Photo Sorting

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Paul Saunders, Feb 25, 2004.

  1. 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
     
    Tags:


  2. Pat Bennett

    Pat Bennett Guest

    On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:09:34 -0000, Paul Saunders
    <[email protected]> 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
     
  3. 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
     
  4. > 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
     
  5. Ron Wood

    Ron Wood Guest

    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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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
     
  6. Theo

    Theo Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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
     
  7. Pat Bennett

    Pat Bennett Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:35:02 -0000, Ron Wood <[email protected]> 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
     
  8. Ste Mc ©

    Ste Mc © Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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
     
  9. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:18:50 -0000, "ste mc ©" <[email protected]> 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
     
  10. In message <[email protected]>, ste mc © <[email protected]> writes
    >
    >"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> 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?
     
  11. Ste Mc ©

    Ste Mc © Guest

    "Chris Townsend" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In message <[email protected]>, ste mc © <[email protected]> writes
    > >
    > >"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...
    > >> 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
     
  12. Ste Mc ©

    Ste Mc © Guest

    <Steve Orrell> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:18:50 -0000, "ste mc ©" <[email protected]> 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
     
  13. In message <[email protected]>, ste mc © <[email protected]> writes
    >
    >"Chris Townsend" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> In message <[email protected]>, ste mc © <[email protected]> writes
    >> >
    >> >"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >news:[email protected]...
    >> >> 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.
     
  14. Ste Mc ©

    Ste Mc © Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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
     
  15. Ste Mc ©

    Ste Mc © Guest

    "Chris Townsend" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In message <[email protected]>, ste mc © <[email protected]> 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
     
  16. In message <[email protected]>, ste mc © <[email protected]> writes
    >
    >"Chris Townsend" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]mon.co.uk...
    >> In message <[email protected]>, ste mc © <[email protected]> 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.

    Certainly, when people buy individual prints the subject name is all they require.

    >Who are your clients Paul, and what market are you selling to?

    Markets and clients change over time. Photos can sell for many, many years. It's wise to have as
    much information as possible. I was recently asked for the technical info (shutter speed, aperture
    etc) for a photo I took in 1990. Luckily I had recorded it (I haven't for most of my film shots).
    The same photo was used in a tourist brochure ten years ago and the only info required was the name
    of 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.
    >>
    >> I find both useful.
    >
    >For myself, I'd go for subject, but like you say, a different client or market might want
    >the other.

    I actually file transparencies under date and place or trip - Skye 2000 for example. Memory is
    important though, as when I need to supply 200 photographs for a backpacking book (which I've just
    done). For that I need shots of people camping, walking, cooking over a stove, erecting a tent etc
    plus masses of gear shots. These can be scattered through my collection and take time to find.

    With digital images I haven't decided how to file them yet (which is why I looked at this thread)
    but I want to be able to find them quickly via various keywords so that a picture of a campsite by a
    lake below a mountain can be found under camping, perhaps the brand name of the tent, the name of
    the lake, the name of the mountain and the area.
     
  17. In message <[email protected]>, Edward Younger - Sun VSP - Firmware Engineer
    <[email protected]> writes
    >Chris Townsend <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >
    >> What happens if someone wants photos of views from Cadair Idris? Would you remember you had a
    >> photo of Snowdon taken from Cadair Idris?
    >>
    >
    >This whole problem is what links (hard links or symbolic links) will solve for you: the same file
    >(photo in this case) can appear (or appear to appear...) in several different directories
    >("folders"). Thus you could have a "Views from Cadair Idris" folder and a "Views of Snowdon"
    >folder, and the *same* photo (note: not 2 copies of the same photo, the same file) in both of
    >these folders.

    That's exactly what I want to do.
    >
    >I guess you're using Windows so hard links probably aren't available to you, but I think I heard
    >that MS had gotten around to implementing some form of symbolic links these days. Don't know the
    >details of how it works though.

    I am using Windows. XP. I haven't found any links yet. I'm looking for additional software anyway.
    >
    >Failing that I guess you could have the actual photo in one folder, and a "Shortcut" to it in
    >the other.

    That's what I'm doing at present.
     
  18. Chris Townsend <[email protected]> writes:

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

    This whole problem is what links (hard links or symbolic links) will solve for you: the same file
    (photo in this case) can appear (or appear to appear...) in several different directories
    ("folders"). Thus you could have a "Views from Cadair Idris" folder and a "Views of Snowdon" folder,
    and the *same* photo (note: not 2 copies of the same photo, the same file) in both of these folders.

    I guess you're using Windows so hard links probably aren't available to you, but I think I heard
    that MS had gotten around to implementing some form of symbolic links these days. Don't know the
    details of how it works though.

    Failing that I guess you could have the actual photo in one folder, and a "Shortcut" to it in
    the other.

    Eddy
    --
    Eddy Younger Sun Microsystems Inc. Medomsley Road, Consett,
    Co. Durham, DH8 6TJ, UK.
     
  19. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Chris Townsend wrote:

    > I am using Windows. XP. I haven't found any links yet. I'm looking for additional software anyway.

    >> Failing that I guess you could have the actual photo in one folder, and a "Shortcut" to it in
    >> the other.

    > That's what I'm doing at present.

    A shortcut is basically a link by another name for many purposes, but if you're making
    links/shortcuts/shadows (for the OS/2 fans out there!) to any number of possible folders then I
    think you're basically making a lot of work for yourself that would be better solved with a database
    of your pictures. The database can have entries for any amount of stuff you want, including checks
    for what categories it could be in. Database queries will then give you a list of all the possible
    pictures in one fell swoop (including where you've actually put them!), rather than going through
    lots of directory listings that don't tell you as much.

    The same approach can be applied to physical photographs as well as files of digital pictures,
    of course.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  20. Pat Bennett

    Pat Bennett Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:44:11 +0000, Chris Townsend
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    <snip>

    > I actually file transparencies under date and place or trip - Skye 2000 for example. Memory is
    > important though, as when I need to supply 200 photographs for a backpacking book (which I've just
    > done). For that I need shots of people camping, walking, cooking over a stove, erecting a tent etc
    > plus masses of gear shots. These can be scattered through my collection and take time to find.
    >
    > With digital images I haven't decided how to file them yet (which is why I looked at this thread)
    > but I want to be able to find them quickly via various keywords so that a picture of a campsite by
    > a lake below a mountain can be found under camping, perhaps the brand name of the tent, the name
    > of the lake, the name of the mountain and the area.

    Have you looked at IMatch, Chris? It will do all this for you, applying keywords (categories) in a
    very user friendly way, and doing lots and lots of other things for you.

    Pat

    --
    Pat Bennett www.cheshirewildlife.co.uk
     
Loading...
Loading...