Photo Sorting



In message <[email protected]>, Pat Bennett
<[email protected]> writes
>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
>>
>
>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.

I haven't looked at IMatch. I will do. Thanks.
 
In message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> writes
>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.

Thanks. That is what I'm looking for. I'm aware that using shortcuts is fine with the few digital
images I currently have but will be hard work as my collection builds up.
>
>The same approach can be applied to physical photographs as well as files of digital pictures,
>of course.

The problem with physical photographs is locating the actual transparencies, especially when I
haven't put them back in the source file after taking them out!
 
In message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> The problem with physical photographs is locating the actual transparencies, especially when I
>> haven't put them back in the source file after taking them out!
>
>Ah...
>
>"Catalogue Index: #1264; Location: somewhere in the big pile on the floor by the desk" is only
>going to be helpful up to a point... ;-/

How did you know? :)

Actually, I have a wall of boot boxes near my desk, some with just a year written on them, some with
the name of a trip. Inside are slide boxes. My "active" slides (ones I may use soon, have just used
or am using) are in slide sleeves stacked up next to the light box. Slides I have used and may want
again are in slide sleeves in another pile of boot boxes. I also have a filing cabinet that's been
full for years. This system evolved over time and I lost control of it many years ago. Give me a few
years and I could sort it out!
 
In message <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders <[email protected]> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Useful to know. I'll make a point of including such information.
>
>> Keywords and detailed captions are the solution.
>
>Premably they don't have to use the whole caption, just choose the information they want from it?

That is a danger! Sometimes photographs appear with garbled or inaccurate captions.

I ask the publisher what type of captions they want - short, long, detailed, descriptive etc. With
slides I put the caption on a sticky label, using Cradoc Caption Writer, and send a printed list.
With books I usually get page proofs so I can check the captions are correct. With magazine articles
this doesn't often happen.
 
In message <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders <[email protected]> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> ste mc © <[email protected]> writes
>
>>> 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.
>
>You're the first person to mention this Chris, and it's exactly what I've been thinking about. Many
>comments have been made about "boring hills" in the past, but of course it's not just the hill but
>the views that have to be considered. Many boring hills make great viewpoints and you may want to
>visit an area not just for the area itself but for what you can see from there. You get a terrific
>view of the Glyders from Pen yr Ole Wen, but the "view" belongs to the Carneddau, not the Glyders.

Guidebook pictures of hills are often taken from another hill that isn't included in the walk
described.

The best viewpoints are often from lower hills in an area, especially isolated ones. Sgurr na Stri
is only 494 metres high but it's a superb viewpoint for the Cuillin on Skye. (Not that anyone would
describe Sgurr na Stri as boring).
>
>> What happens if someone wants photos of views from Cadair Idris? Would you remember you had a
>> photo of Snowdon taken from Cadair Idris?
>
>In this particular case yes, since it's a vivid memory, but even if I didn't remember, it's fair
>to assume that if I've climbed a particular mountain then I probably took photos of the views
>from there.

My memory is pretty good too but I have sometimes taken photos of a view from a series of summits in
an area and not been sure years later where each version of the view was taken.
>
>As I've said, this is not a problem for my main photo database, which will use different categories
>and keywords, but in this particular case I'm sorting photos for my website, which I want to
>organise by area, so I have to decide whether I want to show what each area looks like (from a
>variety of viewpoints) or whether I want to show what can be seen when walking in that area.
>
>After what's been said I'm inclined to agree with the subject based approach, using titles such as
>"Snowdon from Moel Hebog" or "Snowdon from Glyder Fawr" and so on, which will indicate where you
>have to go to get those views.

I think that would be the most useful for those looking at the website.
>
>I've just realised that there's another issue. Photographs of a mountain range taken from an
>adjacent mountain range will often tend to be wide angle shots showing multiple summits, whereas
>shots taken closer up within the same area will often be of single summits (although this can also
>be done from other areas with a telephoto lens).
>
>So it's possible to make a clear distinction between an "area view" and a "single subject view", so
>such photos can be sorted separately. This idea fits in well with my website redesign plans.

I have a set of photos of the Cuillin taken from Sgurr na Stri that range from wide angle views
showing the whole range down to sea level to telephoto shots of individual summits.
 
