Digital Asset Management

[purplehaze]

Just bought a new MBP on the weekend and am trying to decide how to organize my images going forward. I have until now been using Aperture to organize my photos and really like its DAM features, but given Apple's abandonment of the program, I wonder what other Aperture users who also use other editing programs are electing to do: stick with Aperture and hope for the best, or do something else?

[Manfred M]

MBP(I guess this means Macbook Pro)? DAM? Sorry. those are two acronyms I've never heard of.

Sticking with an obsolete piece of software is never a great long-term solution as eventually, you are going to have to make the switch as at some point or other your solution will cause issues (likely either when you upgrade to a new camera or when an operating system upgrade "breaks" the tool.

From a commercial standpoint; there are two outstanding products to consider as a replacement for Aperture; Adobe Lightroom and Phase One Capture One. I would suspect that Lightroom is the path most people will choose, but you might want to look at Capture One as well, as it is considered a superior product by a number of pros that I know,

[purplehaze]

Thanks, Manfred. DAM stands for digital asset management. Unlike LR, Aperture is able to catalogue images AND move them around as needed without losing track of them. Ideally, I would like to have all my images available to process in the editing program of my choice (Aperture, LR, PS, or a combination thereof) and maintain flexibility in terms of where the originals are stored. I am having trouble visualizing how I would do that outside of Aperture.

[purplehaze]

Capture One looks interesting; thanks for mentioning it.

[Manfred M]

So far as I know, both Lightroom and Capture One have this functionality. As long as you use the software to manage your files, rather than an external file manager, they will keep track of all of your files.

I'm no expert in Lightroom, but just moved a couple of files around in it (most of the work I do uses Adobe Bridge). A tool like this without file management capabilities seems to be a bit strange.

[Mike Buckley]

I have been using IDimager's DAM software for seven years and heartily recommend that you consider it. I use it to download images from the memory card and cull them. Once that is done, you can open the images directly from within the DAM software in an unlimited number of post-processing software apps. Once my post-processing is done, I use the DAM software to catalog the images and to move them to their final resting place. In other words, their DAM tool is at the center of my workflow.

If you ever decide that you want to switch to a competing DAM tool, that's easy to do because the catalog is built on an open architecture.

It has limited post-processing capabilities to accommodate the needs of people who want to use only one software application, but I am recommending it only as a full-feature DAM tool.

The name of the current version of the software is PhotoSupreme.

[purplehaze]

Manfred, I'm not as conversant with LR as I am with Aperture, but my understanding is that it merely references images whereas Aperture, and, it appears, Capture One, can either reference images or "manage" them. "Managed" images are contained within their respective libraries or catalogues, from where they can be moved out (thereby becoming referenced) and in again (back to managed) without getting lost. This, together with the fact that I can, from within Aperture, edit in LR, but can't do the reverse make me reluctant to give up Aperture.

[purplehaze]

I have been using IDimager's DAM software for seven years and heartily recommend that you consider it. I use it to download images from the memory card and cull them. Once that is done, you can open the images directly from within the DAM software in an unlimited number of post-processing software apps. Once my post-processing is done, I use the DAM software to catalog the images and to move them to their final resting place. In other words, their DAM tool is at the center of my work.

This is the kind of thing I am looking for! Thanks, Mike; I will definitely look into it!

[Mike Buckley]

"Managed" images are contained within their respective libraries or catalogues, from where they can be moved out (thereby becoming referenced) and in again (back to managed) without getting lost.

I'm having trouble wrapping my arms around that concept mostly because I can't imagine why it would ever be helpful to "move out" an image from the catalog. Once the image file has been imported into the catalog, you should be able to post-process it in an unlimited number of post-processing software applications while it remains in the DAM catalog. The only thing that needs to be updated after post-processing it in external software is the thumbnail and the DAM tool should automatically do that. Indeed, the only reason the thumbnail has to be updated is because it is stored in a separate database, so it's understandable that the post-processing software can't update that database.

Perhaps my unfamiliarity with the concept you explained has to do with the fact that I have always used IDimager's DAM purely as a DAM and have always relied on external software to do the post-processing.

[purplehaze]

I'm having trouble wrapping my arms around that concept mostly because I can't imagine why it would ever be helpful to "move out" an image from the catalog..

The point is that the LR catalog does not contain the originals, but just the editing info, and, so far as I understand, cannot move the originals from one disk to another (where necessary to save space or for some other reason), or track their movement.

[Mike Buckley]

I have never used Lightroom's DAM capabilities, but the concept used by IDimager is that once the image file is imported into the catalog, you would use the DAM to to move, copy, and delete the image files. Moreover, as an example, I always use the DAM to automatically create a JPEG from my raw file and sometimes several JPEGs -- as an extreme example, one to display on the Internet, one to display on my television and one to display using my projector. Added to that, I will even create multiple JPEGs for display as part of multiple slide shows.

The software will link all of those versions whether they are stored in the same or separate folders and will automatically keep track of them even if some of the versions are later moved. In other words, once the versions are linked, you can always easily locate all of the versions once you have located one of them.

[ST1]

The point is that the LR catalog does not contain the originals, but just the editing info, and, so far as I understand, cannot move the originals from one disk to another (where necessary to save space or for some other reason), or track their movement.

