My turn to ask about re-organizing directory structures including keywording etc

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doug B

Doug B

Active Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
102
Location
Forest Hills
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
I recently installed Lightroom fresh because of another fresh install of Snow Leopard, so I figured I'd take the opportunity to change my work habits and try to incorporate using import folders with dates and also try as hard as I can to tag things with keywords and such.

I know this has been covered many times over, but I couldn't find the exact scenario which I'm facing so here we go:

First, the way I have been working thus far is that I'll go out and shoot random things. Though I have been saving up to purchase some lighting gear, I'm not quite there yet. So nothing I've done really constitutes a professional shoot. It's all been varied subject matter, and I spend so much time shooting, that, it's hard to cull images right away. I eventually ended up with a folder named "test" for every image that needs to be gone over and have things either deleted, or moved to a different and appropriate folder.

I've always used categories for my folders, even back to my Windows and Linux days. It's what I got used to. You can see how this works in my screen shot. Now however, I have a bit of a problem. I want to try and get rid of the test folder method, and simply have Lightroom create folders with dates on them. And if I do happen to shoot a specific subject, I can add that description to the folder before the date (or maybe after as a sub folder).

But here's where I think the problem is. I already have over 5k images in the test folder, not to mention the other sub folders with their respective images. Is it possible to have Lightroom read the EXIF data from all images, and have it create folders, then have it move images with like-dates to those newly created folders ? The folders of course, would be listed as the date the images were taken.

If not, what do you guys suggest I do at this point ? Am I making this more complicated than it should be ? I'm just not sure of where to start again at this point. And I really want my new LR catalog to be orderly, and for the folder hierarchy to make sense to me.

So, where should I start with the existing folders before I import everything again ?

Thanks !

Doug
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I think that Paige's post above is a good summary, and I would agree with his comments. I had thought about ghosting a drive, but I keep my images separately backed up from the rest of my drive so that was why I used the "outlying" folders example.

Now, my next statement is not a contradiction to the above, and is not a reason for not using tools within LR (and I am a big fan of collections and star ratings myself), but rather a note about how my brain remembers information. Having given this disclaimer, I confess to liking date folders as one organizational method within LR. I often remember events or trips by date, and sometimes I want to review a whole shoot if I need to select an image. Yes, I do have many images in collections, and I am still working on organizing more images by collections and star ratings, but a date organized folder structure, which LR displays, is very helpful to me. As my catalog gets bigger, organization will be more useful and important, but I guess LR also acts as a kind of "visual diary", so I am loathe to completely abandon dates as part of my scheme. As always, YMMV.

--Ken
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Interesting, your brain remembers dates, and mine doesn't. It may be because I have trained myself to stop thinking about photos in terms of dates, and you have trained your brain just the opposite.

So, using the folders by date to help you find photos makes perfect sense for you and anyone else who remembers dates well. For most people that I know, I suspect that isn't going to work. And especially with regards to the original poster ... he wants to move his folders into some sort of date order, which isn't going to help him find his photos if he doesn't already think of photos in terms of the dates they were taken. Its only valuable if you already have that information in your brain.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, of course you CAN keep all your photos in one folder, but that's not the way I do it... or would recommend someone else to do it.

Date-based folders is one of the built-in import schemes in LR. Dates are "static" for a photo. Dates come natural to many (but not all) people.

Me personally I also tend to view/handle my photos two ways:
- organizing/sorting/tagging/developing etc via LR
- quick viewing via Windows explorer (which also my wife does)
So having an understandable folder-hierarcy outside of LR makes sense... to me.

And no matter what folder structure you use, be sure to store all photos under one common top level folder (such as C:photos) in order to make backup easier. Under that you can have C:\photos\2''8 and C:\photos\2''9 and so on...

