=============================spamlet said:Typically when one downloads from camera, one gets a dated folder,
inside which are other folders: for my Sony 'DCIM', 'Misc', and a
folder actually containing the pictures.
Why all the folders; and can I just move the pictures to the root
dated folder?
S
John Inzer said:=============================
You don't need all the folders, just save
the pictures in any folder you choose.
Here's a good article about managing
your image collection:
Organizing Pictures
http://tinyurl.com/ytraer
The following articles offer info about
why...if you need more...do a Google
search.
Design rule for Camera File system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_rule_for_Camera_File_system
DCIM - Why two folders?
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=89378
==================================spamlet said:snip<
The Picasa thing has been mentioned before, but I was wary of
downloading yet another bunch of photo software when XP seemed to be
quite adequate. However, your link seems to imply that Picasa can
manipulate all the thumbnails from all the picture folders at once so
that one can scan through the lot without having to keep opening new
folders. This would indeed be an advantage! Is this really the
case, and would it leave my underlying file system unaltered and not
duplicate any more images or take up vast amounts of extra drive
space?
Thanks once again,
S
spamlet said:Thanks for the tips John.
I've been holding back on major reorganisations of my pics - what with
generations of crops, adjusts, balances; file by subject; file by date, etc
to choose from, it's all a bit daunting - especially when one can take 50 or
more shots on a typical day out! The best I have done so far is to use the
date format as your article suggests, and then choose a memorable
representative name for each folder to follow the date. Still can't always
locate the pics I want - for which I would have to fill out all the
properties sheets for every picture and all of its derivatives: a
mind-boggling amount of work!
I notice that, in addition to the properties sheet with its various settings
and editing options, a right click on jpg also gives me a 'Photo Info',
option, which seems to have similar though more options. I notice though
that when I fill in this info it does not always appear on the Properties
sheet proper, and similarly, things that I put on the Properties sheet don't
seem to follow through to the Photo Info. How are these two sets of data
related, and which should one be using? As each different piece of
equipment/or software I buy seems to come with its own set of photo tagging
and manipulating options, I've tended to ignore the lot and just add a few
comments to the Properties sheet in Explorer/XP.
I've kind of more or less held back until GPS gets built in to more cameras,
so that I can just load directly into Google Earth to see where they were
taken. A trifle pricey at the moment, and the alternative of synchronising
a separate GPS - yet another thing to carry - does not appeal!
Michael J. Mahon said:Descriptive folder names and hierarchies is the approach I use, too.
All derived (edited) photos are kept in the same hierarchy, and the
generic class of edits is appended to the file name:
a - adjusted levels
A - adjusted levels in a complex way (masking, for example)
r - retouched (minor, like redeye)
R - retouched (major, like inserting or removing something or someone)
c - crop
cN - crop N where N is a digit and there are multiple crops
s - scaled to (usually smaller) size for email
N - for noise reduction
h - for sharpening
p - for perspective transformation
etc., so a typical edited photo will have a name like: P1300083cNhs.jpg
and will appear in directory listings immediately following the original
P1300083.jpg file.
I also create a folder in the hierarchy for my selected "best" shots
for this group, with all edits, ready for printing, etc.
I make no use of "properties" for anything, though I do use (and
occasionally edit) EXIF data. I have no interest in any information
that is not contained in the file itself--except folder names. ;-)
Although I try to avoid wholesale duplication of folders, hard drives
are now so capacious and inexpensive that I always *copy* files rather
than *moving* them to my "best" folders, or using shortcuts, for
example.
I'd like to see "location stamping" too, but topical grouping seems to
work pretty well (since it frequently coincides with location).
-michael
spamlet said:Thanks for the extra tips Michael.
My own labelling hierarchy is more haphazard and space wasting than your own
elegant one, and I would do well to adopt and try to keep to it...
Not sure what you mean by:
"I make no use of "properties" for anything, though I do use (and
occasionally edit) EXIF data. I have no interest in any information
that is not contained in the file itself--except folder names. "
Are the properties on the files Properties sheet, not its - or part of its -
EXIF data, and are both not kept in the file itself? If not: where are
they?
===================================spamlet said:Now tried Picasa myself,
Rather alarmingly, it was no respecter of User Accounts and presented
all the pics on the pc to me in a very confusing sequence - with
several 'my pictures' (for the various users) folders in it for
example.
When I uninstalled it as being a rather dangerous thing to have
around, I then noticed my own pictures coming up on another user's
screen saver show!
S
John Inzer said:===================================
Well at least you know you don't like Picasa.
I guess you failed to read the first feature listed
on the Picasa site, "Locate and organize *all*
the photos on your computer."
FWIW...before you install new software or updates
it's a good idea to create a System Restore point.
Then if things go bad you can restore your system.
Maybe the following article will be useful.
(306084) HOW TO: Restore the Operating
System to a Previous State in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=306084
======================================spamlet said:Regularly use System Restore, and have a link to it permanently on the
desktop as it is so difficult to find!
Hadn't thought to use it in this case though.
What really appealed about the Picasa thing was its geotagging via
Google Earth option (Currently I have to look up map references
individually, only to enter them as 'dead' text rather than something
that can be used by GE). Now that MS has come up with its own Virtual
Earth, I wonder if they are going to add geotagging to the Photo Info
tool?
Cheers,
S