On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> I do understand the features in question. Just don't like working with >> them, they get in my way rather than improving efficiency. Keywords >> can be a powerful tool, but they aren't a panacea. > > I don't know where you get the idea that keywords are some kind of panacea > or are essential to LR operation. They're neither. > > Keywords introduce descriptive information about the image which allow one > to find similar images without respect to when they were made or worked on. > With hundreds of thousands of images in an image file repository, no system > of file and folder naming will aid memory in finding a particular image as > much as descriptive information about the images that can be searched on > readily at will. > > Adding keywords to images takes a little additional time to do in the > initial image processing workflow. Since (with LR) you can template and > apply them in an automated fashion, along with other essential IPTC data, > and do basic file organization by copying or moving files right off the > camera storage card to the right location, the incremental time costs are > very small. > > Keywords save massive amounts of time later when putting together groups of > images for sale, exhibits, when locating a particular photo that some editor > saw your web rez page on, when the family would like all the pictures of mom > you might have after she's passed away, etc etc etc. That's about 80% of my > image management workflow need and proves a huge time saving. > > Godfrey >
First you say: > I don't know where you get the idea that keywords are some kind of panacea > or are essential to LR operation. They're neither. in response to my statement >> Keywords can be a powerful tool, but they aren't a panacea. which is saying that Keywords aren't a panacea, not that they are. Please read what I actually wrote Then you say: > Keywords save massive amounts of time later when putting together groups of > images for sale, exhibits, when locating a particular photo that some editor > saw your web rez page on, when the family would like all the pictures of mom > you might have after she's passed away, etc etc etc. That's about 80% of my > image management workflow need and proves a huge time saving. > Which is essentially indicating that Keywords are the basis for your claims of improved workflow efficiency for LR. Yeah, you can use LR without them. But without them its just another file browser with the downside that you need to import files first. All the supposed efficiency gains in the image management side are gone if you give up keywords and more general metadata-based searching. You also claim that the incremental time costs are small. That's true if you are applying a template of standard keywords, but isn't if you are adding individual image-specific keywords, especially if importing a bunch of images at one go. I can probably use a template for keywording for cameras, lenses, family shots, common subjects and such, but individual shots need attention for the shot-specific keywords for subjects and such (Note I do use IPTC templates already in Bridge to add copyright data et al). Which adds more work to the front end for a gain in search efficiency. Which is great, if you want to use the search functions as the basis of your management. Not all of us do. In fact some of use find using search tools slower than navigating a well layed out file heirarchy. Once again, this just proves that for a primarily digital photographer who likes/uses keywording & metadata, LR is a great solution. If neither of those conditions is met, it's competent by no better than most other solutions and arguably less efficient than some more traditional systems. Also given my strong filenaming conventions that produce unique filenames for every shot, any web-rez shot I post will be associated back to the original via filename or Flickr tag (Which yes, is keywording. I'd use minimal tagging there too if certain groups I'm in didn't require tagging for submission). For any grouping, I'll rely on my Flickr sets for a starting point, using the filenames listed on flickr to pull together the set of processed shots in a temporary folder and work from there in Bridge. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
