Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

assigning key words
#1

Hey!

Do you all assign keywords to your pictures??

I made an attempt to establish it as a habit for myself, to keep a handle on the growing mass of pictures on my hd,
but I gave up because I found Adobe Bridge excruciatingly bulky and slow.
I did like the possibility to batch lable however.
Now I am looking for something less bulky that allows keyword assignment on-the-fly...

For regular pic browsing I use faststone, which is grate but for all I know does not have this function,
and also doesn't allow you to grade your pics with say a star system.

so what software do people use to sort and lable their pictures?

Uli
Reply
#2

Simple answer. I don't. I have the most messy index system ever.
Basically folders for Year, Month and either days or locations . No stars or grading, although Canon Zoom Browser EX can do that. I either keep or delete.
I upload to the PC from the camera and after rotating any that is needed I transfer to external hard drive.
I sometimes name the photo's later.

Lumix LX5.
Canon 350 D.+ 18-55 Kit lens + Tamron 70-300 macro. + Canon 50mm f1.8 + Manfrotto tripod, in bag.
Reply
#3

Lightroom.

I keyword all of my photos, but not very well. I usually assign one or two when the photos are imported, typically a location and/or conditions (night, rain) note. I'll rank all of the photos -- to me that's more important than keywords -- and then I'll try to add more specific tags to the photos. The problem is that I'm not very consistent, and don't always use the same terms and don't identify all of the photos accurately. Despite having a couple of books on the subject, it's still a learning process.

matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Reply
#4

Mat, what else do you use lightroom for?
Is assigning keywords part of your regular routine?

Uli
Reply
#5

I use Lightroom for everything, from taking images off of the card to creating the final web-ready images or paper prints. Even if I use Photoshop, I still use Lightroom to open and track the file as it creates a copy within the main library.

I try to have at least one or two keywords for every photo before I group it into my main library. When I initially import photos, it doesn't go into my main folder hierarchy; new images are sorted into folders by date until I go through them for ratings and keywords. It's only after that's done that I add them to the main collection. My image folders (the actual folders that store the images on the disk, which is how they're sorted in the LR library) are created and organized by date, so if I want to find images of "downtown", "architecture", or "california" it's much faster to go to the keyword. From there I use the star rating system to narrow or broaden the quality level that I'm looking for.

matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Reply
#6

sounds pretty consistent.

uli
Reply
#7

The workflow is pretty consistent, it's the keywords themselves that are the problem. For example, I've only recently started adding the location where they we shot within the city. I have about 17,000 photos that might belong in one of the new categories but haven't been sorted by that criteria simply because they predate that decision. And of my new photos, some are getting the generic "downtown" tag (I spend almost all of my time in the centre of the city, as I live and work there) but others will also be identified by the specific area -- which can be as small as a public square or as large as a neighbourhood -- and sometimes all three at once.

One thing that I've learned is that it's better to be generous with keywords, even if it means that unrelated images are being grouped together. This usually happens when I have a lot of images of the same subject or theme with a few others mixed in. I simply select the entire sequence and assign whatever keywords are appropriate, and just remove the exceptions when I see them again. It doesn't matter that I have a few photos of people included in the 'pigeon' tag, as long as they are also tagged as 'people' so that they can still be found when I'm looking for them.

matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Reply
#8

I use also lightroom and I tag my pictures too. I do somethings similar to Matthew I think. When I import my picures to my computer from the card all of them have the tag of the place they were taken, then I sellect the ones with similar subjects and tag again with more specific words. I always rank my pictures when I see them first time and pick the good ones, then I rank with numbers the better ones. You can also organize by colors as well. This is specially good when you have different projects going on.

When I started my new catalog with all pictures you had taken, it was impossible to tag all of them. I still have some pictures without tags from my initial import. The good thing with lightroom is the use of filters, so if you remember what lens you used you can go to metadata browser and you will have your pictures organized by camera, by lens, by apperture and so on... so there is always a way to find your pictures soon.

My only complain with this version is that the slideshow doesn't work.

I have been working also with Lightroom 2 beta, and I like very much the way they present those filters in this version of this program. In any case you would like to give a try to lightroom you migh be able to download Lr 2 beta, and try it for 30 days. The program is still a bit slow to me, but you have a lot more useful features to try than the 1.3 version.

A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art.
Paul Cezanne
Reply
#9

Uh, Irma, very "ordentlich"!
I am too disorganised with these things. Started an initial effort a long time ago and gave up.
The hardest thing (like Mat mentioned) will probably be to go back through ages of pics to try to tag them, but in the long run, I guess there is no way out.

Sounds like I might give lightroom a try!

uli
Reply
#10

Like nt, I do not either. However, I do use a sort of shorthand that is personal and quite meaningless to anyone apart from me. The closest thing would be Irma's idea of colourcoding, I guess.
What makes it timeconsuming is the actual writing-out of words..and then the terror of having to recategorise later; as I was once a librarian at a school, I liked the idea of a numerical "Dewey" like system. In other words, one could have an index(make your own up!) whereby 700-800(for example) might be architecture, people-shots 200-250, etc; then at filing-time you could merely give a general word-tag of location, say, followed by a series of numbers...saves all the writing-out of words.
Er.
:/
Am I going nuts, I ask myself.

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#11

Smile

with the numbers... what happens when you have more people shots than numbers tthat you initially assigned to people shots? so then 700-800, 1200-1500 and 270o to3200 are all people shots..... >?

I sort of categorise by date and location, plus, I end up knowing where my favorits are after I used them for books, exhibition etc. but in the long run this brain-based cataloguing system is doomed to fail.

I had a brief look at Lightroom, but a not sure what the meaning of a catalogue is. Is it like a database file? Or does it actually copy all the pictures to a new location? that would be a huge waste of hardware space, hm?
I will have to look up some tutorials.

I guess, deciding on a system in a way also means deciding on a software, in a way.


Uli
Reply
#12

This is where the methodical types really get the edge, I guess; yep, I will one day in the near future be spending 10 minutes trying to find a shot by guesswork.
A case for shooting less quantity, better quality, I guess!

All my stuff is here: www.doverow.com
(Just click on the TOP RIGHT buttons to take you to my Image Galleries or Music Rooms!)
My band TRASHVILLE, in which I'm lead guitarist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6mU6qaNx08
Reply
#13

Uli, yes, a catalog is a database. It will record all metadata of your pictures, location in your computer and modifications you will make in your pictures as well as ranking.

You use the option copy to a new location when you import your pictures from the card to your computer. When you have your pictures in your computer you make a new catalog and use Import Photos At Their Current Location.

There is a useful site for more information.... Smile

http://learn.adobe.com/wiki/display/LR/Home

A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art.
Paul Cezanne
Reply
#14

thank you Irma, thats very helpfull, I'll have a look at some of those

Uli
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread / Author Replies Views Last Post

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)