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?
<snip>>
>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
>
Who are your intended audience? Your pictures are marvellous but why would people suddenly think
"ooh I must see pictures of Snowdon now" for example? If you can think of reasons, this would help
your categorization.

Dave Williams
 
Ron Wood wrote:

> Why bother with folders

Well as I explained elsewhere, I'm sorting out photos for website pages and convenient viewing.

> - bung 'em all in one

Oh no! I've got way too many, and besides, I like folders.

> and use Thumbs Plus from www.cerious.com

I used to use that years ago, good program, I liked it. I like the batch processing features.

> 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.

I prefer ACDSee for quick, easy viewing.

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

> 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.

So you reckon I should put my mushroom photos into a mushroom folder rather than in my Ystradfellte
folder then?

I also have pictures of sky or sea which could have been taken anywhere. If I have specific sky and
mushroom folders then all the pictures in them will be very similar, but I was thinking that if I
included them in the area they were taken they would add variety. Also, it's like saying "these are
the kind of mushrooms that you can expect to find in this area".

>> 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.

So do you think this is a good policy for most images? Pwlldu Head from Caswell Bay? Snowdon from
Cadair Idris? Oxwich Bay from Pwlldu Head?

> 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!)

Well if the foreground is important then I may. Views from Llyn y Fan Fawr for example (good view of
the rest of the Beacons from there).

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

Why so cynical? If I knew which method I wanted to use I wouldn't have asked the question. The act
of sorting photos has been giving me headaches for nearly 20 years, and I'm still undecided about
the best way 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
 
Steve Orrell wrote:

> 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.

True, but storing photos chronologically in the order they were taken, one folder per day or trip,
is the simplest, with a database to deal with all the different categories.

My current sorting problem relates to a relatively small number of selected processed images, most
of which are being sorted with a new website layout in mind, so I don't really want multiple
categories for each photo, I just want to put each photo in the most appropriate place.

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

> ste mc © <[email protected]> writes

>> 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.

You're the first person to mention this Chris, and it's exactly what I've been thinking about. Many
comments have been made about "boring hills" in the past, but of course it's not just the hill but
the views that have to be considered. Many boring hills make great viewpoints and you may want to
visit an area not just for the area itself but for what you can see from there. You get a terrific
view of the Glyders from Pen yr Ole Wen, but the "view" belongs to the Carneddau, not the Glyders.

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

In this particular case yes, since it's a vivid memory, but even if I didn't remember, it's fair
to assume that if I've climbed a particular mountain then I probably took photos of the views
from there.

As I've said, this is not a problem for my main photo database, which will use different categories
and keywords, but in this particular case I'm sorting photos for my website, which I want to
organise by area, so I have to decide whether I want to show what each area looks like (from a
variety of viewpoints) or whether I want to show what can be seen when walking in that area.

After what's been said I'm inclined to agree with the subject based approach, using titles such as
"Snowdon from Moel Hebog" or "Snowdon from Glyder Fawr" and so on, which will indicate where you
have to go to get those views.

I've just realised that there's another issue. Photographs of a mountain range taken from an
adjacent mountain range will often tend to be wide angle shots showing multiple summits, whereas
shots taken closer up within the same area will often be of single summits (although this can also
be done from other areas with a telephoto lens).

So it's possible to make a clear distinction between an "area view" and a "single subject view", so
such photos can be sorted separately. This idea fits in well with my website redesign plans.

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

Who thought sorting photos could be such a worthy topic of conversation? Simple soul that
I am would:

Put Mountains in the Mountains Folder Flies in the Wildlife Folder Seaviews shots in a
Coastal Folder

and keep mushrooms in the dark and feed them b******t or is that too simple?

:eek:)

PS: Not quite sure about Seaviews with submarine shots though, might have to be a sub folder innit.
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| ste mc © wrote:
|
| > 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.
|
| So you reckon I should put my mushroom photos into a mushroom folder rather than in my
| Ystradfellte folder then?

