Individual Files & Buckets

[Anthony Millan]

Just a thought...
Does anyone just dump their individual files into their buckets or do you all stick to having subfolders within your buckets.
For this I'm referring to the RAW archive so that for example your RAW folders might look like:

RAW_307
              > 20090101_0001
              > 20090101_0002
               ...
              > 20090517_5234
              > 20090517_5235
              ...
              > 20091217_9004
              > 20091217_9005
              ... etc.

In this way you would be reliant on using the cataloging software and metadata for each image as opposed to any folder/directory structure.

Any thoughts FOR or AGAINST this would be greatly appreciated.

- Anthony Millan -

[danaltick]

Anthony,

I find myself quite frequently referring to my named job folders within my catalog manager.  It is a nice convenience to have a physical separation based on the job; especially if I didn't create a catalog set for that job.  I also try to name my folders using some type of controlled vocabulary that can be parsed into keywords if necessary during a future migration to new software and/or hardware.    Nearly all ingestion software supports job named folders, so there's really no overhead involved other than coming up with an appropriate job name.  You want to add your bulk metadata at ingestion anyway; that's a good time to give the job a name.

Dan

[Anthony Millan]

Thanks for the reply. I was just curious to see if anyone actually just dumped their images into a bucket sized for whatever media they prefer. I guess folders is the norm.

Anthony Millan

[peterkrogh]

Anthony,
Sometimes I put so many "misc" images in a folder that it might as well be its own bucket. I do always keep two levels of hierarchy now that I'm using Blu-ray, since so many images can fit in one bucket.
Peter