Photoshop and Cataloging Photos

[Thlayle]

Viewing other posts in this forum, I see a lot of disdain for photo editing programs like Lightroom.

Having tried both Photoshop and Lightroom, and having had the most experience with Aperture, I am not convinced Photoshop will ever suit me. I am getting great results with these other programs. The learning curve is steep with Photoshop, everything seems harder to do, nothing is intuitive and other than some specialized purposes, like pano stitching, HDR and lots of special effects, most of which seem more like parlor tricks than anything useful for just processing good photos.

Mainly though, my question is this: if you are using Photoshop for all or most of your work, how do you catalog, organize and track your work? I see no tools for those purposes in Photoshop.

I would be interested in some feedback on Photoshop if anyone has some especially good tips on how to climb its steep learning curve. I know there's tons of support out there, on Adobe TV and many other places. Maybe that would help, if you have some specifics to recommend. But again: I really need to know how the first question is answered since I do need a program that will help with keeping everything organized.

[Manfred M]

Lightoom is primarily a cataloging tool with a small, front end editor (nicely said; it uses the same engine as Adobe Camera RAW, just with a different interface). I don't use or recommend it, because in my view, the database design is not to my liking.

I'm a pretty old fashion cataloger; my images are filed either by event, or if they are not event related, chronologically. I started doing this in the "old" days before cataloging tools. I find I have no issues finding my images using this basic technique.

As for learning Photoshop; yes, it does have a long learning curve. Practice makes perfect and there are books, free tutorials and two very good pay sites; Kelby One (a.k.a. Kelby training ) and Lynda.com. After that, practice makes perfect; so practice lots.

[Thlayle]

Thanks, Manfred.

Sounds like entirely 'manual' cataloging, something I can probably manage. I am good at setting up organized directories & folders and now that the Mac OS allows for searchable tagging of files, it should be even easier.

I am liking the results I'm getting with Photoshop when I use it. It's just been a bit intimidating--and I say that as someone who has a broad skill set & one who's very adaptable when it comes to learning new applications.

I really appreciate the input. Thanks again.

-Randy

[dan marchant]

Mainly though, my question is this: if you are using Photoshop for all or most of your work, how do you catalog, organize and track your work? I see no tools for those purposes in Photoshop.

Photoshop includes Bridge for image management (and ACR for RAW processing) http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-phot...be-bridge-cs6/
However, quite a few photographers prefer Lightroom and so use that for their asset management and RAW work and then move to Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements) for their additional editing.

When it comes to Lightroom I am on the opposite team to Manfred. I store my images in exactly the same way Manfred does but because I use Lightroom to do it I can find them far more efficiently. Manfred may be able to find a photo taken at a particular location but he can't find all similar images, in multiple different folders, at the same time. Lightroom's keywording and collections system allows you to find all images that meet a particular criteria (or multiple criteria) at the same time. I recently needed to find all images of a particular Rugby player taken over a period of several years. That is far easier to do by selecting a couple of keywords than it is by remembering and manually going to each folder that contains Rugby shots.

[LocalHero1953]

I would characterise LR as providing all the processing equivalent to a traditional darkroom, while PS provides all the power you need for total creative digital manipulation. Your choice depends on your approach. I have nothing against PS except that it's too complex for me, though I sometimes wish I had its tools. I use PS Elements, but that does not mesh well with LR's non destructive editing.

I don't use LR's cataloging facilities to the full - mainly just as a photo-oriented version of Windows Explorer, though I do use its "collections" tools to help sort photos for particular ad hoc purposes.

[Colin Southern]

I have nothing against PS except that it's too complex for me, though I sometimes wish I had its tools.

People often say this (in comparison to LR), but it doesn't make any sense to me as all of Lightroom's processing capability is built into ACR, with similarly names sliders -- therefore if you can use LR then you can use ACR -- and if it's something more complex that you need to do in Photoshop then - if you're following best-practice of doing everything you can do in ACR - then whatever it is that you're needing to do in PS couldn't have been done in either LR or ACR.

Or put another way, if LR is doing all you want then ACR should also do all you want in just the same way (in terms of image processing) (which isn't surprising as they have the same processing engine).

[davidedric]

though I do use its "collections" tools to help sort photos for particular ad hoc purposes.

Because Collections are visible in the Develop module but the folder structure is not, I normall use a Collection of the set of photos from a shoot that I think are worth further work. It just makes it easier to work through them in Develop.