If you've already got a mushroom category on your website, then yes. All I'm saying is put them in
the folder that someone would find if they were browsing your website and looking for something. If
you were specialising in macro shots, then you could have a fly folder, a mushroom folder, an ant
folder, etc. Assuming you're not going to have a mushroom folder on your website (I'm guessing
you're not, as you're a landscape photographer), put it in the Ystradfellte folder.

| I also have pictures of sky or sea which could have been taken anywhere. If I have specific sky
| and mushroom folders then all the pictures in them will be very similar, but I was thinking that
| if I included them in the area they were taken they would add variety. Also, it's like saying
| "these are the kind of mushrooms that you can expect to find in this area".

Sure, in that case, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Just this once though. ;-)

| >> 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.
|
| So do you think this is a good policy for most images? Pwlldu Head from Caswell Bay? Snowdon from
| Cadair Idris? Oxwich Bay from Pwlldu Head?

I don't know, just an obervation, though it's not the most exciting method.. But if you do this
using the captions or keywords, you could find images using the same search methods mentioned
elsewhere in the thread.

| > 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!)
|
| Well if the foreground is important then I may. Views from Llyn y Fan Fawr for example (good view
| of the rest of the Beacons from there).
|
| > So you'll hear about all the different ideas, and can then decide that your own idea was the
| > best one all along... :)
|
| Why so cynical?

Hey, there's a smiley there you know!

| If I knew which method I wanted to use I wouldn't have asked the question. The act of sorting
| photos has been giving me headaches for nearly 20 years, and I'm still undecided about the best
| way to do it!

Judging from your posts Paul, you strike me as a person who gives things like this a lot of thought.
You seem to know every last detail about the things you do, and how they work etc, so I was suprised
that you needed advice on it. Saying that, I was joking when writing the above (see smiley).

| Paul

Ste
 
John Taverner wrote:

> I file by subject, not viewpoint.

Well most people who've replied have said the same so there's obviously a strong preference for
subject rather than viewpoint, so I'll probably go with that, unless the foreground seems more
important.

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

Provided you don't need advanced features it seems fine.

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

>> I've played around with Photoshop album

> I wouldn't say family orientated as such,

So why the photo of kids playing in the sand and all the cartoon like icons?

> but Adobe does describe it as consumer software, rather than professional software. But snobbery
> aside, I think it's excellent.

It does seem highly usable, but the distinction between consumer and professional is not snobbery.
There are certain features that professionals need and if a program doesn't offer those options then
it's of no use to them.

>> 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

Ugh! It opens the actual folder window! That's no good to me, I never use "windows" as such. I
browse all my images using ACDSee and do all my file operations in Total Commander. IMatch
allows you to browse your images by the original folders or by categories and by various types
of search results.

>> 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, captions are captions, keywords are keywords. Different things entirely. I believe captions are
stored in IPTC data fields, which album also doesn't support.

To quote IMatch;

"This section describes the support for IPTC (International Press Telecommunications Council) and
NAA (Newspaper Association of America) image information. The IPTC/NAA standard is a metadata model
for associating additional information with all types of digital media. The IPTC standard has been
widely adopted by the Digital Image Industry and within the Publishing and Printing Business."

>> 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.

I regularly look at exif data to distinguish different photos. As I've said, I often photograph the
same scene in different ways, using the same composition I may try different combinations of shutter
speed, aperture and film speed. Just looking at the thumbnails I can't tell them apart, so a quick
look at the exif data is necessary. For example one shot might be very grainy due to a faster film
speed, but I can't tell that from the thumbnail.

The time of day the photo was taken is also important to me, because of the angle of the light and
it can sometimes be very useful to check the settings used to take a good photograph in order to
repeat the effect. Often bad photographs are more instructive than good ones. If there's something
wrong with an image (blurred, partly out of focus, etc.) checking the settings used will tell me why
so that I can avoid making the same mistake next time.

IMatch says;

"Image files created with digital cameras store metadata along with the raw image data. This
metadata may be a valuable information resource for your image database."

>> Clearly not a program aimed at pros.
>
> It's not as such (from what Adobe say), but I think it's excellent,

I think it's very good too.

> and most importantly, it does the job.

For most people yes, for professionals no.

> Although they might be marketing it as an amateur/family product, I wouldn't read too much
> into this.

I would. It's not suitable for professionals.

> Do Adobe have a more professional photo cataloguing software? If so, I don't know about it.

Now that you mention it, why don't they? Perhaps they'll design one in the future, or perhaps they
won't bother since there are other good apps available.

