Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Why make folders at all?
The DAM Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 06, 2020, 08:45:04 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
28033 Posts in 5147 Topics by 2904 Members
Latest Member: kbroch
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  The DAM Forum
|-+  Software Discussions
| |-+  Media Pro & Expression Media
| | |-+  Why make folders at all?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: Why make folders at all?  (Read 13092 times)
Dierk
Full Member
***
Posts: 212


149167100 Dierk54@Hotmail.com Evo2Me dhslowhand
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2008, 07:45:29 AM »

MirrorFolder

With that program I sync on the fly for all of my working HDs and partitions. My second back-up is to DVDs via ArchiveCreator, essentially replicating the organisation with the caveat that it's not 1:1. If I need to find anything on my DVDs I have to use my xMedia DVD catalogue or go disc by disc. I am constantly thinking about doing a full back-up once a year from HD to DVD but then leave it out of laziness. When Blu-ray finally gets to computers at reasonable prices it will be done.



Tangent starting.

When I was younger I was much more afraid of losing data. I got over it, not least because it happened to me several times. there's nothing like a completely save system. Full stop. Not even with film.

While I do have photos I'd rather not lose - almost all of them family pics - I reckon I can easily do almost anything again. Or it doesn't matter really [for journalistic pics]. I've never been a collector type, don't even understand them, I am more of a hunter.
Logged

Dierk

IDimager on Windows XP/SP2; 3.2 GHz, 2 GB RAM, loads of storage space.
Other: Nikon D2x, Nikon D200, Capture NX 2, Adobe Creative Suite 3
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2008, 11:54:18 AM »

Dierk,
The differences between our approaches are certainly informed by what we are looking to get out of the storage system. 

Folders can only do one thing at a time very well. For you, the most important thing is to group by subject.  For me, it is to protect the images from loss. It's important to know yourself and your goals.

Peter
Logged
jljonathan
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 76


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2008, 12:06:43 PM »

Interesting discussion of organizational approaches. Thank you.
But now, I would again ask for some input:
What I was trying to get at was the problem for someone who does not do commercial jobs with hundreds of images for a single shoot, but someone who, as a hobby, takes shots and then ends up with too many folders holding too few images. And then, identifying that specific image by it's content in the folder name. And in addition, adding to the abundance of folders in the DRV buckets later, when masters etc are made of these images. I was looking for some guidance for an effective way to utilize the metadata as a primary organizational/search tool, but also have a simplified and more limited folder structure within the RAW ans DRV buckets. The Misc folder is one option for dealing with situations when there is only one or two images within a folder named for the content. But after a while, that Misc folder could end up loaded with strays. I would still be interested in any others suggestions, short of doing away with folders altogether.
Thanks again to all
Jonathan
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2008, 03:08:29 PM »

Jonathan,
If you have lots of little groups of files, then metadata starts to become even more important.  The folder structure becomes unwieldy even faster.

Try using keywords or catalog sets to do the organizing.  See how that feels. 
Peter
Logged
jljonathan
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 76


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: December 16, 2008, 05:20:12 PM »

Peter
That is what I am leaning toward, and I do appreciate your assistance. The keywords and catalog sets would of course work correctly in EM2. How do you get the catalog sets show up correctly in Bridge, etc? I just tried making  a catalog set of a few images, used the sync annotations in EM2 but I don't see any indication of it in Bridge. When I make keyword changes in EM2 and sync, they do show in Bridge. Without catalog sets showing up somewhere else, I would be a little hesitant to only work with the keywords.
And, if I take your advice and use keywords/catalog sets for my organizing, I still would like to know what you suggest for how I handle folders. I do have lots of little groups of files in lots of small folders. Do you suggest abandoning folders altogether, or some other option in between, like sticking with misc or dates, even though this would end up with folders filed with many disparate items. Almost like sub-buckets.
Thanks again
Jonathan
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: December 16, 2008, 09:27:11 PM »

Jonathan,
Not sure why you need to see the information in Bridge - that would help to understand what is the right tool.

As to the organizing, I'd say to use sets or keywords to bring images together.  I'm guessing that many of the small groups are recurring subjects (maybe easy to group, like a one-off picture of my kids - or more esoteric, like photos I make of my hotel rooms).  In any case, metadata can bring images together that would never be grouped naturally in a folder, because they were shot so far apart in time.
Peter


Logged
jljonathan
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 76


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2008, 12:37:51 AM »

Peter,
First off.  I guess that doing away with the folders based on content etc., means that I would be organizing completely by keywords and catalog sets in EM2. Fine with me. Except the slight anxiety of something going wrong in EM2, or future versions of EM etc. Bridge would be my only option, and there I would only have keywords because the sets would not show up to take the place of folders with content names, which I would no longer have there to fall back on. If the catalog sets were available in Bridge, that would at least ease the situation.
Second. Yes, I do have many small groups of somewhat recurring subjects, there are also some large folders holding larger shoots. Metadata would be perfect as an organization tool. Both keywords and sets combined. Are you then suggesting that I do away with folders altogether or a middle option, such as the misc folder idea for folders with few files (but as I mentioned, this misc folder could end up  a hodge podge after a while. What would you suggest.
Jonathan
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2008, 07:44:52 AM »

I am not suggesting doing away with folders altogether.  I'm just saying that you don't need to depend on them for content-based organization.

