Photo Sorting

I'm in the middle of sorting out loads of landscape photos on my computer and I'm having trouble
deciding which areas to put certain photos into. The problem photos are those of a different area,
do I include them in the area that the photo is of, or do I include them in the area I took the
photo from? In other words, do I sort by subject or by viewpoint?

For example, I have an early morning shot of Snowdon taken with a telephoto lens from the summit of
Cadair Idris. There is nothing of Cadair Idris in the photo and the Rhinogs are effectively in the
foreground, in front of Snowdon, which rises up above them.

Should I put it in the Snowdon folder because it's a photo of Snowdon, or should I put it in the
Cadair Idris folder because that's where I took it from?

Suppose I'd taken the photo from a bit further back and included the summit of Cadair Idris in the
photo, would that make any difference compared to the example above?

This is a common problem. Views of mountains are often best from adjacent areas, for example Corn Du
from Fan Fawr or Fan Fawr from Corn
Du.

It would simplify the decision making process to categorise all photos in the area they were taken
from, but then if I wanted to find all my photos of Snowdon, they'd be scattered about in
different areas.

Sorting by subject seems to make the most sense, but having prominent foregrounds often makes it
difficult to decide what the most important subject is. For example, a photo of Pen y Fan taken from
Mynydd Du with Llyn y Fan Fawr in the foreground. Certainly Pen y Fan is a major feature, but so is
Llyn y Fan Fawr, so which should taken precedence?

Obviously in a database I can use keywords and categories to put the same photo in multiple
locations, but I'm trying to decide where to physically store the files.

Not only that, but I'm redesigning my website with an area-based structure, so I also have to decide
in which area to put each photo on my site.

If the viewpoint sorting method is preferred, what about telephoto shots that show no foreground,
and thus show nothing of the area that the photo was taken from, should these be given special
treatment?

I'm just curious to hear other people's views on this subject, in order to help me decide how I
want to do it.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:09:34 -0000, Paul Saunders
<pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> I'm in the middle of sorting out loads of landscape photos on my computer and I'm having trouble
> deciding which areas to put certain photos into. The problem photos are those of a different area,
> do I include them in the area that the photo is of, or do I include them in the area I took the
> photo from? In other words, do I sort by subject or by viewpoint?

I use IMatch, and I assume from your comments during a previous thread a while ago, so are you. If
this is the case, then I would have two main categories - Subject and Viewpoint - each one
containing the locations as sub-categories.

> For example, I have an early morning shot of Snowdon taken with a telephoto lens from the summit
> of Cadair Idris. There is nothing of Cadair Idris in the photo and the Rhinogs are effectively in
> the foreground, in front of Snowdon, which rises up above them.
>
> Should I put it in the Snowdon folder because it's a photo of Snowdon, or should I put it in the
> Cadair Idris folder because that's where I took it from?

As for the folder you physically store it in, why not have a set of folders based roughly on the
time when the photo was taken? If this is a problem because you cannot remember what year many of
the photos were taken, then put them in folders according to when you scanned them. It doesn't
matter where the physical files are when they are all categorised well.

> Suppose I'd taken the photo from a bit further back and included the summit of Cadair Idris in the
> photo, would that make any difference compared to the example above?
>
> This is a common problem. Views of mountains are often best from adjacent areas, for example Corn
> Du from Fan Fawr or Fan Fawr from Corn
> Du.
>
> It would simplify the decision making process to categorise all photos in the area they were taken
> from, but then if I wanted to find all my photos of Snowdon, they'd be scattered about in
> different areas.

Just click on the Snowdon as subject category.

> Sorting by subject seems to make the most sense, but having prominent foregrounds often makes it
> difficult to decide what the most important subject is. For example, a photo of Pen y Fan taken
> from Mynydd Du with Llyn y Fan Fawr in the foreground. Certainly Pen y Fan is a major feature, but
> so is Llyn y Fan Fawr, so which should taken precedence?

Neither - assign them to both Peny Fan and Llyn y Fan Fawr categories. You can then find either, or
do a search using AND which will find all your photos which contain both.

