Storing photos (1 Viewer)

[sarah]

If you're shooting in raw do you not worry about storage after a while? Out of interest how do you guys keep photos organized? mine just automatically go into iphoto, i don't even bother tagging stuff or organising it, but know it's getting ridiculous.. anyone have a deadly system, have you transferred from iphoto to this amazing much better system how often do you back up? sorry bit off topic...had a quick search and couldn't find thread to do with this..

 

[Goff]

Re: Random Photos

I use Adobe Bridge and file by Date and then rename the folder to whatever the photos are of, ie, [Date][PubNameHere].

Then, I'll try and tag them all, even with the above mentioned details. If there's people in them, I'll tag their names (Most are already setup so it's just a matter of clicking them). After that, when I'm finished adjusting levels or shit, I'll grade them. As I'm never ever finished dicking around with them, I rarely do this part. I'd prefer someone else to do that for me, as you can't judge your own stuff properly.

Literally takes about two minutes to do all that and is a very good habit to get into. Especially if you want to search for photos.

Yeah, storage can be a problem, but then again, I'd rather buy more then get a reduced quality in the images.

I only delete stuff that is really badly blurred. Everything else I can find a use for.

 

[Janer]

Re: Random Photos

If you're shooting in raw do you not worry about storage after a while? Out of interest how do you guys keep photos organized? mine just automatically go into iphoto, i don't even bother tagging stuff or organising it, but know it's getting ridiculous.. anyone have a deadly system, have you transferred from iphoto to this amazing much better system how often do you back up? sorry bit off topic...had a quick search and couldn't find thread to do with this..

I keep none of my photographs!
I am at the stage where there is much more to come from me, so if pix.ie was to ever go tits up I have no history of my stuff!
Don't forget Sarah you convert to .jpg anyways.
My raws are over 25mb btw......the Canon 5D II is a 21MP beast.
Funnily enough my jpegs range from 2mb right up to 10mb (depends on the detail in them)
It's cheap and easy enough to pick up external HD's anyway...
There are 1TBs doing the round now.

 

[sarah]

Re: Random Photos

Cheers for the detailed answer Goff! I don't shoot in raw but probably will start once I get the new camera so thought I'll try and work out a system this time round.

Janer: I thought I was bad, I do have an external HD but I'm just throwing everything on it and I know eventually I will be cursing my lack of organisation. Although I'm prob in the same boat as you with 90% crap.

Although this does show the diff between digital and film, somehow ancient shots my mam has that are technically crap still have a charm because of the memories attached,
I think Goff may have the right attitude in terms of keeping stuff.

 

[Janer]

Re: Random Photos

What Camera are you getting?

ps I meant I throw everything off mine out, not just the crap ones.

I am a delete freak.

Maybe I should start keeping some of my photographs...My Tiger shot was the 1st photograph was the very 1st time I thought "I like that and want to keep it"
I'd keep them in their folders by date methinks...not much work there so.

 

[sarah]

Re: Random Photos

This point and shoot, I want to try to do some street photography, but know I'd feel way to shy with anything big and conspicuous.

Holding off on buying an DSLR til later in the year. Got out of the habit of bringing my other camera cause the size made me lazy. I'm always really impressed by people with massive SLR's that take lovely candid shots.

This is pretty impressive for the little size of it.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=17624

 

[Janer]

Re: Random Photos

Heres a nice few reviews on the G10.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_G10/

 

[La La]

Re: Random Photos

The people on boards.ie liked it too, little Missy got 10 "thanks"
I am AnimalRights over there btw Lala.

haha yep, i guessed that straight away. man, i shouldnt be surprised but the moderation over there is so heavy-handed it feels a little dull at times. one thread about online storage was locked "because it had outlived its usefullness".
give me a fucking break.
but it's nice to be able to put pics up for others to see too i guess.

If you're shooting in raw do you not worry about storage after a while? Out of interest how do you guys keep photos organized? mine just automatically go into iphoto, i don't even bother tagging stuff or organising it, but know it's getting ridiculous.. anyone have a deadly system, have you transferred from iphoto to this amazing much better system how often do you back up? sorry bit off topic...had a quick search and couldn't find thread to do with this..

im SO GLAD you brought this topic up - have been meaning to ask myself. my iPhoto is on the brink of collapse - have started putting stuff straight from card to cd. i bought an external but think i got the wrong one as wanted to be able to run stuff off it - turns out, i can only back up on it. but what goff suggested sounds pretty handy - is that programme downloadable?

I keep none of my photographs!

duuuuuuuude. really? i guess it's handy having somewhere online to store, but if the site crashed as you say, you'd be fucked!

 

[Goff]

Re: Random Photos

Adobe Bridge is part of the Adobe Collection. You get it with Photoshop, etc. It's the "bridge" between applications.

Another great alternative is Adobe Lightroom. The database that comes with that is pretty impressive (but I prefer Bridge).

For Mac only, Apple's Aperture gets great reviews for just that sort of thing. It's out there on the interweb. As is Photoshop. But, of course, I wouldn't condone that sort of thing....