Dave

[Mike Buckley]

Back to the issue about cataloging: I catalog my images and sold an eBook that I wrote about how to use IDimager cataloging software. Even so, I firmly believe that very few people have a need to catalog their images. The really easy way to determine whether you have that need is to ask yourself whether you can quickly find images that meet your specific criteria using only a physical directory of folders. If so, you don't need to catalog your images. If not (as in my case), you need to catalog them.

If you determine that you need to catalog them, use a powerful stand-alone product that has effective user and developer support such as IDimager's product.

[LocalHero1953]

People often say this (in comparison to LR), but it doesn't make any sense to me as all of Lightroom's processing capability is built into ACR, with similarly names sliders -- therefore if you can use LR then you can use ACR -- and if it's something more complex that you need to do in Photoshop then - if you're following best-practice of doing everything you can do in ACR - then whatever it is that you're needing to do in PS couldn't have been done in either LR or ACR.

Or put another way, if LR is doing all you want then ACR should also do all you want in just the same way (in terms of image processing) (which isn't surprising as they have the same processing engine).

It's layers in PS that would need a particular learning regime. I know they're powerful, but I can manage without them. I don't doubt ACR would be straightforward. Keeping to LR, I know I can keep accessing the catalog and editing files without having to keep paying Adobe.

Each to their own.

[Colin Southern]

Manfred may be able to find a photo taken at a particular location but he can't find all similar images, in multiple different folders, at the same time.

Sure can - just search on the keyword in Bridge (or choose several of many other parameters)

[The Blue Boy]

"I'm a pretty old fashion cataloger; my images are filed either by event, or if they are not event related, chronologically. I started doing this in the "old" days before cataloging tools. I find I have no issues finding my images using this basic technique."

I have to agree with Manfred. All my stuff is in named folders with titles, i.e. event, place, date, etc...

However, now and again I'll throw in some keywords. I'll just fire up a Metadata template and slap it on a whole load of files.

For doing this I'll use Bridge. It's funny that in these sort of PS vs LR threads, that hardly any mention is made of Bridge.

Lots of things can be done in Bridge. And it comes with PS as a bonus,

[Mike Buckley]

Lots of things can be done in Bridge. And it comes with PS as a bonus,

To clarify that, it is available only with Photoshop CC.

[The Blue Boy]

Mike,

It came with CS5 as well. Not sure about earlier than that...

[The Blue Boy]

A quick Google leads me to believe it came with PS as far back as CS2...

[Mike Buckley]

To clarify my previous post, if you do not already have Bridge, be aware that Adobe's website explains that it is now available only with Photoshop CC.

[Thlayle]

"I'm a pretty old fashion cataloger; my images are filed either by event, or if they are not event related, chronologically. I started doing this in the "old" days before cataloging tools. I find I have no issues finding my images using this basic technique."

I have to agree with Manfred. All my stuff is in named folders with titles, i.e. event, place, date, etc...

However, now and again I'll throw in some keywords. I'll just fire up a Metadata template and slap it on a whole load of files.

For doing this I'll use Bridge. It's funny that in these sort of PS vs LR threads, that hardly any mention is made of Bridge.

Lots of things can be done in Bridge. And it comes with PS as a bonus,

The big disappointment for me with Bridge is that it has to run side by side with Photoshop to use it effectively. But of course, having Lightroom, I don't need to turn to Bridge at all. As a sidebar issue, I have to admit that nowadays my MBP (late 2009) with its graphics card and maxed out 8 Gb RAM does not keep up with the processing demands of Lightroom and Photoshop (especially running them together); same for Aperture for that matter. Since the 'iPad-ification' of the Mac with the latest OS developments, my laptop is now starting to run pretty clunky -- but I digress even more...

I am one, speaking of shelling out money to Adobe, who is 'renting' my apps via the CC Photography program. I am doing this to learn these applications and decide on my next step within about one year of use. Right now it is starting to look like either sticking with Aperture or, assuming I CAN indeed master Photoshop within a year, going with just that app. But if I do make the change, I will have to make sure I can handle the cataloging issue manually. Hence my question in my OP.

And finally: from my experience I have to say that cataloging is critical for me. I take lots of photos & have accumulated a very large library.

[AFTER THOUGHT: reviewing my comment here, I guess it leads me to believe Lightroom is not needed if you are good at Photoshop, assuming the cataloging part can work out too.

[Mike Buckley]

I have to say that cataloging is critical for me. I take lots of photos & have accumulated a very large library.

That could very well be true. However, especially for others reading the thread, keep in mind that the number of photos in and of itself really has nothing to do with whether anyone needs a catalog to be able to easily find them.

