Both photos and videos in archive

[JoeThePhotographer]

I shoot primarily with a Nikon D90 these days, which also shoots video.  I've been storing the photos and the video in the same bucket as has been suggested.  I end up with some buckets with tons of photos, and some buckets with just a few photos and a few long videos.  Not a huge problem, but given that Lightroom doesn't recognize video at all, I wonder whether anyone approaches photo and video differently.

Joe

[peterkrogh]

Joe,
As you know, you can't manage videos with Lightroom.  I would suggest that it's problematic to keep them together if you want to use Lightroom to manage the collection.

I'd suggest Expression Media, which would not only help with Videos, but a number of other formats of digital media you might have (audio files, PDF, Word, design docs, etc.)

Of course you could also get a dedicated video program, but I can't help you much there - I'm sure there are others here who could offer suggestions.
Peter

[David C. Buchan]

I've used IMatch for years to manage both together.

[JoeThePhotographer]

With either iMatch or Expression Media, do you keep both the video and the photos in the same buckets?  That's what I want to know right now.  Thanks!

Joe.

[peterkrogh]

Joe,
I used to keep all "camera originals" in buckets without discriminating - DNG, Movie, and JPEG.  I think it's better to split up.
One reason is that while I feel pretty secure that the raws will stay as some version of DNG forever, I'm sure my JPEG originals will change (probably to DNG) and the video files should probably also change (hopefully to video DNG or some other more universal container). The migration will be cleaner if all the file-types are segregated.  I now hold my JPEG and Movie originals until I can fill a bucket of just those.

And if you're talking about video projects where you'll be cutting a lot of clips to make final output, that's probably better to archive on a more project-oriented basis, once it's complete. (Blu-ray can be a big help here.)

Peter

[JoeThePhotographer]

With the Nikon D90, the movie capture contain very little information about the shot (no embedded meta data).  I try to take one photo immediately before and one immediately after each video clip to give some clues as to the lens used etc.  (I think even time of day is not recorded in the video).  So for that reason it is somewhat helpful to include photos with video.

On the other hand, it really is a pain to keep buckes to 4.2 GB when there are 500MB clips strewn about.  And the fact that I use Lightroom to import the photos and Nikon Transfer to import the videos also is a vote in favor if segregation.

I'm having trouble deciding.  Then there are a douzen buckets that are already mixed.  If I do segregate, should I do it retroactively?  Call them all RAW_xxx or RAW_xxx and VID_xxx?

Joe

[peterkrogh]

Joe,
Yes, I'd consider splitting them up. And if you're using Lightroom to manage the files, I think it becomes pretty imperative.  Migration processes like this are where expression or iMatch can be really helpful. It can see al the videos in the folders and let you transfer.  Even more important may the ability to create a catalog of the way things were before transfer, if you want to validate your work.  You may also want to open catalogs of the movies side-by-side with the image catalog so that you can see what was happening in those frames beofre and after.

As to bucket size, video was one of the principle factors that led me to change to Blu-ray buckets.

Peter

[johnbeardy]

One detail is that the Canon 5DMkII movies seem to be accompanied by THM files. Once you've got the files on your computer, you might use these in Lightroom as placeholders or indicators of the MOV files' presence. Change the THM extension to JPG and it'll import them.

I also experimented with handling MOV and THM files in other apps. Bridge won't recognize the THMs, and won't rename them when you rename the movies (as it would with XMP sidecars when you rename raw files). Neither would Expression Media. However, good old Extensis Portfolio didn't grumble - just imported both files and let you rename them.

Adobe are obviously in a bind here. Increasingly, a photographer's workflow tool can't be convincingly defined merely by the file types which Adobe Camera Raw is able to process - it is a clear line though. Expanding its brief to include all files photographers use means the Jeremiahs soon start moaning about where the line then should be drawn - for some reason they assume there must be one - and then carping about the diversion of resources from sorely-needed areas in Develop. Fortunately for that case, it makes little sense for Thomas Knoll & Co to put their imaging experience into developing a DAM application, and it's unpredictable whether investing in database and DAM specialists to do that work would open up the program to a wider market and the additional revenues. I'm sure we'll all muddle through - Keep calm and carry on.

John