Separate Catalogs for RAW/DNG and JPEG - Workflow

[Reg33]

I shoot in RAW (and will now convert to DNG on import based on what I've learned around here).  And my wife shoots in JPEG.  I'd like to have a unified master catalog for all of our files -- for example -- I'd like to be able to tag the pictures she took on our vacation as well as the pictures I took on our vacation so that I can see all of our vacation files at the same time.  I saw on dpbestworkflow.org that in the directory structure there was a /JPEG_Originals folder in one of the suggested folder structures.   

Would the best practice be to keep her originals in the /JPEG_Originals folder, or would it be best to convert her JPEG's to DNG -- and then go along with the same workflow that I use when I go from my .CR2 to .DNG?  Should I somehow tag her files to mark that mine came from RAW to DNG and her's came from JPEG to DNG? Or does that not matter (other than the quality and control issues of course).

Clearly I will be working on some of her shots in photoshop, so I will need to account for derivatives made from her shots as well as mine, and I'd really like to be able to have one folder where we keep the yearly derivatives (as suggested on the site) instead of having a separate derivative folder for her jpegs.

And, yes, she will keep shooting in auto modes in .JPEG until I can convince her that I can do a better job with  the manual settings on the camera and RAW.   

[ScottBuckel]

One way that seems like it would work to me is make a collection of the vacation photos that way you can see all of them at one time.  There are some other approaches that could work as well.

Scott

[Reg33]

So then would you store the jpeg's in the same catalog as the DNGs?  And should I convert the jpeg's to DNG?
Thanks,
David

[ScottBuckel]

At this time I would not convert the jpegs to DNG as it just creates a much larger file to store.  My catalog in Ligthroom catalog has DNG, jpeg, tiff, and psd files in it.  With tools like John Beardsworth I can now keep all of the meta data constant and the same (if needed) between all of the related files.

Scott

[johnbeardy]

"With tools like John Beardsworth's Syncomatic". Sounds better?

John

[ScottBuckel]

John -

Yes that sounds much better, maybe I should not answer forum questions while listening to a teleconference!

Scott

[peterkrogh]

Davind,
The DNGs and the JPEGs can all be in the same *catalog*, but you might want to put them in a different folder structure within the archive. This is because you may eventually want to treat the files differently over time (particularly if the DNG specification becomes more friendly to conversion of JPEG originals).

There's no huge harm in keeping everything in one unified directory structure, however.

Peter

[Reg33]

Once again thank you and I think I solved the problem (maybe this will help someone else with the same question):
Here's my folder structure:

My root pictures directory is:
/2008
/2009
/2010
/toProcess

And within each year (here it's 2010) I have:
/2010_01
/2010_02
...etc for each month
/2010_master
/2010_derivatives
    /2010_derivatives/print
    /2010_derivatives/web

I dump everything off my media card into the /toProcess directory, and then do my DNG conversion (for .cr2) and jpeg moving into the appropriate monthly directory -- so the monthly directories have DNG files well as the shots that were taken originally as JPEGs (I'm not converting the JPEGs to DNG just yet in my workflow).

Much of this is from what I read on dpbestflow so thank you also for that resource.

Best,
David

[peterkrogh]

David,
HAve you tried Lightroom yet?
It would likely save you a lot of time in Photoshop.
Peter

[Reg33]

I played with the trial which I thought was good -- but I've really gotten particular about using soft proofing in photoshop.  The problem I foresee in lightroom is that if I spend time manipulating an image in LR (though most of my training is with photoshop), I'm going to have to redo my work when I go to PS because of the soft proof settings.  Currently, I'll do major revision on an image and then either save a master file and then go off to make soft-proof versions, or if I know I'm going right to print, I'll just do the whole thing in the appropriate print soft proof mode. I found that if I started editing without selecting the soft proof profile, that I did a lot of work and then had to redo much of it to make it match the soft proof settings.

How do people using LR ensure that their prints will come out with the correct colors if they are not soft proofing?

Thanks,
David