Lightroom Library Organization

Hello all.



I have been a user of Aperture since its release, and have been absolutely in love with the type of workflow optimization software like this affords. When LR hit 1.0, I tried it out, and I have to say it'll be an easy switch. The development tools, coupled with minute details that I can't live without has made Lightroom a clear winner for me.



There is one catch for me however, and that's strategies for organizing my library. I understand the distinctions in LR's interface, of folders being a physical abstraction of the masters and collections being a logical abstraction of the masters, but what is the best strategy to use?



Currently in the demo, I have my photographs organized through hierarchical collections (and I'm getting around to keywording everything as well). The actual physical arrangement of the masters is really messy though (some in a high-level photo, some randomly dispersed through subfolders).



Finally my question(s): Is this approach the best organizational scheme? Also, is there a way to clean up the physical organization of the masters? Lastly, I can do an ''or'' relationship of keywords by clicking on several at a time, is there a more powerful approach to this available? (more boolean logic, conditions--essentially something to mirror the ''smart album'' functionality of Aperture).
Lightroom Library Organization
I tend to name my folders, often eschewing dates.(which, for me, is redundant as dates are embedded all over the place)



I tend to consolidate into fewer folders rather than many, but none have more than 600 images. All my folders resides in ''Pictures'' on my Macs, or in subfolders therein.



If you aren't too deep into an existing structure, and want to consolidate, one way is to start a nrew library and have photos moved into new folders in a centralized place.



As to keywords, someone else may answer, as my searches are simple.
Lightroom Library Organization
I think it's very important to think very carefully about how you are going to organize your pictures before you start seriously with Lightroom (or any other cataloging program).



How you catalog clearly depends on who you are cataloging for (if you work for someone else or sell to someone else, you need to work by their rules) as well as the type(s) of photography you do and what you will want to do with the photos.



Important for me was that the information be (or be able to be written to) the files themselves or ''sidecar'' files. In other words, I didn't want to lose all my work if I switched to another program.



Because of this, even though I use foldering as an organizational structure, I do not want to rely on that. I want everything I need in the metadata.



Lightroom allows you to write to quite a number of metadata fields. I use the usual caption, keywords, and location fields. But I also am using another field (Job Identifier) as a higher level category of things I want to keep together. An example would be Egypt 2004, a category that includes all photos taken on our trip to Egypt in 2004. This field is not currently included in the metadata browser, but I am comfortable enough that it can be stored in the metadata in the file so the information is not lost. Until then, I also folder by this category.



I think it is also important to put some thought into your keyword hierarchy. Although the hierarchy itself is not saved in the file metadata, the keywords are. And there is a feature that shouldn't be overlooked, where a keyword can have its parent to be exported, so you need to pay attention to how you want that option set. I set it differently for different keywords.



Foldering is not supposed to be important in Lightroom -- and in fact it wasn't in the Beta 4 version. However, I am comfortable working with folders for day to day work so I'm happy that it is now included.



Collection information is not stored outside of lightroom's database. I use them only for selecting images from a large set, usually for exporting. That could be for web pages, for slide shows, etc.



You can re-folder from within Lightroom but I haven't done very much of that. Before I import an older folder structure, I do take a look and see if I want to do anything major with it before I import.

Justin

For additional thoughts check out this blog entry. It might prove useful.



http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/04/folder_and_file_naming_conve nt.html

Adding on to this thread, in a slightly different direction.



Are people using the Library for the RAW, the ''developed'' JPG, or both. If both, how?



For simplicity sake, let's say I shoot RAW and only use LR to develop to JPG. Sometimes larger for printing, sometimes smaller for email, galleries and other uses. I would like JPGs on hand for quickly finding them, emailing, loading to another program like Photo Story, uploading to the web etc. I don't want to have to recreate JPGs.



So my NEFs are loaded, tagged, and I cull out the losers, and develop most or all of the winners. Now I have NEF and JPG, but the JPG have been Exported.



Should I now Import them back in? Can LR do this automatically? Is there a downside to having both NEF and JPG in the library?



