MediaDex

[Lynnea 1941]

I have downloaded iView Media Pro, and thought I would use it as my DAM software, but I was unable to achieve the nesting category access which MediaDex has.  MediaDex is the new name for Cumulus single license user.  In addition, I don't need the image editing functionality with iView.  I am using Photoshop so don't want this in a DAM.  It seems to me that MediaDex has a more complete searching funcationality than iView.  I did like the iView slideshow options, but I found it difficult to get it working on another computer which did that the slideshow reader software.

I recognize that it takes a bit of time to learn MediaDex, but in the end, this software seems easier to use than iView.  

Has anyone else tried MediaDex?

[peterkrogh]

>I have downloaded iView Media Pro, and thought I would use it as my DAM software, but I was unable to achieve the nesting category access which MediaDex has

Have you tried to create nested Catalog Sets? (Containers hold sets, sets hold images)  This is where I do most of my hierarchical organizing, and I find it to be very robust.  I'll take a look at MediaDex and see how it looks.  I had a bit of trouble with Cumulus when I tried it several years ago, and I have not been tempted to go back.

I agree that the image editor is superfluous for me, at least for the present time.

I'd be surprised if the searching functionality you need is not in iView.

I would also suggest checking out 3.0, which reseases very soon.  It offers superior functionality, particularly with DNG files.
Peter

[Lynnea 1941]

I think we need a side-by-side functionality comparison of DAM software in order to make intelligent decisions. I generally would be in favor of software that has a user-friendly interface combined with superior functionality.  However, I do recognize that one has to read a manual and really work with software in order to understand it.  I spent two weeks figuring out Cumulus single user.  In addition, I had email support for my queries.  I posted a query to iView Media Pro when I was learning the trial download and received no reply.

I did everything I could to understand the Catalog Sets and determined that the MediaDex format was much easier to create and to use.  

After some months away from the original struggle with Cumulus, I tried out MediaDex and discovered that I retained a lot of information.  Set-up was much easier to understand.

I urge you to check out this software.  I find it a bit disturbing to see one software program praised over others without any current first-hand knowledge of the latest versions of the competion sofstware.  My background is in the library profession and there are many different online vendors in hot competition with each other.  There is plenty of information to be obtained about the pros and cons of each vendor's system along with cost, support information, and users' groups for reviewiing online issues.  I would wish there were such a system for evaluating DAM programs appropriate for photographers.  

On a positive note, I just received a copy of "The DAM Book" and look forward to reading it.  I can see that it addresses in one place all the important issues for managing images.  

[peterkrogh]

Lynnea,
I just took a look through the MediaDex demo version and I think it is missing major features:

No live Directory view.
No support for the new IPTC core
No support for Photoshop Ratings
No ability to show full-size DNG files
No ability to convert DNG into full-size derivative file
No live count of images in Categories

This is what I found in the first few minutes, and it's about what I expected to find, given my experience with Cumulus.

I understand your request for a comprehensive comparison tool, but that, in and of itself, would be a hefty task to keep current on.  I am taking a different approach.  Since I outline the priinciples that I consider to be essential to effective DAM for photographers, I am using that criteria for evaluation.  And at this point, nothing compares to iView MediaPro with regard to feature set.

For instance, IMatch provides a rich feature set, but it is PC only, so I have excluded it at the beginning. 

I sincerely hope that we come to a point where there are a number of appplications that provide needed functionality, but at the moment, the choices are a bit thin.  I have not had a look at the new Portfolio (because it's unavailable), so I can't comment on it at the moment, but I'm hoping that it is a competitive product.

BTW, what part of Catalog Sets did you not understand? 
Peter

[David9]

I have downloaded the new (Dec 2) version of Iview (3.0.1).  On a PC, it still seems to be acting very flaky; perhaps it would function better on a Mac.  Several things seem to behave fairly randomly in my version, where the behavior is not repeatable.  I have downloaded this and Mediadex and am trying to decide between them.  I am finding Iview much more intuitive, but Mediadex more stable.  Something that I think is quite useful in Iview is the ability to have a preview stored with the catalog, so that even when the original file is not present, you can still see a reasonable version of the orginal, in addition to having a (small) thumbnail. Since I have over 30000 photos I'm trying to store in my catalog, I found I have to break this into 5 catalogs with Iview to avoid errors when I store the catalog.  If anyone is considering trying or upgrading to the new Iview,  recommend seeing if another revisioni of Iview will be coming out soon, before commiting to this software. 

