iPhoto....Where are my Photos...?

[trixiesirisheye]

I am very nervous about how iPhoto wraps up my photos in its proprietary interface/code. I just keep my photos in a folder (and subfolders) in my Documents folder and manage the images with Adobe Bridge. I have a friend whose iPhoto library has gotten corrupted, and she's freaking out. I hope she's gotten AppleCare. The computer is a year old.

[ju7281]

Originally Posted by ChrisA

First off "Why?' Are your just curious? If so,then they are inside the iPhoto library in the Pictures folder. You can right click on the library and then select "show package content. But iPhoto hides them this way for a good reason. It's to prevent you from messing with them.

You really should never have to know where the files are. If you need an image file to include in an email or web page the "correct" way go is to export the file to the dektop from iPhoto

Not everyone uses iPhoto for editing, processing, sharing, etc., because that's not what it's made for. iPhoto is mainly a program for storing and sorting photos in, but not for any real processing. The reason anyone would need to know where their photos are, which is a valid question, is because they might be a real photographer and only use iPhoto for transferring photos from an iDevice to their computer, but need to get to them from another program, such as Adobe Bridge or Photoshop.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by ju7281

Not everyone uses iPhoto for editing, processing, sharing, etc., because that's not what it's made for. iPhoto is mainly a program for storing and sorting photos in, but not for any real processing.

iPhoto has many "real" editing features.

The reason anyone would need to know where their photos are, which is a valid question, is because they might be a real photographer and only use iPhoto for transferring photos from an iDevice to their computer, but need to get to them from another program, such as Adobe Bridge or Photoshop.

Not really. You can access your photos that are in iPhoto from any program using the media browser in the Open file window.

[trixiesirisheye]

I use Bridge and Photoshop. I use Apple's Image Capture to pull the photos of my camera/iPhone. Photos are stored in my documents folder in their own folder with their own subfolders. So much simpler, IMO.

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by ju7281

Not everyone uses iPhoto for editing, processing, sharing, etc., because that's not what it's made for.

I disagree. That is exactly what it is made for. The processing may not be powerful enough for a serious enthusiasts - but it is powerful enough for most people's needs. If you need more then move up to Aperture or Lightroom or Capture One.

Originally Posted by ju7281

iPhoto is mainly a program for storing and sorting photos in, but not for any real processing.

No Digital Asset Manager (DAM) is really made for "real processing" - that what pixel level editors are for. And why iPhoto can use them as an 'external editor'.

Originally Posted by ju7281

The reason anyone would need to know where their photos are, which is a valid question, is because they might be a real photographer and only use iPhoto for transferring photos from an iDevice to their computer, but need to get to them from another program, such as Adobe Bridge or Photoshop.

I disagree here too. You can tell iPhoto to edit your RAW files using Photoshop (or any other editing program) and bypass Bridge altogether.

And as a "real photographer" I graduated from iPhoto a while ago. Though I still keep it around because it has some interesting features that other DAMs don't have. Specifically access to the Apple Book templates.

Originally Posted by trixiesirisheye

I use Bridge and Photoshop. I use Apple's Image Capture to pull the photos of my camera/iPhone. Photos are stored in my documents folder in their own folder with their own subfolders. So much simpler, IMO.

I don't think it's simpler - but then again only IMO. I have a friend - a very very good photographer - who insists on using Bridge. And I've given up trying to woo him to Lightroom, and he's quit trying to justify his use of Bridge. But I gotta tell you, whenever he listed the 'benefits' of Bridge I would invariably tell him how Lightroom does the same thing in half the steps, and with a few more options. He has yet to list something about Bridge that is at all attractive to me. And I'm the fellow who keeps iPhoto around because it does some cool things. But he's set in his ways, and that's fine.

My sense is that Adobe is maintaining Bridge as a Legacy Product at this point, and they would really like it if people moved to Lightroom. Which where Adobe has been putting their development resources.

[trixiesirisheye]

I've heard awesome things about Lightroom, I have the program via Adobe Creative Cloud, and as soon as I teach myself some unrelated PHP and WordPress child theme stuff I need to learn, then I will dig into learning LR.

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by trixiesirisheye

I've heard awesome things about Lightroom, I have the program via Adobe Creative Cloud, and as soon as I teach myself some unrelated PHP and WordPress child theme stuff I need to learn, then I will dig into learning LR.

I think you'll like it... but there is a major "rethink" necessary to fully appreciate Lightroom's organizational power. And Aperture, too.

You have to 'let go' of your photos as tangible things. By default Lightroom wants to move your images into a date ordered folder system. Just let it do its thing. However, make sure you take the time to keyword the images as they are imported. Initially, you might just add the same names as the nested folders you are currently using. Also... take the time to create the "Collections" as you go. Think of a Collection as folder (in the nested folder sense) or an Album in iPhoto or Aperture. Collections can be grouped into Collection Sets...