> Obviously in a database I can use keywords and categories to put the same photo in multiple
> locations, but I'm trying to decide where to physically store the files.

See above.

> Not only that, but I'm redesigning my website with an area-based structure, so I also have to
> decide in which area to put each photo on my site.
>
> If the viewpoint sorting method is preferred, what about telephoto shots that show no foreground,
> and thus show nothing of the area that the photo was taken from, should these be given special
> treatment?

For your website, I think the subject is more important than the viewpoint.

I'm having similar problems as my database includes scans of old photographs with the modern digital
photographs.

Pat

--
Pat Bennett www.cheshirewildlife.co.uk

Pat Bennett wrote:

> I use IMatch, and I assume from your comments during a previous thread a while ago, so are you.

I haven't actually committed myself to that yet, I thought I try a few others first. I downloaed a
demo of FotoStation Pro last night but the installation included QuickTime which asked me for a
serial number! ????? Which of course I didn't have so the demo won't work. What genious thought of
including that in the demo?

I've played around with Photoshop album which was very easy to use and user-friendly, but a bit
"family" oriented and doesn't have enough advanced features. No display of the original folder
structure, categories but no keywords, no exif data display. Clearly not a program aimed at pros.

I'll probaby end up choosing IMatch, I did like that one.

> If this is the case, then I would have two main categories - Subject and Viewpoint - each one
> containing the locations as sub-categories.

Yep, will do.

> As for the folder you physically store it in, why not have a set of folders based roughly on the
> time when the photo was taken? If this is a problem because you cannot remember what year many of
> the photos were taken, then put them in folders according to when you scanned them. It doesn't
> matter where the physical files are when they are all categorised well.

No problem remembering when photos were taken, I've got a complete diary of dates and locations
going back to 1985, when I started doing landscapes seriously.

I will store all my full size scans in chronological folders, just as I'm storing my original
digital images, and I'll be using the database specifically with those files.

However, the sorting that I'm talking about now is a different collection of images, those which
have been processed and reduced in size. I don't intend to index them in a database, I just want to
sort them in a manner convenient for personal viewing.

The folder heirarchy of these files equates to the structure of my new website design, so each
folder therefore represents one page, and contains the photos that I may put on that page. In this
way I can reorganise my website to my satisfaction before I commit myself to creating the new pages.
Since each page will contain thumbnails I could use duplicate thumbnails in different areas, both
linking to the same larger image, but I'd prefer to avoid that in most cases.

> Neither - assign them to both Peny Fan and Llyn y Fan Fawr categories. You can then find either,
> or do a search using AND which will find all your photos which contain both.

Which is fine for the database, but as I say, this is for a different purpose.

> For your website, I think the subject is more important than the viewpoint.

Yes, this is the key issue, but what if the foreground is a major feature in itself? Like Pen y Fan
from Llyn y Fan Fawr. Which should take precedence?

> I'm having similar problems as my database includes scans of old photographs with the modern
> digital photographs.

My old scan collection is in a terrible mess (that's what I'm sorting), and since buying the Nikon
scanner I don't want to use any of my old scans, far better to scan them afresh. The superior scan
quality will more than justify the time and effort.

In fact, I'm appalled at the terrible processing of many of my older images. Often too contrasty,
sometimes too saturated, badly sharpened and with a wide variety of different colour casts. I think
I'll have to put the last 5 years down to experimentation and practice, and rescan and reprocess
everything from scratch.

The colour casts in particular are disturbing. Some are due to different film stocks (Sensia and
Provia F have a distinct magenta cast) but many are probably due to my own corrections before my
system was correctly colour managed. Although it's pretty close now, it's still not perfect. I
really should get myself one of those spider thingies.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

> In fact, I'm appalled at the terrible processing of many of my older images.

Yup, been there. I file by subject, not viewpoint.

As a rank amateur, I use Album, as you say a bit basic, but then I am a bit basic too :-) JT

Hi Why bother with folders - bung 'em all in one and use Thumbs Plus from www.cerious.com

Single and multiple keywords enable you to find your pix.