Expression Media is not going to magically disappear one night, never to be seen again.  You may, however, decide you don't want to use it any more, and need to get your information out of it.  Transferring the organizational structure from catalog sets to , say hierarchical keywords is not something that takes all that long.  As a demonstration, I recently looked at what moving my 40,000 image 2006 catalog from EM to Lightroom would look like - it took less than a day to do the full migration. (Select all images in a set, and assign a keyword for that set).

I'd say that your folder structure is *much* more fragile than embedded metadata as a carrier of content information, even proprietary XMP fields like Catalog Sets (if it's written to XMP, it can be read by Bridge.)

I think that you are way over-thinking this one.
Peter




Logged
jljonathan
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 76


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2008, 12:23:29 PM »

Peter
You are right about the over-thinking. I guess since I'm using EM2, and by using keywords, I'm already not completely dependent on content based folders. I have not yet tried using catalog sets in EM, so I think I will give that a go and see how that works out. Is there a way to write the sets to XMP that can be read?

I still would like to reduce the amount of folders holding only a few images. Could you offer some suggestions.

Are you planning to make a switch from EM to Lightroom?

Thank you again
Jonathan
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2008, 01:35:29 PM »

When yu sync annotation in EM, you get the option of writing Catalog Sets to XMP. THey're not easy to see (File Info>Advanced, unless you have Beadsworth's panel).  But this does, in fact, write the data to the file.

As far as the folders thing, I'd just move the images into larger misc folders.

And as far as moving to LR, it will be interesting to see who gets to a better alternative than the current EM first - Adobe, MS, someone else?  Right now, the catalog part of LR is unsuited to my on collection (catalogs too large, other stuff outlined in the LR part of the forum), but they are making progress fast.

Peter
Logged
jljonathan
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 76


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: December 17, 2008, 11:24:05 PM »

Peter
Thanks again for all you suggestions and help. I tried the xmp panel and it does work in Bridge.
Jonathan
Logged
Doug
Newbie
*
Posts: 48


View Profile Email
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2008, 01:37:52 AM »

I'm probably in between Jonathan and Peter in volume. I can shoot a few thousand images in a month, but not every month. I find folders by either subject or location useful for my lowest level. I have Year then Year_Month (2008_12) then any name that'll help me find stuff later. Its really irrelevant to the DAM, but it helps me when I'm looking without a DAM app. If my shoot is a certain trip stretched over a couple weeks, it'll all go in a folder named for the place, for example. Just jogs the memory.

With Toast (and probably others) able to span many DVDs, automatically creating 4.3GB chunks from an arbitrary amount of initial data and then burning them in succession, I don't personally find any use for breaking things into buckets.

-doug
« Last Edit: December 19, 2008, 01:40:18 AM by Doug » Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #27 on: December 20, 2008, 01:26:50 PM »

Doug,
Span-burning does help, but there's one thing you need to be careful about.  You can't burn the month until you've processed everything you shot in that month.  I find that oftentimes I don't get around to clearing my backlog until months after some of the images have been shot.

Of course, if you ingest directly into a month folder (as opposed to using a Working folder to hold images until ready to archive), then you should be able to span-burn at the end of the month, and be sure you have everything burned.

Are the disks that are produced by Toast in such a form that it would be easy to reconstruct the archive, and know that everything has been restored?
Peter
Logged
danaltick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1616

evaa-xdtb@spamex.com danaltick
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #28 on: December 20, 2008, 10:03:40 PM »

I remember talking about buckets with people a few years back when Peter first wrote the book.  It just seemed overly complex to people; but it's really very simple if you think about it.  As long as we use write once media for permanent storage, I just don't see a better way to handle it.  Of course DVD's "are" beginning to run their lifespan now with larger megapixel cameras, but Peter has already adopted Blu-ray; and I'm not far behind.  Buckets are really a very simple step in the workflow with minimal overhead.  I actually have a simple bucket template on my archive drive that I just copy, paste, and increment every time I need a new bucket.  I've even gone back to a flat folder scheme inside each bucket.  Given that I usually have no more than a half dozen to a dozen folders in any given bucket, it just makes things simpler.

Dan
« Last Edit: December 20, 2008, 10:08:07 PM by danaltick » Logged

WindowsXP, ImageIngester Pro, RapidFixer, IVMP 3, ACR4, Photoshop CS4, Controlled Keyword Catalog, Canon EOS50D
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2008, 10:18:52 AM »

Dan,
As I've been writing the new book, I really wish that I could do away with buckets, but we're just not there yet.  It makes things more complex, particularly for the Lightroom user where folder structure is one of the tools that the programmers expect you to use for informational organization. 

The biggest problem with non-bucketed approach, is that it either means write-once backups are not used at all, are not complete, or will not be usable to restore the archive with confidence in the event of drive failure.

I know I'm a magnet for data-loss stories, but I've seen (on my own drives) and heard about way too many stories of data loss to rely on hard drives alone, at least until DAM software is able to validate completeness and integrity of the archive. With hard drive-only storage, it's way too easy to have the corruption on a primary drive be propagated to the backup drives without knowing it. There's the very real possibility of loss of *everything*. (LOT4 tape backup can also protect without buckets, if you have a spare $10,000 lying around).

Anyway, one day it won't be necessary (or if you re like Dierk and can make peace with the possibility of data loss - that day is today.)
Peter



Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!