software for managing photos

Bob Z

Whats the best photos for managing photographs? I dont have them on the computer but on an external hard drive and plan to put them on a second external hard drive.

chughes

I use Picasa. It's free to download.

broad_sword

Well if you are serious about your photography, then you should strongly consider Adobe Lightroom. It is a fantastic tool for cataloguing all your images. You can tag each image with keywords (which can make it very easy for searching purposes if done correctly), assign them a star rating, colour code them etc. You can also batch process images very simply (e.g. renaming or resizing a whole load of images in one go). There are also some power editing tools in the software which allow you to correct exposure, contrast, saturation etc. You can also create 'presets' to help speed up your digital darkroom processing. The software will also allow you to create a website of your images and has a print module to help with the output of your images.
The current version is 2.5 and there is a beta version of v3 which is free to download from labs.adobe.com - you could always have a look at it and see what you think.
Personally, I love the software now and use it for 90% of my image management. (the other 10% I'll use Photoshop).
Good luck with whatever software you choose.
P.S. If you are a Mac user, you won't be able to use Lightroom but you could consider Apple's 'Aperture' sofware.

Cameraman

broad_sword wrote: »

P.S. If you are a Mac user, you won't be able to use Lightroom but you could consider Apple's 'Aperture' sofware.

Actually it's sort of the other way around - Aperture won't work on Windows but Lightroom will work on either platform.

At first, I found LR difficult to get used to - but after a while it all hangs together nicely.

Crispin

Lightroom is ace but there is an open source program called blue marine which has got great reviews as a photo management tool if money is an issue. Its similar to lightroom in most repects. going to use it myself when I get a chance to sort my catalogue out.

http://bluemarine.tidalwave.it/

GavinZac

broad_sword wrote: »

Well if you are serious about your photography, then you should strongly consider Adobe Lightroom.

None of the features you mentioned are absent from Picasa, and Picasa comes with web hosting, facial recognition, contact/subject management, integration with gmail/flickr/facebook/a million other things you can install a button for. And its free.

God, I guess as a Business and IT graduate I should admire Adobe for somehow convincing people that if you want to be 'serious' in whatever digital artform you're interested in, you need to pay the Adobe software tax - Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere, etc. But really, it just makes my blood boil. It reminds me of a guy I used to know who refused to write his articles for the ****ing student paper on anything but a Mac. Its a word processor/image editor/photo management tool, it does what it does, get the **** over it.

Kintarō Hattori

GavinZac wrote: »

None of the features you mentioned are absent from Picasa, and Picasa comes with web hosting, facial recognition, contact/subject management, integration with gmail/flickr/facebook/a million other things you can install a button for. And its free.

God, I guess as a Business and IT graduate I should admire Adobe for somehow convincing people that if you want to be 'serious' in whatever digital artform you're interested in, you need to pay the Adobe software tax - Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere, etc. But really, it just makes my blood boil. It reminds me of a guy I used to know who refused to write his articles for the ****ing student paper on anything but a Mac. Its a word processor/image editor/photo management tool, it does what it does, get the **** over it.

I don't think it's a question of convincing anyone of anything. Photoshop IS the standard when it comes to image editing and for a good reason, it's bloody excellent. While it's fantastic that Picasa is free it just isn't as intuitive or as wide ranging as Lightroom. I held off using Lightroom for a long time as I was happy with Photoshop but with everyone here waffling about it I decided to give it a go and lo and behold it's a fantastic piece of software. I tried Picasa but just couldn't take to it in the way that I have done with Lightroom.

Adobe have only 'convinced' folk to use their programs as a result of writing some damn fine software.

Paulw

I have to say that Adobe Lightroom is just brilliant. It does 99% of what I need to do.

Well worth downloading and using the 30 day free trial. Then you can decide if you want to buy or not.

broad_sword

Cameraman wrote: »

Actually it's sort of the other way around - Aperture won't work on Windows but Lightroom will work on either platform.

At first, I found LR difficult to get used to - but after a while it all hangs together nicely.

Ehh no. As far as I'm aware, Lightroom is only available on the Windows platform. Mac Users currently have to make do with Aperture. (unless running emulation software). Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

BanzaiBk

If Lightroom doesn't work on the Mac platform then Adobe have been fooling me for years!

Mac + Lightroom user

broad_sword

GavinZac wrote: »

None of the features you mentioned are absent from Picasa, and Picasa comes with web hosting, facial recognition, contact/subject management, integration with gmail/flickr/facebook/a million other things you can install a button for. And its free.

The Adobe Photoshop family (incl. Lightroom) are a far more comprehensive suite of software. True.... they ain't cheap but as far as I'm concerned they are worth the bucks. I'm familiar with Picasa's offerings which may perfectly suit many users, but it has no where near the functionality or power to match Lightroom... just my 2cents.

broad_sword

BanzaiBk wrote: »

If Lightroom doesn't work on the Mac platform then Adobe have been fooling me for years!

Mac + Lightroom user

I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying that!