 

[RSJ]

Re: Random Photos

I've been hitting a wall with storage myself recently. I've started going through all me photos, see what i want to put up on flickr, and deleting the rest. LETHAL it is but needs to happen, i've been shooting JPEG to keep the file size down, but its still 6-9mb a shot.

 

[sarah]

Re: Random Photos

I've been hitting a wall with storage myself recently. I've started going through all me photos, see what i want to put up on flickr, and deleting the rest. LETHAL it is but needs to happen, i've been shooting JPEG to keep the file size down, but its still 6-9mb a shot.

Cheers for the reviews Janer! have ordered already of Calumet (thanks to whoever recommended) not in stock but will be shortly so looking forward to getting it.

Think the storage issue warrants it's own thread... La la?
I've been reading up about other peoples solutions but get about half way through and get bored, kinda like my attempts of tagging stuff in iphoto. I think I'm used to the ease of tagging and organising flickr stuff that iphoto seems a bit clunky... might try and investigate the apple applications... aperture is it?

 

[magicbastarder]

Re: Random Photos

I only delete stuff that is really badly blurred. Everything else I can find a use for.

i would end up with far too many photographs if i did that.
there's guys on boards whose storage is into the terabytes territory, mine is at 70GB, all LZW compressed TIFFs.

 

[magicbastarder]

is she going to store her photos in this thread?

 

[Shay HT]

I tag everything in Aperture, then store on two seperate HDs, in folders with fairly decent naming conventions! At the end of every month I backup any new stuff I really like to (2!) DVDs. Learnt the hard way that thats what I needed to after having a HD and DVD failure!!

 

[sarah]

I tag everything in Aperture, then store on two seperate HDs, in folders with fairly decent naming conventions! At the end of every month I backup any new stuff I really like to (2!) DVDs. Learnt the hard way that thats what I needed to after having a HD and DVD failure!!

Jaysis now I'm really worried, gotta get my shit sorted
out before I even start thinking about shooting in raw... by the way does everyone here bother? Lala and I were at some photo journalist talk ages ago and most of those guys
just shoot in high res jpeg, saying unless you really wanna make a massive print that it makes no diff.
Would you say that it's dependent on the amount of pp you do whether it's worth your while or would you really notice a massive difference?

P.s. Would you mac users hypothetically try and get a free version of aperture that you happened to find, or would you definitely recommend buying bonefide stuff given that you would be throwing all you're precious stuff on it?

 

[Goff]

A lot of Press Photographers who I've talked to say things like that because they don't understand what RAW is. There seems to be a lack of prefessionalism in this country with regards to things like that. No one seems to study their shit after they've learned their "craft". The usual comments about only photos taken on film are "real". Yet, they'll still not delve into RAW, thereby missing out on the potential that it has to offer. Why risk losing a good shot?

I basically think we're a country of chancers. That and the fact that they're basically lazy. I've seen better photos on thumped than the majority of press photos in Oireland over the past few years. Jaded and clichéd. I supppose it's just become a job for them. Why should they bother?

I don't know of any musician who doesn't keep practising and improving.

My advice, Sarah, for what it's worth, is to shoot in RAW (and JPEG, if you want - you can usually shoot in both formats at the same time). By all means grade your photos and get rid of the shit. But, DVD's are cheap, so you can always back them up onto that format, as well. They're not particularly reliable, but if you store them well, they'll be grand.

The whole point of RAW is it's the closest you'll get to a film negative when using digital. And it's a lot more versatile than a negative (bar the resolution). And the comment about making a large print shows a lack of understanding on their part of what RAW is. It's got nothing to do with the format; it's about sensor resolution.

 

[RSJ]

I heard a good podcast from two british music photographers who made the valid point that if you get your white balance and your exposure right first time, you don't need raw and besides which, it's just an extra amount of time you need to spend in front of a computer when you're on a deadline, which to be fair, is all true for working photojournalists. That said, i shoot raw for when i think something might end up in print (aka all my concert stuff) and jpeg otherwise. FOR ME, it makes sense processing wise and storage wise, plus i'm shite at everything bar concert photography anyways, so they'll only ever end up on flickr.

 

[Space]

I heard a good podcast from two british music photographers who made the valid point that if you get your white balance and your exposure right first time, you don't need raw and besides which, it's just an extra amount of time you need to spend in front of a computer when you're on a deadline, which to be fair, is all true for working photojournalists. That said, i shoot raw for when i think something might end up in print (aka all my concert stuff) and jpeg otherwise. FOR ME, it makes sense processing wise and storage wise, plus i'm shite at everything bar concert photography anyways, so they'll only ever end up on flickr.

My da argues the same point about shooting everything in jpeg. If it doesn't save him time/money what's the point. Myself on the other hand make so many mistakes with exposure(especially with gigs) that I like the raw option. I also sometimes like using the wrong white balance when I convert to black and white.

Anyways storage wise I've everything in logically named folders with dates, then by year on a hard drive and then backed up to dvd. The jpegs are also on flickr if both of them fail.