One more thing about tagging and keyword hierarchies, taken from my personal experience of going from totally untagged to totally tagged (as far as peoples names are concerned):
- Never let keywords sit at the root of the hierarchy, always hava a parent keyword. That way you can tell wether a photo has tags at all for e.g. "people"
- In each top level (where appropriate) be sure to have a "none" keyword. For example, take a photo where there are no people. If you tag it with "poeple"/"none" then you will know you have reviewed it with regards to people. If you simply don't tag it, then how will you know if it just untagged or if it actually doesn't have any people in it?
- Make use of smart collections. For example "Keywords doesn't contain people" will give you a dynamic auto-updating collection of all photos you still have to tag for people.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=dj_paige link=topic=858'.msg58129#msg58129 date=126'36'169]...For many people who have never had a database to organize their photos, they relied on folders for both storage and organization. To use Lightroom in its most powerful and efficient way, it is crucial that people realize that folders are no longer organizational tools.
[/quote]I don't think it is possible to over stress this point. I think it is fundamental to effectively use a program like Lightroom. Which is why I said earlier:
Making the shift from the mental organization imposed by the limits of the OS file system to another organization schema is what is needed to take advantage of the functionality in a program like Lightroom.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=Doug B link=topic=858'.msg58'39#msg58'39 date=126'27575']

While I can tag photo's until my fingers fall off, this doesn't account for one very important factor. Perhaps I don't recall how I tagged an event or thing ? Suppose that I don't even remember certain shoots and have no way of knowing what tags and keywords I'd use in order to narrow down the selections which would help me find something very specific ? With folder names, at least I'd know to look in something like an "animals" folder so that I might find photos of the family dog etc..

Or what if it was an animal, but it was on an safari shoot ? So it would help to have the date folder, actually be a subfolder within a folder. Here's what I think would be ideal:

Year>Event/Subject>Month>Day

[/quote]

Can't you just import into date sorted photos like you mentioned and then, rather than getting hung up on key words, immediately upon import spend some time sorting the photos into collections you've created (birds, animals, architecture, travel, etc). Now without knowing what keywords you've used, you can still find the pictures by your old way...and if you're looking in "animals" you can use filters to further refine by date captured, etc. Plus, that has the benefit of allowing you to put the same photo in more than one relevant collection (e.g., your safari vacation could have a picture of an unique structure that you could appropriately put in the "vacation" and "architecture" collection.

I'm pretty new to LR, so I'm just following this thread out of my own learning interest (same boat as you, in many respects), but that's what comes to mind when I think about using the power of collections over keywords (though I understand keywords can help create some good smart collections...in the meantime, maybe the process is to create a collection structure similar to his already established file hierarchy?)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=rhone link=topic=858'.msg58156#msg58156 date=126'399194]Can't you just import into date sorted photos like you mentioned and then, rather than getting hung up on key words,[/quote]

I object, your honor! People don't get "hung up" on keywords. Keywords are an important part of any organizing system. This is like saying that automobile drivers get hung up on the steering wheel. Completely inappropriate.

[quote author=rhone link=topic=858'.msg58156#msg58156 date=126'399194]immediately upon import spend some time sorting the photos into collections you've created (birds, animals, architecture, travel, etc). Now without knowing what keywords you've used, you can still find the pictures by your old way...and if you're looking in "animals" you can use filters to further refine by date captured, etc. Plus, that has the benefit of allowing you to put the same photo in more than one relevant collection (e.g., your safari vacation could have a picture of an unique structure that you could appropriately put in the "vacation" and "architecture" collection.[/quote]

Keywords allow you to do the same thing you just explained with collections. A photo may exist in more than one collection, and a photo may have many keywords. Keywords have the advantage over collections that they transfer to .xmp and to external applications, while collection membership does not. Finally, you can search for a keyword (or mutliple keywords) in the Filter bar or via Smart Collections. You can only search for photos in multiple collections in Smart Collections.

[quote author=rhone link=topic=858'.msg58156#msg58156 date=126'399194]I'm pretty new to LR, so I'm just following this thread out of my own learning interest (same boat as you, in many respects), but that's what comes to mind when I think about using the power of collections over keywords (though I understand keywords can help create some good smart collections...in the meantime, maybe the process is to create a collection structure similar to his already established file hierarchy?)
[/quote]

I haven't seen a single reason that holds water where you have demonstrated "the power of collections over keywords." In fact, my opinion is that keywords are more powerful than collections.