Paulw

Most Adobe products are both Windows and Mac compatible.

Lightroom is available as 64-bit Windows, 32-bit Windows and also Mac. Click on the link for more info - http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

Cabaal

BanzaiBk wrote: »

If Lightroom doesn't work on the Mac platform then Adobe have been fooling me for years!

Mac + Lightroom user

So true, if anything I find Lightroom on the Mac much less "clunky" then compared to the Windows version

GavinZac

broad_sword wrote: »

The Adobe Photoshop family (incl. Lightroom) are a far more comprehensive suite of software. True.... they ain't cheap but as far as I'm concerned they are worth the bucks. I'm familiar with Picasa's offerings which may perfectly suit many users, but it has no where near the functionality or power to match Lightroom... just my 2cents.

Exactly which functions and power does Lightroom have that Picasa doesn't? I'm not talking about Photoshop here, comparing PS and Picasa is like comparing apples and screwdrivers.

I'm not a Picasa user btw, I have used both but tend to do my own photo management on disk, upload to flickr ASAP and get them off my hard drive. Basic raw-to-JPG processing I do in UFRAW.

Hugh_C

broad_sword wrote: »

Ehh no. As far as I'm aware, Lightroom is only available on the Windows platform. Mac Users currently have to make do with Aperture. (unless running emulation software). Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

You're wrong on this.

I'm running Lightroom natively on a Mac and have been since it came out. Great piece of software, use it every day. I never particularly liked Aperture, could never quite get the hang of it, so Lightroom it is. Even better when accompanied by Photoshop for more difficult manipulations.

WedPhoto

i was also duped by adobe into using their software...i use adobe bridge all the time. and photoshop. and illustrator (although not for photos). i tried lightroom but i guess i'm too used with doing things one way...

broad_sword

Hugh_C wrote: »

You're wrong on this.:)

Yep... I know. I already acknowledged I was wrong. Shame on me!

I think when Lightroom first came out it was only available on the Windows platform.... but then again.... maybe I'm wrong about this too

broad_sword

GavinZac wrote: »

Exactly which functions and power does Lightroom have that Picasa doesn't? I'm not talking about Photoshop here, comparing PS and Picasa is like comparing apples and screwdrivers.

The major advantage of a piece of software like Lightroom over other applications (like Picasa) is it's ability to batch process images... i.e. work with many images all at once. For example, if after adding 100 RAW images to my lightroom catalogue, I want to change the white balance of those images in one go, I can easily do this in Lightroom. The other powerful feature of Lightroom is the Presets function which again opens up a whole load of possibilities for 'batch processing' images.

Lightroom is suited to those who take a LOT of photos and need to be able to manage and access them quickly easily (e.g. Wedding Photogs). If you are the occasional snapper, then it is overkill to invest the software. For me, I couldn't live without it now!

broad_sword

Hugh_C wrote: »

I never particularly liked Aperture, could never quite get the hang of it, so Lightroom it is. Even better when accompanied by Photoshop for more difficult manipulations.

Yeah... I think a lot of Mac users who made the switch would agree with you. Again, I think a lot of people were peeved that Aperture didn't allow for Presets which Lightroom has.

Like yourself, I'll use Lightroom for most of my image processing but where I need to do more serious work I can always jump into Photoshop from Lightroom to get the job done.

GavinZac

broad_sword wrote: »

The major advantage of a piece of software like Lightroom over other applications (like Picasa) is it's ability to batch process images... i.e. work with many images all at once. For example, if after adding 100 RAW images to my lightroom catalogue, I want to change the white balance of those images in one go, I can easily do this in Lightroom. The other powerful feature of Lightroom is the Presets function which again opens up a whole load of possibilities for 'batch processing' images.

Picasa 3.5 has batch processing, I'm sure the earlier versions do too. I don't know if it has presets as I don't use it much, I know it has Google's trademark I'm Feeling Lucky thing. Not sure why presets would be particularly useful for batch processing though, they'd be as useful for singular editing. For batch processing I use UFRAW or ImageMagick from the command line, depending on whether the files are RAW or JPG. I guess in a way that gives me 'presets' too, the autoprompter suggests commands i've given it before. However...

Lightroom is suited to those who take a LOT of photos and need to be able to manage and access them quickly easily (e.g. Wedding Photogs). If you are the occasional snapper, then it is overkill to invest the software. For me, I couldn't live without it now!

Here's what the OP asked:

Bob Z wrote: »

Whats the best photos for managing photographs? I dont have them on the computer but on an external hard drive and plan to put them on a second external hard drive.

Omitting the idea of editing the photos, Picasa is fantastic for maintaining an archive of photos. It has tags, facial recognition, albums, represents 'real data' folders if you want, has an included, free built in online backup function. It does all the little starring, captioning, EXIF editing and so on that makes getting through the masses of photos easy. Thus, for the purposes of managing photographs, Picasa does a pretty fantastic job of it. There is no need to be recommending the guy buy into this incredibly inane brand-loyalty that you need Lightroom if you are going to be 'serious'.