So I am not talking about shooting RAW+JPG, but am talking about RAW plus developed JPGs.



Any advice or commentary on workflow would be appreciated.

I'd advise you to check out Peter Krogh's excellent book, The DAM Book, much of which is about this very subject. There's also an associated web site http://www.thedambook.com/ with a very active forum talking about photo organization and management.



I would hasten to add, though, that Krogh's opinion on how to do this comes from the point of view of a pro shooting tens (hundreds?) of thousads of images per year. If your situation is different, you may come to different conclusions. Still, this is a great resource to help you focus on the issues.

Thanks Jerry, I have heard of a lot of the ideas in the DAM book and have been through the DAM forum quite a bit, although have not read the book.



I guess I was looking for a Lightroom specific answer. After you create the JPGs do you catalog both the JPG and original NEF in Lightroom itself?



If the answer is in the DAM book as you mention, can you at least give me the short version of the answer? I will get the book at some point too.

Rob, as a professional shooter, not sport, I do this.

1. import to LR and convert DNG, back up NEF files at the same time and write the NEFs to DVD

2. If I want jpegs I use the DNG developed files and export to a new folder, sometimes I keep them e.g. if I think I will be making more use like writing extra CD's but usually delete them after initial use as they can easily be generated again. Rarely I will import the jpegs back to LR.

3. If I work with an image in PS, I edit a PSD and kep it stacked with the original in LR

Rob OK



Don't rely on an LR specific answer. LR will not be forever--it will be surpassed by somehting better in the future. Organize for your requirements--generically and conventionally--so that you can easily adapt to improved software as it arrives.



As Judith said, think carefully first about your requirements.



I use a folder hierarchy that has about 200,000 images in it. I keep all duplicate images regardless of extension with the same names (for client access reasons). I have also a well planned keywording structure, etc, and I have used this organizational design with a number of DAMs without hassles or without attempting to adjust MY folder hierarchy to any app for many years.



Obviously, I do not use LR Library at this time because of the duplicate names limitation. I use Bridge and another DAM instead.



When LR adopts the same standards for filenaming that all other DAMs now have and all other apps now use, I will then consider using the Library function in LR. The point is that there are conventions out there that are ubiquitous--stick with those in your design, especially if you expect your image collection to get large.

Good to see different opinions out there, I didn't mention that I use keywords for locating files often and I have write to xmp set so files are continuously updated.

I don't know nuch about other DAM systems but I doubt that they ALL use the same standards as the above post states.

What I can tell you is this works well for me today and with the info written to files ought to be as forward compatible as possible. Probably better than camera manufacturers raw files !!

Geoff- [or anyone onna Mac]



I forget which OS you use, but on my Mac, using Finder search, I cannot locate photos by keywords. Is there a tweak to said Finder search (looked in Prefs, couldn't see it) so that it will comb through the headers and come up with a list?

John - not that I know of !!



Also to OP, I often still shift/reorganise in the OS/finder and them just reference again in LR.

Thanks for the messages back guys. In terms of my requirements -- I use the JPGs the most and once I develop it, I don't go back too much to the NEF.



In my mental model I imagine having the NEF and resulting JPG be stacked for Library (''Browser'') mode where I could find an image quickly and then drag the found image(s) to email or other program. For me, I would rather have the JPG ready to go than have to regenerate it. The NEF I would rarely go back and do anything with.



I know everyone is different, but I am thinking about LR as a full life-cycle tool -- I am looking at the ''Search, Locate and Do Something'' phase of my lifecycle.



Maybe I am thinking about it wrong, should I be thinking ''Find a NEF, generate a new JPG to actually do something with it''?



Thanks,

R.

Rob, LR uses a ''new'' approach to handling image files. It keeps the master image in its library. Any time you need a derivative (to use the DAM book's nomenclature), you export, for example to JPG. You don't reimport a jpg image that was derived from a master. Instead, you should make a virtual copy of the master and edit it to the point where you want to get a jpg - in this case you export it. Your library just keeps the master file along with the metadata that describes each of the virtual copies. That way you maintain considerably fewer image files and use less disk space.



