Organising Photos pre and post development

Many times over, you will be admonished to not try to organize by folders. You organize with collections, keywords and smart collections driven by keywords and other metadata.
What folders are used to store photo images is irrelevant to organization. You can certainly develop a rating scheme for all images and smart collections will collect and keep the rated images automatically. A folder with a name is nothin more than a collection of images with the same keyword. A smart collection will collect and keep images automatically by keyword.
Note the word above "automatically". That means something LR can do that you do not need to spend the time doing manually. This is efficiency. Why would you spend time organizing images before importing images into an Image manager tool which has as it main purpose "organizing images"?

The goal in expediency and efficiency. What can be more efficient than inserting a camera card and quickly letting LR import everything, then beginning the culling process in LR while the import is still in progress?

For example, I insert a camera card, choose an import preset that sets the destination folder scheme, adds a minimal develop preset, and a metadata preset that assigns one or more keywords and assigns a default static Collection before I press the {Import} button. I also process my images to completion using only Smart Collections and Smart Publish Service keeping the Folder panel hidden.

Anytime you find yourself doing a visual scan of images in folders looking for the one image that you need, you are not using LR to its most efficient purpose.

Cletus
Thanks for your response. You have been very helpful to me in the past with replies. I know I am "out of line" on wanting to use folders but there are other reasons for this that I won't go in to.
Suffice to say they would be just the "containers" and I would be using keywords, collections (sometimes) etc.
Even if I did the date-based folder etc I would still need to know which pictures are developed and which are not, as I would work on some pictures in any given folder sooner than others.
It would be helpful to know how people organise beyond the folder level re pre and post development etc as I asked originally.
Thanks

The points that Cletus makes cannot be overemphasized!

The system you propose is serving no purpose other than making an enormous rod for your back!

Do yourself a favour and go with date-based folders and then use collections and Smart collections for the rest.

Tony Jay

Hi. I give each of my photos 1 star when I have loaded, checked them and given them keywords, as I do this, I change to 2 - 5 depending on how good the photo is. I haven't done a lot of post processing yet, but I have been thinking I will use a colour flag for ones I want to do thing with. Hope this helps.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

21tones said:

When I import photos it is likely to be hundreds at a time from a filled memory card, covering a whole range of topics. I will get rid of anything I do not want to keep prior to import but then hit a problem. How should I differentiate between those pictures that have been subsequently developed and those that haven't?

Click to expand...

You can create a smart collection that filters on whether edits have been applied.

How should I differentiate between pictures which I keep for personal reasons e.g. family and record shots of holidays, and those shots I keep for "artistic" reasons e.g. because I want to use them in competitions, exhibitions or for printing to put on the wall at home?

Click to expand...

You can use keywords for that and then again a smart collection.

I was thinking of using a rating system - 1 for personal not developed and 2 for personal developed;
3 for artistic not developed; 4 for artistic developed and 4 for artistic developed that is top notch.

Click to expand...

That is also possible.

Perhaps I should say that I prefer to put pictures on import into named folders e.g. for locations; topic etc, rather than just by dated folders.

I would appreciate your suggestions on how you go about doing this sort of thing
Many thanks

Click to expand...

Contrary to some people here I do not see any harm in using named folders instead of dated folders, as long as you don't try to use those folders for organising images. Use keywords, collections and smart collections to organise your images. Then the name of the folders is irrelevant.

21tones said:

I would still need to know which pictures are developed and which are not, as I would work on some pictures in any given folder sooner than others

Click to expand...

I use a Label system:
The red Label gets assigned with my Metadata preset used during my Import preset. The blue and purple labels indicate processing complete for images (Published and unpublished) On import every image is assigned a red (to Be Worked) label and assigned to the static Collection called "00.00 - Current Work Target". They remain in this collection until they are assigned a blue or purple label. Once I begin post processing (including adding keywords Titles and Captions) I change the label to yellow (Work in Progress) I can look at the collection called "00.00 - Current Work Target" and visually see which images need to be worked, which need to be reviews and which need more work. My whole work flow is driven by a Version of John Beardsworth's Workflow smart collections. By looking at Smart Collections I can tell at a glance which images need attention. I use a Smart Publish service to post to Facebook, Flickr, or Camera Club "competitions, exhibitions or for printing to put on the wall at home" my camera club competition even automatically builds smart collections for specific competition categories and correctly names the published file according to club naming convention rules.

JohanElzenga said:

Contrary to some people here I do not see any harm in using named folders instead of dated folders, as long as you don't try to use those folders for organising images.

Click to expand...

You are correct that there is nothing wrong with user named folders except for the time takes to think up cute folder names. That folder name is really a keyword that you also have to add along the way. I can insert a camera card pics an import preset and press the {Import} button and immediately begin culling images as soon as the first image shows in the Library grid view. When importing several hundred images what happens when the import spans several different named folders?
These images and these folders never need to be accessed outside of LR so instead of relying on the Folder panel, trust the Collection panel to automatically accumulate these same images based upon keywords and other criteria.