As an aside, if you're doing a wedding, usually a fairly well paid job, and you go home and you're throwing a preset edit on top of 100+ photos without looking at them individually... I wouldn't be admitting that publicly on the internet! Future brides tend to google things obsessively these days, or at least my one is...

broad_sword

Hey... don't get me wrong... I'm not saying Picasa is not a great piece of software, particularly given the fact that it doesn't cost a red cent, which, in these recessionary times, is a major plus.
To quote the guy, he asked "What's the best...." - so I've given him MY opinion on what I think is the best. There is no denying Picasa is good..... but I think (and I think many others might agree?) that Lightroom is better. The more photos you have, the more beneficial the software becomes...in my opinion

broad_sword

GavinZac wrote: »

As an aside, if you're doing a wedding, usually a fairly well paid job, and you go home and you're throwing a preset edit on top of 100+ photos without looking at them individually... I wouldn't be admitting that publicly on the internet! Future brides tend to google things obsessively these days, or at least my one is...

You're making assumptions here i.e. that I don't bother going through each and every photograph I take and instead, just throw a load of Presets at them.... quite the contrary in fact.
Any professional photog worth their salt (and I'm not a Professional by the way!) has a very precise digital workflow right from image capture to RAW backup to processing to final presentation and delivery of the product to their client. I've found that this forum http://www.flickr.com/groups/weddingphoto/discuss/ is a very useful resource for learning more about workflow. This one also: http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/
Ok. Enough said. I think I've gone waaayyy off topic with this posting. Apologies to the mods and to the original poster. Enough of my ranting

GavinZac

broad_sword wrote: »

You're making assumptions here i.e. that I don't bother going through each and every photograph I take and instead, just throw a load of Presets at them....

don't mind me, I'm only slagging

Borderfox

WedPhoto wrote: »

i was also duped by adobe into using their software...i use adobe bridge all the time. and photoshop. and illustrator (although not for photos). i tried lightroom but i guess i'm too used with doing things one way...

yeah bridge all the way for me too

T-Square

broad_sword wrote: »

Well if you are serious about your photography, then you should strongly consider Adobe Lightroom. It is a fantastic tool for cataloguing all your images. You can tag each image with keywords (which can make it very easy for searching purposes if done correctly), assign them a star rating, colour code them etc. You can also batch process images very simply (e.g. renaming or resizing a whole load of images in one go). There are also some power editing tools in the software which allow you to correct exposure, contrast, saturation etc. You can also create 'presets' to help speed up your digital darkroom processing. The software will also allow you to create a website of your images and has a print module to help with the output of your images.
The current version is 2.5 and there is a beta version of v3 which is free to download from labs.adobe.com - you could always have a look at it and see what you think.
Personally, I love the software now and use it for 90% of my image management. (the other 10% I'll use Photoshop).
Good luck with whatever software you choose.
P.S. If you are a Mac user, you won't be able to use Lightroom but you could consider Apple's 'Aperture' sofware.

Picasa can do all of the above I think

T-Square

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I don't think it's a question of convincing anyone of anything. Photoshop IS the standard when it comes to image editing and for a good reason, it's bloody excellent. While it's fantastic that Picasa is free it just isn't as intuitive or as wide ranging as Lightroom. I held off using Lightroom for a long time as I was happy with Photoshop but with everyone here waffling about it I decided to give it a go and lo and behold it's a fantastic piece of software. I tried Picasa but just couldn't take to it in the way that I have done with Lightroom.

Adobe have only 'convinced' folk to use their programs as a result of writing some damn fine software.

For ~advanced~ graphics and art work, Photoshop* trumps Picasa,
because Picasa isn't competing with Photoshop, it competes with Adobe Bridge.
But for what the OP wants, Picasa checks all the boxes.

masteroftherealm

One word why no photographer should ever use Picasa, Destructive Editing.

GavinZac

masteroftherealm wrote: »

One word why no photographer should ever use Picasa, Destructive Editing.

Um, picasa doesn't do destructive editing. Most edits are actually stored as meta-information in a .ini file. For 'commited' edits and more complex edits, it works on a copy. Any time you edit it a file, it creates a folder in that folder called 'originals'. This is where the original file is kept.

The photo management tool I use (but not very often as I rarely have that many photos on-disk) is F-Spot (free and open source), this has a more advanced non-destructive editing system where it even keeps incremental rollback versioning.

T-Square

masteroftherealm wrote: »

One word why no photographer should ever use Picasa, Destructive Editing.

I not certain of this, but I don't think it does.
I've seen edits made in Picasa that don't appear on the files I see in Windows Explorer, same for rotations too.

masteroftherealm

Ahha sorry its changed since I last used it and lost a good original a few years ago, put me off it forever.

Lightroom or Aperture if you have the dosh.

Agency/Group/Company-wise I'm liking Final Cut Server for all asset managment look into it even as a photographer.

Otherwise just well labeled File System and Folders.