The DAM Forum
July 28, 2021, 06:48:26 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Catalog sets vs. Collections (EM vs. LR)  (Read 9170 times)
wdrijfhout
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


View Profile Email
« on: July 10, 2009, 06:53:38 PM »

Being new to this forum I've read lot's of threads about the comparison EM vs. LR. What many people seem to agree about is that the Catalog sets from EM are much more preferred than the Collections in LR. However I cant really work out why this is the case.
Personally I like the 'light and quick' feeling of EM interface and the upcoming (whenever that will be) of proper integration with Capture One 4Pro. However LR seems to have much more whistles and bells in it.

About to catalogue around 11,000 photo's soon, so want to make a right decision here.

Anyone some further thoughts on this?

Best regards, Willem Jan.
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2009, 06:58:33 PM »

Willem Jan,
Lightroom collections are specific to that catalog only.  The data can't be embedded in the file, so even Bridge can't see the collections information (or even another catalog in Lightroom, unless it's done through catalog export/import).

Catalog Sets, by contrast, can be written to the file's metadata, so it can be visible in other applications, or even embedded in derivative files made from the original.

If you go with Lightroom, I'd suggest doing your organization with hierarchical keywords, rather than collections.  At 11,000 items, you can probably do fine with Lightroom.  You might want to dump a bunch of images into demos of both programs and see what you think.
Peter
Logged
johnbeardy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1813


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2009, 08:41:49 PM »

I don't think there is a consensus that EM catalog sets are preferred to LR collections. LR's Smart Collections are a great feature that EM does not have.

I don't really agree with Peter about organising with hierarchical keywords rather than collections. My preference is a flat keyword list, and then hierarchical structures via smart and dumb collections. My reasoning is compatibility with other apps which don't support hierarchical keywords, and that I found it a nightmare to keep the keyword hierarchies in sync on different computers and with different applications. Collections remember Lightroom output settings, so I can go to a collection and it quietly remembers the print or slideshow settings I last applied to it, I can mix smart and dumb collections arbitrarily without any risk of this getting into files, and smart collections can account for less-than-perfect metadata entry.

John
Logged
roberte
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 290


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2009, 01:53:29 AM »

Hi Willem,

I manually moved/copied my Expression Media 2 Sets to Hierarchical Keywords then synched them to the DNG. Lightroom 2 picked them up automatically.

If you are cataloguing proprietary raw files then you have to use a flat keyword list. Hierarchical Keywords use XMP to store data so they are only compatible with file formats that support XMP which excludes all camera manufacturers raw files. To do the same with proprietary raw files requires you to make XMP sidecar files in Expression Media. Two issues there. One is you have to extract metadata (Action > Extract Metadata) for every folder *one at a time*. And any Adobe XMP sidecar files will be over-written not appended, so you will lose any Camera Raw settings.

-- Robert.
Logged

Doug
Newbie
*
Posts: 48


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2009, 07:02:26 PM »

One thing I like much better about EM catalog sets is that there is no distinction between "Collections" and "Collection Sets." You can add sub-sets underneath a set you already have and you can have image in the topmost parent set. In LR, you have to plan ahead and have the proper number of levels and only the bottom level actually holds images. I find it annoying.
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2009, 10:05:15 PM »

Doug,
I'm in strong agreement.  I think that it does not fit well with my general theory on how to organize - start with large groupings and subdivide as you see some reaso to.  The Lightroom model seems to suggest that you start by building small groupings and then aggregate them together. It's backwards IMO.

iView went with a similar arrangement for  a short period of time. THey listened to the user outcry and changed back. I wish the Lightroom team had been so responsive. However, I would not be too surprised to see the older arrangement come back eventually.
Peter
Logged
Doug
Newbie
*
Posts: 48


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2009, 05:25:31 PM »

Peter,
Yes, since LR seems to be on a steady development track with substantial improvements coming with each release, I have been pretty much expecting that this will be fixed/improved in the future. The LR folks also seem to consult with and listen to their expert consultants, like yourself. Hopefully the collections will be exportable to xmp as well.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
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!