"Create a collection structure similar to his already established file hierarchy"? That's a total waste of time. First of all, the Folder panel in Lightroom already has this information. Secondly, the whole point of Lightroom, and the whole point of this discussion, is that in Lightroom you can do better (a lot better) than your folder hierarchy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=dj_paige link=topic=858'.msg58159#msg58159 date=126'4'1'84]
[quote author=rhone link=topic=858'.msg58156#msg58156 date=126'399194]Can't you just import into date sorted photos like you mentioned and then, rather than getting hung up on key words,[/quote]

I object, your honor! People don't get "hung up" on keywords. Keywords are an important part of any organizing system. This is like saying that automobile drivers get hung up on the steering wheel. Completely inappropriate.

[quote author=rhone link=topic=858'.msg58156#msg58156 date=126'399194]immediately upon import spend some time sorting the photos into collections you've created (birds, animals, architecture, travel, etc). Now without knowing what keywords you've used, you can still find the pictures by your old way...and if you're looking in "animals" you can use filters to further refine by date captured, etc. Plus, that has the benefit of allowing you to put the same photo in more than one relevant collection (e.g., your safari vacation could have a picture of an unique structure that you could appropriately put in the "vacation" and "architecture" collection.[/quote]

Keywords allow you to do the same thing you just explained with collections. A photo may exist in more than one collection, and a photo may have many keywords. Keywords have the advantage over collections that they transfer to .xmp and to external applications, while collection membership does not. Finally, you can search for a keyword (or mutliple keywords) in the Filter bar or via Smart Collections. You can only search for photos in multiple collections in Smart Collections.

[quote author=rhone link=topic=858'.msg58156#msg58156 date=126'399194]I'm pretty new to LR, so I'm just following this thread out of my own learning interest (same boat as you, in many respects), but that's what comes to mind when I think about using the power of collections over keywords (though I understand keywords can help create some good smart collections...in the meantime, maybe the process is to create a collection structure similar to his already established file hierarchy?)
[/quote]

I haven't seen a single reason that holds water where you have demonstrated "the power of collections over keywords." In fact, my opinion is that keywords are more powerful than collections.

"Create a collection structure similar to his already established file hierarchy"? That's a total waste of time. First of all, the Folder panel in Lightroom already has this information. Secondly, the whole point of Lightroom, and the whole point of this discussion, is that in Lightroom you can do better (a lot better) than your folder hierarchy.
[/quote]

Wow :D Well, like I mentioned, I am new to LR and trying to understand it myself, and it helps to express how I see it to get feedback (which you very thoroughly did!). Perhaps I should rephrase, though, and just say that it was my observation that the OP was/is concerned (probably unfounded in your opinion :), but no less so in his own mind) about potentially inconsistent keywording, and if making the change from organizing via files is difficult for him, collections might be a step in the right direction?
Honestly, though, I do appreciate your distinctions, and I've found myself inclined toward keywording anyway, I was just trying to think conceptually about LR capabilities from a perspective outside of my own (though that's pretty tough as my perspective is quite narrow at this point).

Cheers!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
While Paige is again correct in that keywording is probably the most powerful tool for organization, I would actually say that a combined keywording/collection combination should also be a scheme for consideration, and here is why. Keywording is powerful, but this is not a case where "more is better and too much is just enough". IMHO, keywording should be a somewhat restrained art, and collections should complement and pick up where keywording leaves off. I would imagine that excessive keywording (and I am not going to define excessive because it will vary from catalog to catalog and photographer to photographer) can present its own challenges, with particular note to LR's performance and to the field holding the keywords (I am sure there must be some character limit). So, I would suggest using a somewhat "high level" keywording strategy, and then using collections for all of those other methods of organization (e.g. "candidates for a book", "possible gift prints", "photos for the family blog", etc...).