Trying out these different peices of software is a huge amount of work! - I sure wish someone would do this, and write a book about it...

David

[peterkrogh]

David,
I can't speak about the stability of iView for PC, but you might want to check out the iView forum, or email the company.  Version 3.0.1 has been stable for me so far, but I have not had much of a chance to beat on it.

If I were going too look at another program for the PC, I would be looking at iMatch or idImager.
Peter

[Lynnea 1941]

Just to clarify some functionalities re MediaDex.   I sent email to the forum, and the reply is the following:

1.  The lastest IPTC fields are included in the XMP module.
2.  If the DNG filter is turned on, you can see the full-size DNG file.
3.  A iive count of images is shown in the thumbnail display space.
4.  Photoshop ratings are not supported at this time.

My understanding of iViewMedia Pro is that you are unable to see a full-sized image if you are not connected to the source, i.e. the image on the hard drive, CD, DVD.  This is the same with MediaDex.  

The whole point of asset management software is to have a viewable image to see what you have and where it is located so you can go to it. That is certainly a simplified view, but if I don't have my image on the hard drive, I don't really expect to see the original version.

There is a comparison of DAM software (not all that completely up-to-date for the latest versions) at http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/flow-catalog.htm.  The site also includes information about cataloging.

My frustration is that there simply is no standard for this stuff.  If one chooses iViewMedia Pro and then wants to migrate to another program, there is no easy way to transfer all the data from one program to another.  

Really important is the kind of support you can get from the vendor.  All upgrades will typically have some problem, so it often isn't a good idea to be the first person to use the newest version.  But, if the vendor is sensitive to the users, there will be a big effort to fix problems.  

It makes sense to me to have several catalogs set up from the start.  I plan to have at least three which reflect specific types of images I want to catalog.  This way I have room to grow for a while before I need to divide a catalog because it is too large.

The best way to go about deciding is to know as much as possible what you want to do with your software program and determine if any one programs does the best job for you.  

Lynnea

[peterkrogh]

Lynnea,
Thanks for the research and clarification of what MediaDex can do.  It does not provide functionality that I consider essential to implement the system I write about in my book, but it clearly is getting better.

My frustration is that there simply is no standard for this stuff.  If one chooses iViewMedia Pro and then wants to migrate to another program, there is no easy way to transfer all the data from one program to another.  

This is not true.  All the work you do in iView can be transferred to another application by simply writing it back to the original files.  If you can turn the information into some kind of Keyword, other IPTC data, then it can be easily indexed by whatever application you are moving over to.  This is why I consider writing back to RAW files to be absolutely essential.   It is the primary reason that I first settled on iView.

iView also supports XML export of data, but that is a trickier thing to properly accomplish.  For most people, this would only be  a reasonable option if the new software had some kind of automatic data mapping on XML import that was pre-configured for the donor software.

 

It makes sense to me to have several catalogs set up from the start.  I plan to have at least three which reflect specific types of images I want to catalog.  This way I have room to grow for a while before I need to divide a catalog because it is too large.

That might be true, depending on the number of assets you will be cataloging.  If you currently have, or will soon grow to, a collection that exceeds the capacity of the cataloging application, then you will have to split thing up.  If you don't need to split it up, I would suggest keeping everything in one catalog.

A single catalog will be a more effective management tool, especially when you hit one of those tasks that require collection-wide work, such as major media migration, drive failure, format migration, or collection-wide upgrade (such as implementation of the new IPTC core to older material).

If your collection will be too large for one catalog because of capacity or performance issues, then I agree, splitting along some kind of bright line is the way to go.

Peter