Keyword *from snowdon* or *snowdon view* or just *snowdon* can be used.

Not perhaps the most user friendly picture/graphic cataloguer/viewer but certainly one of the most
comprehensive, and no, I don't have a vested interest.

Regards, Ron

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c1ivem$9mt$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I'm in the middle of sorting out loads of landscape photos on my computer and I'm having trouble
> deciding which areas to put certain photos into. The problem photos are those of a different area,
> do I include them in the area that the photo is of, or do I include them in the area I took the
> photo from? In other words, do I sort by subject or by viewpoint?
>
> For example, I have an early morning shot of Snowdon taken with a telephoto lens from the summit
> of Cadair Idris. There is nothing of Cadair Idris in the photo and the Rhinogs are effectively in
> the foreground, in front of Snowdon, which rises up above them.
>
> Should I put it in the Snowdon folder because it's a photo of Snowdon, or should I put it in the
> Cadair Idris folder because that's where I took it from?
>
> Suppose I'd taken the photo from a bit further back and included the summit of Cadair Idris in the
> photo, would that make any difference compared to the example above?
>
> This is a common problem. Views of mountains are often best from adjacent areas, for example Corn
> Du from Fan Fawr or Fan Fawr from Corn
> Du.
>
> It would simplify the decision making process to categorise all photos in the area they were taken
> from, but then if I wanted to find all my photos of Snowdon, they'd be scattered about in
> different areas.
>
> Sorting by subject seems to make the most sense, but having prominent foregrounds often makes it
> difficult to decide what the most important subject is. For example, a photo of Pen y Fan taken
> from Mynydd Du with Llyn y Fan Fawr in the foreground. Certainly Pen y Fan is a major feature, but
> so is Llyn y Fan Fawr, so which should taken precedence?
>
> Obviously in a database I can use keywords and categories to put the same photo in multiple
> locations, but I'm trying to decide where to physically store the files.
>
> Not only that, but I'm redesigning my website with an area-based structure, so I also have to
> decide in which area to put each photo on my site.
>
> If the viewpoint sorting method is preferred, what about telephoto shots that show no foreground,
> and thus show nothing of the area that the photo was taken from, should these be given special
> treatment?
>
> I'm just curious to hear other people's views on this subject, in order to help me decide how I
> want to do it.
>
> Paul
> --
> http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
> http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:c1ivem$9mt$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I'm in the middle of sorting out loads of landscape photos on my computer and I'm having trouble
> deciding which areas to put certain photos into. The problem photos are those of a different area,
> do I include them in the area that the photo is of, or do I include them in the area I took the
> photo from? In other words, do I sort by subject or by viewpoint?

knip

> I'm just curious to hear other people's views on this subject, in order to help me decide how I
> want to do it.
>
> Paul
> --
> http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
> http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
>
Hi Paul,

I would sort photos for their main subject. If there are two equal subjects I would store them in
two categories and give them a title that explains the situation, like 'hill A from point C' or
'hill A+B from point C'. If you use keywords to select your pictures you will find everything about
'hill A'. Are you able to find your way in a library or do you hate the system used ;-)

Theo

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:35:02 -0000, Ron Wood <ronwood50@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Why bother with folders - bung 'em all in one and use Thumbs Plus from www.cerious.com
>
> Single and multiple keywords enable you to find your pix.
>
> Keyword *from snowdon* or *snowdon view* or just *snowdon* can be used.
>
> Not perhaps the most user friendly picture/graphic cataloguer/viewer but certainly one of the most
> comprehensive, and no, I don't have a vested interest.

Hi Ron,

I used to use Thumbs Plus, until I found IMatch, which is head and shoulders above TP and all the
other image management programs I've looked at. The problem with TP is the laborious method of
allotting categories. Have a look at IMatch, and you'll see what I mean.

