be further custom ordered with the mouse if necessary and exported en masse or piecemeal, while taking advantage of the naming and numbering facilities in the export module (File/Export...).

Of the modules listed at the right end of the top bar, except for the Library, Develop and Map modules, all are export modules, as well, and can produce discrete renderings based on the applied edits. The custom sort of the Collection (safe in the Library Module) will not be affected because the files on which the collection is based will not be renamed although mentions of export will be placed in their history logs. The export files will have the new names and the user has the option to add these new files back into the catalog or not.

Dave and Hendrik, I've read your various comments with interest. I'm still relatively new to LR. I've started to use collections but only in a small way so far. Your comments have filled in a number of gaps in my knowledge -- many thanks.

Thank you to Dave and Hendrik. Having seen your helpful information, I'm confident that Lightroom will fill my offline slideshow needs.

Mike, Julieanne Kost (of Adobe) has a number of videos on LR. I have found these to be very helpful.
www.jkost.com/lightroom.html

Bruce

Yes, I've viewed several of her videos about using the Book module several times. They are "excellent" (an inside joke only for those who have seen her videos).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

Yes, I've viewed several of her videos about using the Book module several times. They are "excellent" (an inside joke only for those who have seen her videos).

---

Then this thread must be just about over! ;)

While there must be advantages to adding key words [et al] and 'stars' to photos I think the deletion of photographs is wrong because I quite often trawl through my 'archive' folder of original camera files and find some worth being worked up .... in fact I usually avoid looking at recent shootings becuase of the confusion between what I remember of the scene and what I actual got.

Windows 3.1.1 gave me an excellent system with 'Directory' which has subsequently become 'Windows Explorer'.[XP] Early on in this thread [#4] was the suggestion to go to a site for the 'librarian's' heading. I think that good advice if only that it will show I assume how things can be organised. I was in charge [ boss and dogs body ... just me and myself and I ....] of a photo library for a government department for three years early in my life and shared a flat with a librarian so perhaps I am biased but really it is very simple so long as you are logical when you set up folders, sub folders and sub-sub-folders. Any failings in my system come from me that I didn't put a file under a folder name which I remember currently. Since computers are highly literal I cannot see how any 'system' could be better.

May be a bit out of places in this thread, but if you want a file manager to replace Windows Explorer I can thoroughly recommend Directory Opus from gpsoft. I don't use it for photos (I use LR), but for general file management it has saved me hours of time and much frustration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcuknz

While there must be advantages to adding key words [et al] and 'stars' to photos...

---

The advantage of key words in a database such as Lightroom (aside from the possibility of making the image's location on disk irrelevant) is the capability it offers of classifying images on multiple axes (venue, subject, quality of light, purpose, etc.) and threads (e.g., subject = son George, daughter Anne, cousin Gertrude, uncle Jonah and Bob from the office) without needing to place a separate image in each of their folders if they and a lot of other classifiables appear in the same pic. The ability to search on a keyword across the catalog is priceless - especially in large catalogs with low-frequency subjects (e.g., 20k images but only three with cousin Gertrude).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HenkB

The ability to search on a keyword across the catalog is priceless - especially in large catalogs with low-frequency subjects (e.g., 20k images but only three with cousin Gertrude).

---

As one who uses a catalog, I couldn't agree more. However, if you know where all images of cousin Gertrude were captured and if your images are stored in physical folders that are organized according to location, it will be just as easy to find those three images of her. My point is that establishing and maintaining a catalog is a time-consuming process and one shouldn't bother with it unless they are having trouble finding all of their photos that meet certain criteria.

As an example, I have two slide shows, one that includes only photos that are very colorful and the other that includes only photos that display circles. There is no physical organization of files and file folders that would make it possible, much less easy, to find all of my photos that meet those criteria. Only a catalog makes finding them possible...and fortunately very easy.

Very True .....Only a catalog makes finding them possible...and fortunately very easy.

My point is that when you buy Windows you get one for free .. you just have the nouce to use it and this probably applies to any programme people spend money on or download for free ....as I said I am probably biased :)