You can then drag photos into the Collection that matches the way you would have set up a nested folder structure. At this point, admittedly, the benefit is hard to see. But wait - there's more!

A photo does physically reside in the Collection...it is merely a pointer. Which means you can have 'pointers' (images) in as many Collections as you want, without increasing the storage needed (since it is just a text pointer that is being duplicated in a database entry). So, for instance.... Your best friend Fred comes over to visit your family for your birthday. Fred brings a rare breed of monkey because he knows you like to take photos of monkeys. You get a photo of Fred, with the monkey and your family at your birthday party... and since you used the self timer, you're in the photo too.

With the old-fashioned nested folder structure, do you file this image under the date? In the 'My Birthday', 'My Family', 'Monkey', 'Friends', or 'Photos of Me' folder? In 3 years when you need to find that photo again because this is the monkey that was wandering around an Ikea store in Toronto and the local paper will pay you for your copy will you remember where filed it?

With Lightroom you can file it under all of those Collections (It is automatically filed by date, so you don't need to do that). Plus if you have added the keywords, you can just do a search on "monkey" and whatever else may narrow that search.

Plus...you have Smart Collections. These are like permanent searches. Going back to our hypothetical example, people know you have lots of photos of Monkeys and are always asking you for a copy. Since you are adding keywords (Monkey & species, perhaps?) as you import you can set up a Smart Collection that updates itself automatically to show you all the photos that have keyword "Monkey" attached. You never have to go looking for them.. you just open a Collection (which is exactly like opening up a folder) to see all the photos. Smart Collections can have very complex filters that narrow searches by more variables than you can shake a stick at.... for instance you can search (or exclude) lense focal lengths, apertures, camera make, etc etc.

And that is just the scratching the surface of the power of Lightroom's organizational power. To be balanced, Aperture has similar abilities as well.

The key is to "let go" of your images. Let Lightroom do what it wants to do. You need to know that Lightroom (and Aperture) never alter your photos - even when you edit them in those applications. All of these things are being recorded in a database. It's why you never "save" and why you don't move your images around outside of the applications. It's also why the space needed can stay pretty modest even if you have lots of variations and duplicates. You can always "reset" an image to go back to the image you initially imported.

Think of it as a public library, where you request a book and it is brought to you at the front desk. The card catalogue is the Lightroom interface. There are multiple records for the same book... one by author, one by publishing date, one by topic, one by publisher. And you never really need to know where the book is... you just say "I want that one, please" and it is fetched for you. Except that Lightroom also gives you the ability to "look" at the books on the shelf next to the one you want. Sometimes you need to "browse" visually... so you use the search features to find the image you know is near the one you have in mind, and then browse.

Once you have gotten used to the basic functioning of Lightroom, it is flexible enough that you can change some of the defaults. But initially, just stick to the default organizing scheme. The Help files assume this is the case, and you find that the default scheme is pretty well thought out.

Hope this helps.

[trixiesirisheye]

Funny enough, in my documents folder is a folder for my photos. In that folder are subfolders with one for each year, so 2013 photos. In those subfolders are subfolders, so 2013-03 for photos in that month. I do have some other folders for, say, my artwork.

I also have a folder in my documents folder for my business, in that folder is a folder for my clients, and in that folder is subfolder for each client. Images need to stay in the clients' folders, because they are the clients' assets that they've temporarily given to me. So no, I can't stop thinking of images as tangible things. And when I'm no longer working for a client, or it's been a while since I have, I take their whole folder, including the subfolder with their image assets, and zip it up. So that would be a deal-breaker for me. One of the things I DON'T like about iPhoto is its propensity for moving my images into its own organizational construct.

If Adobe gets rid of Bridge, I'll have to find another solution. What you've described makes me want to avoid LR at all costs. I can assign keywords to photos in Bridge and accomplish the same thing you describe.

From what I've read, LR is for photographer's assets. I'm a graphic designer and web developer, so I'm looking at other assets besides photos, like ID files and Fireworks files and Illustrator files, all in one place. From what I just read from a Google search, there are no plans to jettison Bridge, since it serves a different purpose, which is perfect for me.

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by trixiesirisheye

Funny enough.. .. which is perfect for me.

It's helpful to have your description. So... let me say that I am not trying to "convert" you... only you know what will work best for your needs. For the sake of argument I am going to pretend you want to move to Lightroom, but that there are some problems that need to be solved first. If, in the end, you don't move then it is not because there was an artificial barrier.

I am a professional photographer, and I work with clients as well. So our situations are similar in some regards. I don't provide my clients with non-photographic documents - so in that sense there is a difference. But I do create photographic art as well as doing commercial work - and my art pieces need to be linked to things like artist statements.