Pat

--
Pat Bennett www.cheshirewildlife.co.uk

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c1ivem$9mt$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I'm in the middle of sorting out loads of landscape photos on my computer and I'm having trouble
> deciding which areas to put certain photos into. The problem photos are those of a different area,
> do I include them in the area that the photo is of, or do I include them in the area I took the
> photo from? In other words, do I sort by subject or by viewpoint?

In my very humble and inexperienced opinion (;-)), it doesn't matter where the photo was taken from,
but only what it is taken of. Think of it from a clients perspective and you'll be fine. If they
want a photo of Snowdon, do they care where it was taken from, or what is in the photo? Of course,
it's the subject that matters.

> For example, I have an early morning shot of Snowdon taken with a telephoto lens from the summit
> of Cadair Idris. There is nothing of Cadair Idris in the photo and the Rhinogs are effectively in
> the foreground, in front of Snowdon, which rises up above them.
>
> Should I put it in the Snowdon folder because it's a photo of Snowdon, or should I put it in the
> Cadair Idris folder because that's where I took it from?

Put it in the Snowdon folder. A client wants a photo of Snowdon, full stop, so where it was taken
from doesn't really matter to them. Think of one of my fly photos:
http://www.usefilm.com/image/172119.html It's a photo of a fly, and it was taken in my back garden.
If someone wants a fly photo, they will be looking for flies, not back gardens.

> Suppose I'd taken the photo from a bit further back and included the summit of Cadair Idris in the
> photo, would that make any difference compared to the example above?

If it can only be in one physical folder location, put it in the location which is the most
prominent within the photo. But like Pat says, why don't you just use the date method for your
images (as I thought you did anyway?). I don't see what the issue is, as with your cataloguing
software, you can have a single image in multiple categories, depending on what's in it. I use a
strict and robotic method for putting my images into categories - if it's a family photo that has
my Mum, Dad, Sister, Brother and Dog in, then that single image would be found in the Mum category,
Dad category, Sister category, Brother category, and Dog category. The same would apply to
mountains or whatever.

> This is a common problem. Views of mountains are often best from adjacent areas, for example Corn
> Du from Fan Fawr or Fan Fawr from Corn
> Du.

What you say above sounds like a good idea for giving titles to your images. You could even put this
in as a keyword, and like Ron says, search for "from Snowdon" if you really want to find a photo
taken *from* that location, but not necessarily *of* that location. ...not that you'd ever want to
do find these though! :-P (but I bet you're going to come back and tell me you do!)

> It would simplify the decision making process to categorise all photos in the area they were taken
> from, but then if I wanted to find all my photos of Snowdon, they'd be scattered about in
> different areas.

Exactly. A simple, but crap system to use.

> Sorting by subject seems to make the most sense, but having prominent foregrounds often makes it
> difficult to decide what the most important subject is. For example, a photo of Pen y Fan taken
> from Mynydd Du with Llyn y Fan Fawr in the foreground. Certainly Pen y Fan is a major feature, but
> so is Llyn y Fan Fawr, so which should taken precedence?
>
> Obviously in a database I can use keywords and categories to put the same photo in multiple
> locations, but I'm trying to decide where to physically store the files.

Store them by date in the folders, as I think you do anyway.

> Not only that, but I'm redesigning my website with an area-based structure, so I also have to
> decide in which area to put each photo on my site.

That's obvious, if it's a photo of Snowdon, put it in the Snowdon folder. If it's a photo of
Snowdon, with another mountain in the foreground, put it in the folder that matches which mountain
is most prominent. Or if you're unsure about this, have an image in each of the folders, simple! ;-)

> If the viewpoint sorting method is preferred, what about telephoto shots that show no foreground,
> and thus show nothing of the area that the photo was taken from, should these be given special
> treatment?

Forget about the viewpoint method, as your example above shows why it doesn't matter. As I said,
think of everything from the clients perspective and alter your system to meet this.

> I'm just curious to hear other people's views on this subject, in order to help me decide how I
> want to do it.