Janis
Providing you move images across your storage system from within Lightroom, the LR DAM will support your file moving requirements. BTW you can also rename files/folders from within LR.

[purplehaze]

Janis
Providing you move images across your storage system from within Lightroom, the LR DAM will support your file moving requirements. BTW you can also rename files/folders from within LR.

This is news to me; thanks. I will have to think about this some more, but so far, I am leaning towards the 3rd party solution Mike is suggesting... It seems like it might be the most straightforward.

[davidedric]

Janis,

Peter is absolutely correct about the way Lightroom allows you to move images. However, having read through your posts, there is something else to be aware of. Suppose you are using Lightroom as your DAM, and want to edit inn Photoshop, say.

If you start in Lightroom, you "edit in" Photoshop. Lightroom then creates a new image file (there are quite a few options), registers it in the Catalogue, and passes it to Photoshop. When you have done in Photoshop you Save (NOT Save As) and the resulting images, a .psd for example, is stored back in your Lightroom DAM.

If you go straight into Photoshop, you would not be able to incorporate any changes you had previously made in Lightroom, and if you Save As to preserve the original Lightroom can't know about it and you would have to Import it.

I have been using Lightroom for two or three years and I am very happy with it. I am convinced that if you want to use Lightroom in a major way it's really important to understand the workflow it expects and follow it. I've read lots of forum posts from folks who "hate" Lightroom, and nine times out of ten it's because they have tried to impose their existing workflow onto Lightroom. It's usually very frustrating.

Cheers, Dave

[Mike Buckley]

If you go straight into Photoshop, you would not be able to incorporate any changes you had previously made in Lightroom, and if you Save As to preserve the original, Lightroom can't know about it and you would have to Import it.

About the first issue: the whole point of using a DAM tool is that it should be at the center of your workflow. It will always be most useful to the user when you use its capabilities to find an image and then hand it off to its own post-processing capability or to an external post-processing capability. So, it would make no sense to me to open the image in Photoshop without first locating it in Lightroom.

About the second point using "Save as": I suspect that workflow would be true when using any DAM tool. The DAM tool probably would not be able to know you used an external software application to create a new file for the same reason it would not know that you went to the kitchen to make a sandwich.

I am convinced that if you want to use Lightroom in a major way it's really important to understand the workflow it expects and follow it. I've read lots of forum posts from folks who "hate" Lightroom, and nine times out of ten it's because they have tried to impose their existing workflow onto Lightroom.

Though I understand that, I understand it only to a degree, such as the issue about knowing that an image file has to be imported into the catalog before the DAM tool's capabilities can be applied to it. Other than those very most basic concepts, the software should be at the beck and call of the user, not the other way around. I have no idea if Lightroom is guilty of being inflexible in that regard.

[Polar01]

Janis if you are just look at a DAM program take a look at one called Master Mechanic, I am adding a link:

http://www.camerabits.com/products/

Cheers: Allan

[Mike Buckley]

Allan,

That's Photo Mechanic, not Master Mechanic. The product has the widespread reputation of being a very effective browser and organizer especially when used in combination with certain capabilities of the Apple operating system.

However, it's not a DAM tool in the traditional sense because it does not have a catalog database.

If I remember correctly, its developer, Camera Bits, was publicly promising that they were developing a cataloging tool seven years ago when I first began researching DAM products and they have continued to make that promise ever since. Yet it still hasn't been released. They have lost all credibility in my mind in that regard. Still today their website explains that "We can’t announce any dates yet, but stay tuned to our Twitter and Facebook feeds to be the first to know when anything is announced." As someone who has been following the DAM space for nearly a decade, I would change that bit (pun intended) of marketing to "be the first to know if anything is ever announced."

Janis mentioned that she really likes Aperture's DAM features. If that includes the ability to do full-featured cataloging and searching for images using relatively simple or complex queries, Photo Mechanic doesn't have those capabilities. That's because a catalog database is required to make all of that happen and Photo Mechanic doesn't have one.

Having said all of that, Photo Mechanic may meet all of Janis's needs, especially if she always uses it with an Apple operating system. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it does meet her needs. Indeed, I contend that even most serious photographers such as the participants here at CiC don't have the need for a catalog database.

[Polar01]

We do have a couple of the Master Mechanics around here, I guess I am going to need some DAM work done in the old upstairs filing system if I keep making those mistakes, but it was close.

Cheers: Allan

[davidedric]

About the second point using "Save as": I suspect that workflow would be true when using any DAM tool.

Hi Mike,

I am sure you are right. It's just that I've come across one or two threads from people used to using standalone photo editors, who automatically do "Save As" and then wonder where their file has gone!

Dave

[DanK]

If I understand correctly what you want, LR does this. You can manage everything from within LR, including moving and renaming. You can set up any programs you want, as far as I know, as external editors and access them via LR. I am not an expert on the cataloging functions of LR--I don't make very heavy use of them, even though I do much of my editing in it--but I can think of only one limitation: AFAIK, a LR catalog cannot span more than one logical drive. Someone can correct me if I am wrong about that.

Re the Save As issue: with Photoshop, this is not an issue, but there are external software packages that can't reinsert the edited image into the LR database. The fix is trivial: when I finish in one of those programs, I just tell LR to resync the directory. It will then import the edited image.