As an example, you might have 10,000 photos of your mother. If you store all of them in the same directory, you can easily find them without cataloging them. The catalog becomes handy and perhaps critically important when you want to quickly and easily find only your very best photos of your mother that also include your father, exclude your sister, and were captured before 1990 anywhere except Rome, Paris and New York City.

[The Blue Boy]

Randy,

I think that it's a case of before and after. Those of us that got used to PS don't see the point in shifting to LR (or any other for that matter) and then those of us that use LR and think it's the bee's knees. Both are brilliant.

I'm renting them too. And I don't see the point of chucking in LR along with PS. I'd be happy with just the latter for £9 a month.

But while it's on your system, make the most of it and above all, enjoy it! It's frustrating at first but with a little time and practice, you'll begin to understand why it's the "industry standard."

[Colin Southern]

Hi Randy,

The big disappointment for me with Bridge is that it has to run side by side with Photoshop to use it effectively.

Why is this even an issue?

I am one, speaking of shelling out money to Adobe, who is 'renting' my apps via the CC Photography program. I am doing this to learn these applications and decide on my next step within about one year of use. Right now it is starting to look like either sticking with Aperture or, assuming I CAN indeed master Photoshop within a year, going with just that app. But if I do make the change, I will have to make sure I can handle the cataloging issue manually. Hence my question in my OP.

I don't think that anybody could learn everything that's tucked away in Photoshop if they studied it for 3 years full time - but - the good news is "they don't have to". Photoshop is designed as a toolbox so that people can learn and use just the tools they need for what they want to do. Think of it as being like the world's best-equipped workshop where the mechanic has every size spanner available (in metric and imperial!) for him to work on the engines, but he has no interest in the mallets and welder. On the other hand, the panel beater using the same workshop really appreciates the mallets and welders, but has less interest in the spanner selection (although they're there if he needs them too).

So don't "aim to master Photoshop in a year" - you won't do it. Aim to be able to make all of the adjustments YOU need; and if you approach that in a sensible way (ie by investing in appropriate education) (paid or free - either way there is more training resources available for Photoshop than probably all the other packages put together) then it won't take a year -- it probably wouldn't even take a week. Honestly, it's not THAT hard; 95% of the time we're only using 5% of "the workshop". Photoshop is your friend, not your adversary.

And finally: from my experience I have to say that cataloging is critical for me. I take lots of photos & have accumulated a very large library.

Bridge can handle hundreds of thousands of photos.

[AFTER THOUGHT: reviewing my comment here, I guess it leads me to believe Lightroom is not needed if you are good at Photoshop, assuming the cataloging part can work out too.

Bridge's image management capabilities are probably even more extensive than LR's (it's multi-user for a start, and I don't think even LR would have the save searching ability (but I could be wrong) (can LR search for and list, say, all shots where you've used an Exposure Compensation of +1.3EV?), but the way it does it IS a little different in that although it caches images for performance reasons (up to a user defined point), it doesn't maintain a central database as such - and that means that it stores all the metadata either in the file (assuming DNG) or in an XMP "sidecar" file. The "disadvantage" of this is that it has to search through them all when you want to find something (which can take a few minutes if you point it at the entire disk), but the advantage of that is that ALL the metadata resides with the file where it can be safely backed up as a tightly-integrated unit. LR on the other hand keeps some or all of the metadata in it's own database (depending on how you set it up) and that in itself has several significant concerns with regards to backups (traditional backups aren't effective if the catalog gets corrupted resulting in loss of data but you don't realize it because it may only affect an image set that you're not currently working with -- and by the time you realise it all current backup sets may be over-ridden). The Bridge approach may be slower in theory (although in practice with modern solid-state drives it's just not an issue), but it's "keep all the data with the photos" design is far far far safer in my opinion, when you're relying on the metadata.

People need to realize what LR is and isn't. It's a neat little program, but at the end of the day, it's a cataloging program with Photoshop's ACR thrown in for image adjustments. If you need to manage lots of shots with minimal processing then it's a great & cheap little program, but THAT'S WHERE IT STOPS. As soon as you need to do any non-trivial pixel-based editing, then you're SOOL ("Severely" out of Luck!).

[LocalHero1953]

Can anyone tell me what metadata or editing data is stored in the LR catalog rather than with the image file (assuming you set it up to store edits in the file)? This would be a key factor when it comes to the extent of damage done if and when the LR catalog falls over. I assume that the file retains all the original metadata that it starts with in the camera.