So you'll hear about all the different ideas, and can then decide that your own idea was the best
one all along... :-)

> Paul

Ste

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:18:50 -0000, "ste mc ©" <ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:

>my fly photos: http://www.usefilm.com/image/172119.html It's a photo of a fly, and it was taken in
>my back garden. If someone wants a fly photo, they will be looking for flies, not back gardens.

ahAH!! No flies on you, eh Ste???

hurrHURR

<cough> soz

me tablets must be wearing off

OnT: Interesting ideas, I've similar, tho' presently small/burgeoning problem. Previously I've
sorted per date/location, with a mental consideration of subject within that but am needing to
reconsider because of expanding and diversifying collection. There seem to be quite a few things
that can influence the protocol chosen but I'm leaning toward thinking that "Subject" is the
underlying common denominator.

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum; http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk

In message <403de450$0$7074$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, ste mc © <ste@sm9.co.uk> writes
>
>"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:c1ivem$9mt$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> I'm in the middle of sorting out loads of landscape photos on my computer and I'm having trouble
>> deciding which areas to put certain photos into. The problem photos are those of a different
>> area, do I include them in the area that the photo is of, or do I include them in the area I took
>> the photo from? In other words, do I sort by subject or by viewpoint?
>
>In my very humble and inexperienced opinion (;-)), it doesn't matter where the photo was taken
>from, but only what it is taken of. Think of it from a clients perspective and you'll be fine. If
>they want a photo of Snowdon, do they care where it was taken from, or what is in the photo? Of
>course, it's the subject that matters.

Depends on the client. Publishers of outdoor books and magazines usually want to know where a photo
was taken from. The text accompanying the photo may well be about where the photo was taken from not
the subject of the photo. For example a feature on Glyder Fawr, say, may have a photo of Snowdon to
show what the views are like.
>
>
>> For example, I have an early morning shot of Snowdon taken with a telephoto lens from the summit
>> of Cadair Idris. There is nothing of Cadair Idris in the photo and the Rhinogs are effectively in
>> the foreground, in front of Snowdon, which rises up above them.
>>
>> Should I put it in the Snowdon folder because it's a photo of Snowdon, or should I put it in the
>> Cadair Idris folder because that's where I took it from?
>
>Put it in the Snowdon folder. A client wants a photo of Snowdon, full stop, so where it was taken
>from doesn't really matter to them. Think of one of my fly photos:
>http://www.usefilm.com/image/172119.html It's a photo of a fly, and it was taken in my back garden.
>If someone wants a fly photo, they will be looking for flies, not back gardens.

What happens if someone wants photos of views from Cadair Idris? Would you remember you had a photo
of Snowdon taken from Cadair Idris?

"Chris Townsend" <Chris@DELETEauchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:V978x7ApvePAFwC8@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
> In message <403de450$0$7074$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, ste mc © <ste@sm9.co.uk> writes
> >
> >"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:c1ivem$9mt$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> I'm in the middle of sorting out loads of landscape photos on my computer and I'm having
> >> trouble deciding which areas to put certain photos into. The problem photos are those of a
> >> different area, do I include them in the area that the photo is of, or do I include them in the
> >> area I took the photo from? In other words, do I sort by subject
or
> >> by viewpoint?
> >
> >In my very humble and inexperienced opinion (;-)), it doesn't matter
where
> >the photo was taken from, but only what it is taken of. Think of it from
a
> >clients perspective and you'll be fine. If they want a photo of Snowdon,
do
> >they care where it was taken from, or what is in the photo? Of course,
it's
> >the subject that matters.
>
> Depends on the client. Publishers of outdoor books and magazines usually want to know where a
> photo was taken from. The text accompanying the photo may well be about where the photo was taken
> from not the subject of the photo. For example a feature on Glyder Fawr, say, may have a photo of
> Snowdon to show what the views are like.

Sure it does, but I'd put money on *most* clients wanting to know the subject. If it's a toss-up
between knowing the subject or viewpoint (and from what Paul says, it is), then I'd go for subject.
It would be a lot more useful in my opinion. Regarding the accompanying text to the photo, see the
bottom of this post.