>> 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!!! :)

I did mention this in my original post, but perhaps I didn't stress it strongly enough. No one else
seemed to notice either. I wrote;

"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."

> 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.

Well I've looked hard for it but I can't find a collection tab or any mention of it anywhere.

But since you mentioned Alamy, don't you think it's important to include proper captioning,
copyright and keyword information with your photos, in the official IPTC and EXIF data formats?

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

> 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!),

Well I reckon I must be up to at least 35,000 photos now, maybe even as much as 40,000 (I really
must count them properly).

At the moment it's mainly my digital images that need databasing, I haven't yet scanned many film
shots (not properly anyway, at full size suitable for printing).

I've now got the definite stats on my digital collection. So far I've taken exactly 4467 digital
photographs, since mid-December 2002.

The total number of shots I took with my G3 was 4206, over a period of 13 months and 4 days. Having
lost £550 on the sale, that works out at 13 pence per photo.

I took 3809 digital photos during 2003 (plus an undetermined number of film shots).

So far I'm averaging 320 digital photos per month, slightly less than 4000 per year.

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

> Who thought sorting photos could be such a worthy topic of conversation? Simple soul that I
> am would:
>
> Put Mountains in the Mountains Folder Flies in the Wildlife Folder Seaviews shots in a
> Coastal Folder

So let me see, that would be around 10,000 photos in the Coastal folder, 30,000 photos in the
mountains folder and a few dozen shots in the Wildlife folder.

Two of those folders are going to take rather a long time to open, don't you think?

I have dozens, sometimes hundreds, of photos of just one particular mountain, and there are hundreds
of different mountains in Wales, so I think a few sub-folders are in order, yes?

Of course there'd be no problem putting all my England photos into one folder. :)

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

>> So you reckon I should put my mushroom photos into a mushroom folder rather than in my
>> Ystradfellte folder then?
>
> If you've already got a mushroom category on your website, then yes.

No, and I don't plan to. In nearly 20 years of photography my mushroom photo collection probably
numbers less than a hundred, a lot less. Of those, my *good* mushroom photos can probably be counted
on one hand.

Of course I could have some sort of miscellanous folder for random stuff that I don't know where to
put anywhere else, but the odd mushroom shot here and there would add variety and a spot of local
detail. I also have quite a few close ups of rocks and lichens, and a few mosses and ferns, but not
enough to really make a whole category out of, and my website really isn't about that sort of thing,
except as elements that occur within landscapes.

>>> So you'll hear about all the different ideas, and can then decide that your own idea was the
>>> best one all along... :)
>>
>> Why so cynical?
>
> Hey, there's a smiley there you know!

I know, but you've accused me of this sort of thing before! :)

>> If I knew which method I wanted to use I wouldn't have asked the question. The act of sorting
>> photos has been giving me headaches for nearly 20 years, and I'm still undecided about the best
>> way to do it!
>
> Judging from your posts Paul, you strike me as a person who gives things like this a lot of
> thought. You seem to know every last detail about the things you do, and how they work etc, so I
> was suprised that you needed advice on it.

I once read that there were two types of people in the world - creative people and organisational
people. Creative people tend to have lots of ideas and create lots of stuff, but they're very
disorganised. Organisational people on the other hand have no imagination, never create anything,
but they're really good at sorting and organising things. Guess which category I fit into?

Apparently the ideal situation is a partnership between a creative person and an organisational
person. The creative person has the ideas and creates stuff, while the other other one sorts out the
mess and sells it for them.

So although I'm really trying to get organised, it goes against the grain. It's in my nature to be
chaotic and disorganised.

> Saying that, I was joking when writing the above (see smiley).

I know.

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

> 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.

Useful to know. I'll make a point of including such information.

> Keywords and detailed captions are the solution.

Premably they don't have to use the whole caption, just choose the information they want from 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ste mc © wrote:
>
> > Do Adobe have a more professional photo cataloguing software? If so, I don't know about it.
>
> Now that you mention it, why don't they? Perhaps they'll design one in the future, or perhaps they
> won't bother since there are other good apps available.
>

Photoshop CS has a pretty good one built in apparently. Not tried it myself, ran out of money!

Doug
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back