While the 'default' behaviour of Lightroom (Lr) is to 'move' images into its own folder system - it can be told to leave the images in place and simply note where they are. This can be changed from one import to the next. Though, it is important to get it correct each time as 'undoing' an import is a manual affair. It can be done, and it's not too difficult... but it's better to do it right the 1st time. Anyway... Lr can leave your client's images in place inside your client folders. You may want to create a sub-folder for images that are in Lr vs ones that aren't. If you move the images after they are imported (but outside of Lr) Lightroom will need to be told where they are. The sub-folder would simply remind you to not move the images.

When the job is done you can select your client's images in Lr and export the catalogue to the client folder. Then delete the images from the main Lr catalogue. Then zip your client's folder up, with the Lr catalogue you exported. This means that if you ever have to go back and look at the images again in Lr, you can import the catalogue as well. This will bring back all the metadata, edits, etc. It will be as if they never left.

If you are 'round-tripping' the images... (i.e. you have found the image in Lr and you need to Photoshop it. You send the image to Ps from within Lr and do the editing required. When you Save the image in Ps the image is saved next to (and not overwriting) the original image in Lr. This ensures you always have an untouched original image to go back to.

====

You can set up multiple Catalogues in Lr. One for Clients, one for personal, etc. It is easy to switch back and forth, and each catalogue can have different settings etc.

I tried doing that for awhile, but found it wasn't worth it. I just have a few top level Collection Sets (Collection Sets are like folders and can contain just about anything except images directly... images need to be in 'something' like a Collection, or a Saved Print job, or Slide show or Web Gallery. However, Collection Sets can contain other Collection Sets). Among others, I have Collection Set for Clients and one for My Art Projects. Inside each of these are more Collection Sets. Each Client gets a Collection Set. Inside each Client Collection Set are the various 'things' that relate to that client. If I do a lot of work for that client, then each project has its own Collection Set. But basically, I can group all the work I've done for that client into nice packages. Since their images are in the top level Collection Set called Clients, I don't see those images at all when I'm in My Art Projects. Adobe has made these nesting trees very easy to open and collapse. In seconds I can go from a very neat and tide half a dozen collapsed-view Collection Sets to seeing all 50 or so items in a particular Collection Set 3 levels down.

====

Presets. This is where something like Lr really shines. I need to be able to resize images into a multitude of different resolutions, some with watermarks some without. Some as JPGs and some as TIFFs. etc. Some of the presets I have set are named generically (full sized JPGs) and some are named for the client. Presets can rename images on export, can create contact sheets, etc etc. It means that I can give my clients photos that are consistent from job to job. It means you don't need to look up the requirements more than once...if that one time you Save the preset.

====

For some of my art I end up exporting a bunch of images out of Lr into a project folder on its own. I will work with these images with no reference to Lr. At the very end I will import the final piece back into Lr. This allows me to find it and create any versions I need for promos using the presets. I also record where I've shown it, if I'm that lucky.

====

There are lots more of course.... and it may not be the right tool for you. But I didn't want to leave the thread with a mis-understanding of what Lr can do. Others reading this thread may find it useful.

Cheers.

[trixiesirisheye]

Your description seems like an awful lot of extra work.

LR Presets = Photoshop Actions

I have an action for watermarking my photos. Even a whole folder of photos of different dimensions. At the same time. Piece of cake.

And one for resizing. Among other actions.

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by trixiesirisheye

Your description seems like an awful lot of extra work.

LR Presets = Photoshop Actions

I have an action for watermarking my photos. Even a whole folder of photos of different dimensions. At the same time. Piece of cake.

And one for resizing. Among other actions.

Yes. Similar... but not the same. You can get similar results, but in different ways. One records a macro - and therefore has more flexibility. The other is just filling in the blanks and is much easier to create. I'm not so familiar with Actions... so I don't know if it can rename files using tokens or all of the other things it can do. One of the key differences is that Photoshop edits destructively (i.e. the basic assumption is that the original is replaced with a better version - though of course that can be altered) and Lightroom edits non-destructively... the original is never touched. So the way that Ps and Lr create new versions of an image is also different.

In Lr you don't "create" different versions or sizes of a photo (unless you send it back to Photoshop and back)... you save the 'recipe' for the different sizes and versions. Which saves a lot on the storage needs as you are only needing to store the one original image. If I've resized a whole bunch of images for my website, once they've been uploaded I delete 'em. I just create the resized images as I need to.

Obviously your system works for you... And like I said, I'm not trying to change your mind. However, others who may not have yet settled on a workflow may end up reading this thread. I think between your contribution and my replies we have covered just about all the bases, eh?