> >> For example, I have an early morning shot of Snowdon taken with a telephoto lens from the
> >> summit of Cadair Idris. There is nothing of Cadair Idris in the photo and the Rhinogs are
> >> effectively in the foreground, in front of Snowdon, which rises up above them.
> >>
> >> Should I put it in the Snowdon folder because it's a photo of Snowdon, or should I put it in
> >> the Cadair Idris folder because that's where I took it from?
> >
> >Put it in the Snowdon folder. A client wants a photo of Snowdon, full
stop,
> >so where it was taken from doesn't really matter to them. Think of one
of
> >my fly photos: http://www.usefilm.com/image/172119.html It's a photo of
a
> >fly, and it was taken in my back garden. If someone wants a fly photo,
they
> >will be looking for flies, not back gardens.
>
> What happens if someone wants photos of views from Cadair Idris? Would you remember you had a
> photo of Snowdon taken from Cadair Idris?

I would do what I said in my post before you snipped it:

Paul said: "This is a common problem. Views of mountains are often best from adjacent areas, for
example Corn Du from Fan Fawr or Fan Fawr from Corn
Du."

I replied: "What you say above sounds like a good idea for giving titles to your images. You could
even put this in as a keyword, and like Ron says, search for "from Snowdon" if you really want to
find a photo taken *from* that location, but not necessarily *of* that location. ...not that you'd
ever want to do find these though! :-P (but I bet you're going to come back and tell me you do!)"

Ste

<Steve Orrell> wrote in message
news:3jpr30p9l8hq45s7e7fsaj4h41c45vqnrb@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:18:50 -0000, "ste mc ©" <ste@sm9.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >my fly photos: http://www.usefilm.com/image/172119.html It's a photo of
a
> >fly, and it was taken in my back garden. If someone wants a fly photo,
they
> >will be looking for flies, not back gardens.
>
> ahAH!! No flies on you, eh Ste???

Nahh, they leave me alone these days because I was annoying them too much by taking photos
of them! :-)

> hurrHURR
>
> <cough> soz
>
> me tablets must be wearing off

You must take some more for that coughing! :-)

> OnT: Interesting ideas, I've similar, tho' presently small/burgeoning problem. Previously I've
> sorted per date/location, with a mental consideration of subject within that but am needing to
> reconsider because of expanding and diversifying collection. There seem to be quite a few things
> that can influence the protocol chosen but I'm leaning toward thinking that "Subject" is the
> underlying common denominator.

Like you say Steve, as collections get larger, it makes it more difficult to find things. Also, it
makes it more difficult to reorganise too (imagine re-organising 100 photos compared to 10,000
photos! ouch!), so it's best to get your system right for your needs as soon as you can.

I organise my folders similar to you: by Year, Month, then by Date_Description.

So I have a '2004' folder, than will contain a folder for 'February,' which will in turn contain a
folder for '26February2004_LangsetteReservoir.' I've used this system for the past 2 years, and
although I can find my images if I need to, I tend to forget what I've got and where they are as
the collection gets larger (5,000 images or so). That's why I recently bought Adobe Photoshop Album
2 to organise all this, and it's proved really helpful, as it means I can keep my folders organised
the same way.

> SteveO

Ste

In message <403df3bc$0$7064$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, ste mc © <ste@sm9.co.uk> writes
>
>"Chris Townsend" <Chris@DELETEauchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:V978x7ApvePAFwC8@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <403de450$0$7074$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, ste mc © <ste@sm9.co.uk> writes
>> >
>> >"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:c1ivem$9mt$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> >> I'm in the middle of sorting out loads of landscape photos on my computer and I'm having
>> >> trouble deciding which areas to put certain photos into. The problem photos are those of a
>> >> different area, do I include them in the area that the photo is of, or do I include them in
>> >> the area I took the photo from? In other words, do I sort by subject
>or
>> >> by viewpoint?
>> >
>> >In my very humble and inexperienced opinion (;-)), it doesn't matter
>where
>> >the photo was taken from, but only what it is taken of. Think of it from
>a
>> >clients perspective and you'll be fine. If they want a photo of Snowdon,
>do
>> >they care where it was taken from, or what is in the photo? Of course,
>it's
>> >the subject that matters.
>>
>> Depends on the client. Publishers of outdoor books and magazines usually want to know where a
>> photo was taken from. The text accompanying the photo may well be about where the photo was taken
>> from not the subject of the photo. For example a feature on Glyder Fawr, say, may have a photo of
>> Snowdon to show what the views are like.
>
>Sure it does, but I'd put money on *most* clients wanting to know the subject.