--Ken
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=rhone link=topic=858'.msg5816'#msg5816' date=126'4'2395]
Wow :D Well, like I mentioned, I am new to LR and trying to understand it myself, and it helps to express how I see it to get feedback (which you very thoroughly did!). Perhaps I should rephrase, though, and just say that it was my observation that the OP was/is concerned (probably unfounded in your opinion :) , but no less so in his own mind) about potentially inconsistent keywording, and if making the change from organizing via files is difficult for him, collections might be a step in the right direction?
[/quote]

I don't know what "potentially inconsistent keywording" is, nor do I recall anyone expressing a concern about this, but if it is a valid concern, I still don't see how collections are superior (perhaps you could explain). If you run the risk of "potentially inconsistent keywording", don't you also run the risk of "potentially inconsistent collections"?

By the way, I am not arguing against collections. They certainly are a valuable tool. I am trying to say that I don't have a clue what Rhone is talking about.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: My turn to ask about re-organizing directory structures including keywording

[quote author=dj_paige link=topic=858'.msg58163#msg58163 date=126'4'6143]

I don't know what "potentially inconsistent keywording" is, nor do I recall anyone expressing a concern about this, but if it is a valid concern, I still don't see how collections are superior (perhaps you could explain). If you run the risk of "potentially inconsistent keywording", don't you also run the risk of "potentially inconsistent collections"?

By the way, I am not arguing against collections. They certainly are a valuable tool. I am trying to say that I don't have a clue what Rhone is talking about.
[/quote]

Actually, that's precisely what caused me to comment in the first place. I'm not sure how to quote multiple messages on this forum, so I just cut and pasted...here's what the OP said, which prompted my "potentially inconsistent keywording" comment:

"While I can tag photo's until my fingers fall off, this doesn't account for one very important factor. Perhaps I don't recall how I tagged an event or thing ? Suppose that I don't even remember certain shoots and have no way of knowing what tags and keywords I'd use in order to narrow down the selections which would help me find something very specific ? With folder names, at least I'd know to look in something like an "animals" folder so that I might find photos of the family dog etc.. "


I read this as follows:
that he thinks he might not robustly keyword, and that, at times, he might use differing terms for similar things, thereby keywording inconsistently.
--Bear with me, for example's sake, even if improbable: If one had a bunch of pictures of dogs, I think maybe he's afraid that for some reason he'll use the word "dog" for some pictures and for others he'll use the word "canine" but won't think to use both for each. If that's the case, if he's trying to find a certain dog picture, but it's keyworded with "canine," he won't find it.

So, to be clear,
-I don't think collections are superior, but
-if someone is truly that concerned about using keywords, and really is afraid that he won't know what "tags" he uses, then maybe doing pre-established categories of collections (i.e., non-"smart" collections) might work, at least as a first step away from relying on files alone. And in that instance, I don't think you run the risk of "potentially inconsistent collections" if they aren't smart collections if after each import you assign each picture to relevant (pre-established) collections (similar to his current stucture of "architecture, animals, vacation, etc".

That's it, really. I'm not suggesting for one second that it's ideal or more efficient than other methods (it obviously isn't, and certainly isn't more efficient), but compared to sticking to a reliance on files alone, it'd be a step, no?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you don't have a folder structure your MAD :eek:
Keywords etc are wonderful IF your on a computer with LR. I travel a lot and can't always take a laptop, so what do you all do then? Start looking? :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen: Good luck.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=wirehunt link=topic=858'.msg58239#msg58239 date=126'538857]
If you don't have a folder structure your MAD :eek:
Keywords etc are wonderful IF your on a computer with LR. I travel a lot and can't always take a laptop, so what do you all do then? Start looking? :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen: Good luck.
[/quote]

How can you see your edits without Lightroom? Or do you look at the unedited/original photos?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=dj_paige link=topic=858'.msg5824'#msg5824' date=126'539625]
[quote author=wirehunt link=topic=858'.msg58239#msg58239 date=126'538857]
If you don't have a folder structure your MAD :eek:
Keywords etc are wonderful IF your on a computer with LR. I travel a lot and can't always take a laptop, so what do you all do then? Start looking? :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen: Good luck.
[/quote]
How can you see your edits without Lightroom? Or do you look at the unedited/original photos?
[/quote]I've recently discovered that the Adobe DNG Codec for windows will apply your LR filters including crops to the DNG thumbnails in windows Explorer. So it is possible to review your original DNG as edited thumbnails.