Non date-based folders all suffer from a fundamental weakness: at one point or another an image will need to be placed in more than one folder in order to maintain the system - at that point it fails!

Tony Jay

Tony Jay said:

Non date-based folders all suffer from a fundamental weakness: at one point or another an image will need to be placed in more than one folder in order to maintain the system - at that point it fails!

Tony Jay

Click to expand...

What part of 'do not use folders to organise images' didn't I make clear enough? If you don't use folders to organise images, there will never be a need to move them from one folder to another, or place them in two folders at the same time. No matter what these folders are named.

JohanElzenga said:

What part of 'do not use folders to organise images' didn't I make clear enough? If you don't use folders to organise images, there will never be a need to move them from one folder to another, or place them in two folders at the same time. No matter what these folders are named.

Click to expand...

Well then, the criteria for placing an image in one folder versus another are meaningless then...

That is why the consensus is to avoid named folders in favour of an objective date-based folder system.

Tony Jay

Tony Jay said:

Well then, the criteria for placing an image in one folder versus another are meaningless then...

Click to expand...

Correct. As I already said, folder names are irrelevant. You can use '2017', 'Italy', or even a long random string of characters. It does not matter at all.

That is why the consensus is to avoid named folders in favour of an objective date-based folder system.

Click to expand...

Seems to me there is no consensus. Some people agree with you, others don't. My take is: how can one irrelevant name system be better than another irrelevant name system? Use whatever you like.

Date-based folders also makes backing up the images themselves much easier. As for example, you could write on the BD-r (for tertiary backup) label the beginning and ending dates.

As for keeping family and art photos separate. I used to have 3 catalogs, then merged into one, then later split into 2 again. If you have lost close loved ones, you may not want the painful reminders of seeing them all the time when using the 'all photographs' area. So 2 catalogs makes sense, to me. There are only ~21 images that are in both (my dog had inadvertently walked into the shot ) - and are keyworded as such and kept in a separate directory, "Shared". I also import the 2 different catalog images into 2 separate date based folders. As for me there is less likelihood that I'd be taking more pictures of family, than of the 'artsy' variety - except for my dog - so that makes less of a need for more backups under the "Family-Personal" branch/folder.
Others may also take a multi-catalog approach, but will create a 'merged' catalog containing all catalogs' images. However, I haven't found any need for that here. If it isn't for such an example like I gave, then most suggest to just stick to ONE catalog - and use smart collections to split them up. LR is not slowed down much by LARGE catalogs.

As for new and developed, I assign ALL imports a color label of "Unprocessed", which is set to purple IIRC. Then once I consider an image 'processed', I manually remove the color label - which then removes it from the smart collection. Apart from this, also note that there is a criteria for smart collections of 'has develop settings'. However it considers ANY develop changes as 'developed', and an image will remove itself immediately, from view and collection, upon the very first editing change. I tend to do an initial crop, and/or maybe a few basic-panel settings, before I go back and process the image further - maybe even months later. Therefore the label route works better for me.

With respect, a date-based system is not meaningless or irrelevant, simple yes, but not meaningless, and it is entirely objective.

That simplicity and objectivity are vital characteristics that make digital asset management possible.
Knowing that one's images are being stored in such a simple, predictable, and extensible fashion is a crucial component of digital asset management.
Furthermore, a system such as this leverages processes that computers are good at, and can be achieved automatically by a computer once set up.

Digital asset management is all about a system that is predictable - not random irrelevancy...

Seems to me we're getting rather dogmatic here. Words like 'vital' and 'crucial' are used without any proof whatsoever. Words from other people are taken out of context, just to score a point. I never said a date based system is meaningless, I said the folder names themselves are. If they weren't, you could also argue that 'February 2017' is better than '2017-02' or the other way around.

The only valid argument I've read is that computers can automatically generate date based names, while it's up to the user to come up with names for any other system. That's true, so if that is important to you, then by all means use a date based system. But the suggestion that this is somehow vital and crucial for a DAM system to work at all is way over the top. This isn't a religion, it's a method to name folders!

Digital asset management is based on practicality not dogmatics.
And whether you like it or not the suggestions and recommendations I have made are based on practicalities.

I am not twisting words but suspect that you may be.
When I used the word consensus you decided that it actually mean't unanimity.

Also I have noticed a tendency for you to want to argue the merits of your own workflow to the detriment of the broader issues at hand.
If you wish to use folders with random names or even use one folder (whatever it is named) and dump all your images into it that is fine with me.

However, the broader issue at hand is to give readers of this thread and the forum in general a simple and practical approach to folder organisation that actually works.
None of this is prescriptive - how would any of us enforce anything that we recommend?
Quite apart from my own knowledge of digital asset management I have never read, nor expect to read, a recommendation anywhere close to what you have articulated in this thread from anyone who has an acknowledged expertise in digital asset management.