Again, it depends on who your clients are. I've been selling my photos to publishers for over twenty
and they have often wanted captions saying where the photo was taken from. Often I want that
information displayed too, as it illustrates a point in my text.

I've sold few photos outside the walking/mountaineering field so I don't know what people mostly
want there.

> If it's a toss-up between knowing the subject or viewpoint (and from what Paul says, it is), then
> I'd go for subject. It would be a lot more useful in my opinion.

I find both useful.

> Regarding the accompanying text to the photo, see the bottom of this post.
>
>
>> >> For example, I have an early morning shot of Snowdon taken with a telephoto lens from the
>> >> summit of Cadair Idris. There is nothing of Cadair Idris in the photo and the Rhinogs are
>> >> effectively in the foreground, in front of Snowdon, which rises up above them.
>> >>
>> >> Should I put it in the Snowdon folder because it's a photo of Snowdon, or should I put it in
>> >> the Cadair Idris folder because that's where I took it from?
>> >
>> >Put it in the Snowdon folder. A client wants a photo of Snowdon, full
>stop,
>> >so where it was taken from doesn't really matter to them. Think of one
>of
>> >my fly photos: http://www.usefilm.com/image/172119.html It's a photo of
>a
>> >fly, and it was taken in my back garden. If someone wants a fly photo,
>they
>> >will be looking for flies, not back gardens.
>>
>> What happens if someone wants photos of views from Cadair Idris? Would you remember you had a
>> photo of Snowdon taken from Cadair Idris?
>
>I would do what I said in my post before you snipped it:
>
>Paul said: "This is a common problem. Views of mountains are often best from adjacent areas, for
>example Corn Du from Fan Fawr or Fan Fawr from Corn
>Du."
>
>I replied: "What you say above sounds like a good idea for giving titles to your images. You could
>even put this in as a keyword, and like Ron says, search for "from Snowdon" if you really want to
>find a photo taken *from* that location, but not necessarily *of* that location. ...not that you'd
>ever want to do find these though! :-P (but I bet you're going to come back and tell me you do!)"

Keywords and detailed captions are the solution.

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c1j34n$bi4$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Pat Bennett wrote:
>
> > I use IMatch, and I assume from your comments during a previous thread a while ago, so are you.
>
> I haven't actually committed myself to that yet, I thought I try a few others first. I downloaed a
> demo of FotoStation Pro last night but the installation included QuickTime which asked me for a
> serial number! ????? Which of course I didn't have so the demo won't work. What genious thought of
> including that in the demo?
>
> I've played around with Photoshop album which was very easy to use and user-friendly

Sure is.

> but a bit "family" oriented and doesn't have enough advanced features.

I wouldn't say family orientated as such, but Adobe does describe it as consumer software, rather
than professional software. But snobbery aside, I think it's excellent.

> No display of the original folder structure

Right click an image, and it tells you the folder location. You can even click the folder icon to
open that folder. Easy! :-P

> categories but no keywords

I'm sure you can add keywords (they might be called 'captions?'), though I've not done this yet (so
don't quote me on it), as I'm happy just using the categories (tags) for now.

> no exif data display.

Can't say I'd ever been bothered by this, professional, amateur, or whatever. Why is this a good
feature, and why do *you* use it? I don't see how or when *I'd* ever need to find images that had a
1/250 sec shutter speed,or f8.0 aperture, or whatever. Am I missing something? Or is it just because
you *can* do it *if* you need to.

> Clearly not a program aimed at pros.