However, I do agree. It is impractical to tote a whole Catalog on a Laptop. (even if it would fit on a local HD). If you need to take images with you, it is best to export a catalog subset as a catalog if you plan to edit or as JPEGs if all you need is a look.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=wirehunt link=topic=858'.msg58239#msg58239 date=126'538857]
If you don't have a folder structure your MAD :eek:
Keywords etc are wonderful IF your on a computer with LR. I travel a lot and can't always take a laptop, so what do you all do then? Start looking? :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen: Good luck.
[/quote]

Sorry, I know it's been a while. Finger infection is finally going away some and I'm not as distracted as I was previously ! The point being made in the above quote, hits a mark for sure. First off, I keep nothing on my internal hard drive. Everything is on an external. That said, there are going to be times when it might be more convenient to look over a folder of photos in either Windows explorer or Finder, rather than opening LR and going through a slideshow.

In Finder, all I have to do is highlight a folders contents , hit the space bar and I can quickly review any original photos as a slideshow. I do this sometimes with my wife after having taken a days worth of stuff and don't feel like importing anything right away. I've always had a file structure for music and photos, and that's that.

I'm not sure of how I can make certain things clear enough, so I'm going to ask a favor of you dj_paige:

Please show me a screen shot of what your photo folder structure looks like in Windows Explorer, not Lightroom. I know what you're thinking but please indulge me this one time. It would have been easier had I asked this of you in the first place instead of having everybody (especially you) trying to figure out what I was going on about.. And just so you don't feel so defeated by my thickness, I have EVERY intention of integrating keywording into my new scheme.

But just this once, the screenshot please.

Thanks,

Doug
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No need for a screen shot (and I'm at work anyway).

Photos are in folders named by capture date. That's it. Simple.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: My turn to ask about re-organizing directory structures including keywording

There are many ways of organising depending on each users requirements. Certainly the most important features to have are flexibility and functionality - IMHO.Personally I use dated folders with shoot names on my HD and Collections, etc inside LR for further organisation. Both have visibility in their own environments.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks for the link Ken, looks to be an interesting piece of software and will gloss through the info associated with it. Geoff, I couldn't agree more. The reason I asked Paige for that information was that if he answered yes, I wanted to know how he'd handle a certain scenario as such:


So basically, every import or shoot regardless of subject matter simply gets a date and no other sub folder ?
Click to expand...

If that's the case, I would find that wholly unacceptable, for the very reason which Wirehunt points out. For argument's sake let's take Lightroom or any other piece of software out of the equation.

Can't find a reason why you'd not have some software handy ? How about you go to a friend's or family member's house with your external HD and they don't have anything ? Yet you have your external drive full of dated folders with no other information and somebody wants to find a very specific photo.

Go head' and see how long it takes you to find that photo. There are certainly more reasons as to why one would want to keep their photo folder organized with sub folders, that's just one.

In any case I'll certainly never just keep every subject and/or shoot confined strictly to dated folders. So what I'd like to do is compromise. Guess I'll keep on reading and experimenting, and eventually come up with something in the middle I can rely on.

Doug

Doug
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Re: My turn to ask about re-organizing directory structures including keywording

Doug, you could keep a copy of LR on the external drive for travel - then you really would impress others!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :fi_lone_ranger: :fi_lone_ranger:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I find named folders a starting point.
A cafe' or some such want some photo's for the wall, I go look at the place and get a feel for it, mood setting etc.
Then LR gets opened and I look at the folders, a quick flick through them and hey, those might go alright, so open the folder and away we go, no idea where I'll end up in there, looking at keywords associated with them can lead to a journey through many images.
It's a starting point to jog the mind.