Tony Jay

I think we should stop this discussion, because it seems we cannot discuss this without twisting each others words, or at least get accused of doing that. I have never said that a workflow based on location names is better or that anyone should use that rather than a system based on dated names. I've repeatedly said that it doesn't matter, as long as you understand that folders are just a place to store images, not a way to organise them.

Yes, I agree that you should both stop this discussion now. You've both made your point, so please let's leave it at that.

21tones said:

Cletus
Even if I did the date-based folder etc I would still need to know which pictures are developed and which are not, as I would work on some pictures in any given folder sooner than others.
It would be helpful to know how people organise beyond the folder level re pre and post development etc as I asked originally.

Click to expand...

Folders are best for safekeeping, keywords/metadata best for categorising, collections best for grouping and gathering. That's why I stick to the date-based folder scheme that is Lightroom's default, therefore most time-efficient - and why I don't move stuff around folders to distinguish states of development.

Lightroom's Has Adjustments filter and the little badge aren't enough to reflect how there just isn't a simple binary "which are developed" or "which are not". Sure, sometimes you can say it's done, but like the monkfish I cooked on Thursday there are times when you decide it needs to go back for a bit more time in the pan. Is an individual image ever really done?

To the limited extent that I do have any system to distinguish "which are developed" or "which are not", I'll generally use the pick flag or might give it a red label. But that's about it.

John

Thank you to everyone for your responses. I had no intention of provoking a heated debate about different types of folder based storage. I have to use named folders as numerous other people, not using Lightroom, need to be able to access my photographs when I am not around. I really appreciate the suggestions re pre and post development marking of images in various ways that differ to the method I had suggested. Cletus, your suggestion was very helpful. I will also look at John's Workflow Smart Collections article when I have time to digest it.
Thanks again

johnbeardy said:

Lightroom's Has Adjustments filter and the little badge aren't enough to reflect how there just isn't a simple binary "which are developed" or "which are not". Sure, sometimes you can say it's done, but like the monkfish I cooked on Thursday there are times when you decide it needs to go back for a bit more time in the pan. Is an individual image ever really done?

Click to expand...

So very true, and the other thing I meant to say.. Especially with a parametric image editor, an image is never really 'done', per se. Just 'done enough.. for now'. Not only can there always be more you can do to an image to 'make it better' in it's current style, but later on your tastes may change and you want to take an image in a new direction. LR makes doing that very easy, and one can make snapshots of any particular development settings at any point along its path.

EDIT: After just seeing the OP's reason for named folders. A suggestion to have the best of both worlds might be to put the date first in database format (so it sorts nicely), and then some descriptive text. Such as: "170122 - trip to Mexico", or "170122-170222 - A month in Mexico". Then you can have the benefits that date-based brings, as well as the descriptive text for others.

... Also, seeing as you're a beginner and your stated goal.
Hopefully you're shooting raw. And if so (or even if not), you may want to look into Jeffrey Friedl's "Folder Publisher" plugin. That will allow you to put exported (therefore including your edits) [jpg] pictures onto the hard drive using the same folder structure that you have the originals stored. Being a publish collection, LR will keep track of whether or not you make more edits to already published photos and it can replace the jpg's already stored in the output location. And knowing how detailed his other similar plugins are, it will likely allow you to specify which changes should trigger a republish - from develop settings to various other metadata.

21tones said:

Thank you to everyone for your responses. I had no intention of provoking a heated debate about different types of folder based storage. I have to use named folders as numerous other people, not using Lightroom, need to be able to access my photographs when I am not around. I really appreciate the suggestions re pre and post development marking of images in various ways that differ to the method I had suggested. Cletus, your suggestion was very helpful. I will also look at John's Workflow Smart Collections article when I have time to digest it.
Thanks again

Click to expand...

I am assuming that the folks who are accessing these images are only copying them for their use. Any movement, or other like actions will likely cause you untold grief in LR.

--Ken

I go with a star rating for editing to edited -- the more stars the more advanced so 5* would be finished . Make it easier and don't use the 5 stars available
as for your photos and their photos -- I use keywords mostly and some collections
I have found keywords for editing progress does not work for me

21tones said:

I have to use named folders as numerous other people, not using Lightroom, need to be able to access my photographs when I am not around.

Click to expand...

You might appreciate a bit of a compromise: How do I use the Import dialog’s Destination panel to put the photos in per-shoot folders?

As we've seen, there is no right or wrong, but there are advantages and disadvantages to consider.

I use a few of basic collections for sorting editing stages.
@Inbox are new photos to rate.
@Edit are rated photos to edit.
@Photoshop are edited photos to finish retouching.
Anything that's not in these @ collections is done.

The reason I use this and not color labels or smart collections, smart though they are, is these collections are accessible from mobile.

I also have _To HDR Merge and _To Pano Merge collections, since I often come across these photos when I'm sorting photos on mobile.