It's not as such (from what Adobe say), but I think it's excellent, and most importantly, it
does the job. Although they might be marketing it as an amateur/family product, I wouldn't read
too much into this. Do Adobe have a more professional photo cataloguing software? If so, I don't
know about it.

> I'll probaby end up choosing IMatch, I did like that one.
>
> > If this is the case, then I would have two main categories - Subject and Viewpoint - each one
> > containing the locations as sub-categories.
>
> Yep, will do.

There, problem solved!

> > As for the folder you physically store it in, why not have a set of folders based roughly on the
> > time when the photo was taken? If this is a problem because you cannot remember what year many
> > of the photos were taken, then put them in folders according to when you scanned them. It
> > doesn't matter where the physical files are when they are all categorised well.
>
> No problem remembering when photos were taken, I've got a complete diary of dates and locations
> going back to 1985, when I started doing landscapes seriously.
>
> I will store all my full size scans in chronological folders, just as I'm storing my original
> digital images, and I'll be using the database specifically with those files.

Good good.

> However, the sorting that I'm talking about now is a different collection of images, those which
> have been processed and reduced in size. I don't intend to index them in a database, I just want
> to sort them in a manner convenient for personal viewing.

Now you tell us!!! :-)

> The folder heirarchy of these files equates to the structure of my new website design, so each
> folder therefore represents one page, and contains the photos that I may put on that page. In this
> way I can reorganise my website to my satisfaction before I commit myself to creating the new
> pages. Since each page will contain thumbnails I could use duplicate thumbnails in different
> areas, both linking to the same larger image, but I'd prefer to avoid that in most cases.
>
> > Neither - assign them to both Peny Fan and Llyn y Fan Fawr categories. You can then find either,
> > or do a search using AND which will find all your photos which contain both.
>
> Which is fine for the database, but as I say, this is for a different purpose.
>
> > For your website, I think the subject is more important than the viewpoint.
>
> Yes, this is the key issue, but what if the foreground is a major feature in itself? Like Pen y
> Fan from Llyn y Fan Fawr. Which should take precedence?

If it's for the website and you want a user to find it (without risking a
50/50 chance of them missing it), then stick the image in both. If you really don't want
duplication, then stick it in the most prominent section, or the section that is the 'feature' of
the photo.

Now I know you don't think Adobe Photoshop Album 2 is up to the task for you, but as well as having
all the usual Tags which show the categories, there's also a 'Collection' tab along the top. I use
the collections tab so I can sort out which photos are used for Photosig, Usefilm, etc. I could even
have a collection called 'website' or 'alamy' 'calendar' or whatever.

<snip>

> Paul

Ste

"Chris Townsend" <Chris@DELETEauchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7MantXCuqfPAFw19@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
> In message <403df3bc$0$7064$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>, ste mc © <ste@sm9.co.uk> writes

<snip>

> >> Depends on the client. Publishers of outdoor books and magazines usually want to know where a
> >> photo was taken from. The text
accompanying
> >> the photo may well be about where the photo was taken from not the subject of the photo. For
> >> example a feature on Glyder Fawr, say, may have a photo of Snowdon to show what the views are
> >> like.
> >
> >Sure it does, but I'd put money on *most* clients wanting to know the subject.
>
> Again, it depends on who your clients are.

Of course.

> I've been selling my photos to publishers for over twenty and they have often wanted captions
> saying where the photo was taken from. Often I want that information displayed too, as it
> illustrates a point in my text.
>
> I've sold few photos outside the walking/mountaineering field so I don't know what people mostly
> want there.

Okay, I've never sold a single photo so what do I know! :-) But I'm thinking from my own point of
view if I was wanting a buy a photo for myself. Who are your clients Paul, and what market are you
selling to?

> > If it's a toss-up between knowing the subject or viewpoint (and from what Paul says, it is),
> > then I'd go for subject. It would be a lot more useful in my opinion.
>
> I find both useful.

For myself, I'd go for subject, but like you say, a different client or market might want the other.

<snip>

> Keywords and detailed captions are the solution.

There you go Paul, what are you going to do then?

Ste