Think of LR as a black box of your master images and variations of them. Any time you want an actual image file to do something with it (print, email, etc.), you press the magic button on the box and out comes a derivative that you use outside the black box.



The only time this paradigm gets sticky is when you want to use a master and generate a derivative outside LR (like using PS). In this case LR wouldn't know about the derivative, so you'd have to import it back into the black box as a new master (even though it is a ''derivative'' of the original master - LR doesn't see it that way). To make things easier, LR uses the ''edit in PS'' or whatever other external app you use to first create a new master and pass that off to the external app. When done there, the revised image is already in LR.



- Pierre



PS - I have used the DAM Book methodology in the past, but now find that apps like LR or Aperture (that I used prior to LR) negate some that methodology. I hear the book's author is thinking of rewriting the book (or a different book) to incorporate LR/Ap into the DAM workflow.

The virtual copies are very nice. Develop snapshots server a similar function. You can have color, B%26amp;W, different crops, etc. simply as develop snapshots in the same file. It seems to work just like virtual copies, except that they don't show as separate images in the library.



I've pretty much stopped saving extra copies (except backups, of course). When I export to jpg or tiff, I use it and then delete it. Makes for a very clean library.

I suspect that snapshots, which existed before the virtual copies were incorporated in the final version (or was there a beta that hade VCs, I don'r recall), were Adobe's initial attempt at virtual copies.

There are no real advantages to keeping anything other than RAW files in your database. LR will create the necessary JPEG's on export automatically.



I personally have a very simple organizational structure. Here goes:



- I use the ''My Pictures'' folder as the root folder for everything.



- I have the import dialog automatically creating a folder with the date in the name.



- I have the import dialog automatically appending the date to the sequenced file name.



- I have the import dialog automatically convert to DNG



If relevant to all the pictures on the memory card, I will add some keywords. Otherwise this is added during the next step for small groups of photos.



That being said, I wholeheartedly agree it is critical to establish your file structure early and ensure it makes sense as your library grows to 1,000's of photos. One thing I didn't like about PSE5 is that Adobe tried to make it too easy and dumbed down the file structure and made people too dependent on the keywords. I like the fact that LR still uses keywords but keeps the file structure out in the open!



--

Doug

Thanks Pierre, that was helpful. For me it is hard to get used to not having the JPGs already made.



I guess in the same way my photography skills grow and mature, my workflow skills will as well.



Maybe what confuses me is I have a whole lot of older JPGs from before I shot RAW. So the older part of my library is JPG, the newer part of my library is RAW. So on older images, a JPG is a master and newer parts the NEF is the master.



Doug -- I agree about folder structure. I have a folder structure that currently includes both RAW and derivatives and was expecting all of that to be in LR, but what I am seeing about the DAM / LR approach is that it is expected that I have one folder structure for RAW and either have derivatives outside of LR's view, or only keep them temporarily and delete them.



I guess for now I will keep my derivatives outside of LR and see how that goes.

Rob,

One thing you might consider regarding the raws vs. jpgs - have two libraries defined. I have a whole batch of old jpg images from the past 10 years which I haven't imported. I didn't want to mix the newer raw files, and besides, the older files are generally the typical snapshots, whereas the newer ones have a different purpose. My plan is to import the older stuff into a different library.



- Pierre

Pierre, I am considering that too. Good idea. I like having everything in one place though, so I might make two mega-collections (pre-2006 and 2006+ for example). Then when I wanted to restrict a search, it would be as simple as picking one of those ''eras''.

In an earlier post you mentioned creating JPEG's for printing. Unless you're having another program doing the printing. I wouldn't bother. Being able to develop and print RAW images within LR is a timesaver for me.

For people use to working with JPEGs it seems like a paradigm shift to go with only RAW.

Thanks Tim, agreed about the paradigm shift.



The JPG printing for me is usually through an online service. I have a local image printer but not have spend much time with it yet, but will print from RAW as you suggest.