If the client wants to see them first then it's simple enough to make a catalog for them to go through and if they wish pick what they would like. But I had to start the process somewhere. Staring at a bunch of dates isn't very inspiring.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think good practice involves both a sensible folder structure on your hard drive together with a good keywording regime. Without a sensible folder structure things could very easily get messed up.

When I am searching for a specific photo I would probably start my search using the folders only as I probably would know when and where it was taken. However, if I am searching generally for say photos of Fred & Betty in Paris then the keyword metadata seach would be most appropriate.

Having a good basic folder structure would be essential if you ever had a major breakdown with LR or even a "divorce".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, completely agreed.

It is also good for backing up your photos. I always make backups of my photo (files) to other location (external HDD), even though I store all my photos on a NAS with RAID5. I don't use LR to manage this backup :)

However, having good keywords / metadatas system is very recommended.

[quote author=MarkNicholas link=topic=858'.msg58284#msg58284 date=126'5783'4]
I think good practice involves both a sensible folder structure on your hard drive together with a good keywording regime. Without a sensible folder structure things could very easily get messed up.

When I am searching for a specific photo I would probably start my search using the folders only as I probably would know when and where it was taken. However, if I am searching generally for say photos of Fred & Betty in Paris then the keyword metadata seach would be most appropriate.

Having a good basic folder structure would be essential if you ever had a major breakdown with LR or even a "divorce".
[/quote]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=Doug B link=topic=858'.msg58281#msg58281 date=126'572714]
So basically, every import or shoot regardless of subject matter simply gets a date and no other sub folder ? [/quote]

Yes, exactly

[quote author=Doug B link=topic=858'.msg58281#msg58281 date=126'572714]
Can't find a reason why you'd not have some software handy ? How about you go to a friend's or family member's house with your external HD and they don't have anything ? Yet you have your external drive full of dated folders with no other information and somebody wants to find a very specific photo. [/quote]

I have never done this, gone visiting with a EHD in my hand. If I did, I would most likely prepare a slideshow in Lightroom and then export it. Or use Flickr, where most of my photos reside. Or if I absolutely had to find that one photo of capybaras at the Buffalo Zoo, I could use Windows search to find an .xmp file with the word capybara in it.

So ... your preferred solution ... bring an EHD with you and plug it in to someone else's computer ... this means you show people the unedited versions of your photos? I don't like that at all.

[quote author=Doug B link=topic=858'.msg58281#msg58281 date=126'572714]Go head' and see how long it takes you to find that photo. There are certainly more reasons as to why one would want to keep their photo folder organized with sub folders, that's just one. [/quote]

Using Windows search, it won't take that long. Using Flickr search, it won't take that long. But don't take my word for it, go to My Flickr Galleries and search for capybara. Under five seconds.

Let me add that my preferred method for sharing photos with others is Flickr. With this preferred method, I get computerized search capabilities and I can show people my edited LR photos. With your method of bringing an EHD, you get manual search (you, using human memory search, have to find the photos in your folder structure) and you get to show your unedited photos.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=Doug B link=topic=858'.msg58281#msg58281 date=126'572714]
So basically, every import or shoot regardless of subject matter simply gets a date and no other sub folder ?
Click to expand...

If that's the case, I would find that wholly unacceptable,
...Go head' and see how long it takes you to find that photo. There are certainly more reasons as to why one would want to keep their photo folder organized with sub folders, that's just one.
[/quote] Maybe you just need a different OS ;-) Adobe has a DNG Codec for only Windows that permits you to view thumbnails of DNG files complete wiyj LR edits. And In the Search function of Windows 7 (don't know about other versions), you can search on Tags and find every file that has a particular keyword in the EXIF. If I know a keyword, I can produce a short list of thumbnails in seconds.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top