Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] How'd they do that?

Subject: Re: [OM] How'd they do that?
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:20:43 -0400
Piers, I think the difference is that my photography is very easily 
classified by date.  It's where I was, what I was and what I was doing 
at the time.  As Ian just said about storage by date: "... I can find an 
image much faster in either of these than I could using any other system 
and usually I don't need to use any external tools..."

The only time I can ever recall looking for something by EXIF was trying 
to discover what shutter speeds and apertures I tended to use most.  I 
don't recall now exactly why I wanted to know that but BreezeBrowser has 
a utility that will search the EXIF.  As I recall I was only interested 
in photos taken over a couple of months so the search was not extensive. 
  I think that was about 3 years ago so not a frequent need.

All of this may change as I get older and my memory gets worse or when I 
start scanning film in earnest and start extending the time periods 
backwards and also have difficulty determining when certain images were 
taken.  But that's yet to occur.

Chuck Norcutt


On 3/26/2012 8:29 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
> To clarify my second part, Chuck - to my understanding, the directory
> listing reflects where you choose to place a particular file in your chosen
> hierarchy of directories. The FAT, by contrast, reflects where on the disk
> the files are physically stored by the disk operating system, a location
> over which you have no direct control, and of which you generally have no
> inkling. Of course you would never confuse the two.
>
> The comparison with Lightroom is simply that Lightroom's library is no more
> than a sort-of FAT, telling Lightroom where to find the original image file
> for each of the images in  that library.  The files can be anywhere you
> choose to put them before ot after "importing" them to Lightroom (or it can
> be anywhere that you opt to have Lightroom put them).  Your own directory
> structure can be preserved, and you can leave Lightroom to keep track of
> that directory structure - just as you leave a DOS to keep track of its own
> FAT. You do not (I assume) even think  about which disk sectors are occupied
> by any one of your images, you leave it to the FAT. Same should go for
> Lightroom's library!
>
> Now, as for *your* second part, Lightroom does notice if you move images
> from their original locations, it flags images that are no longer found
> (although it preserves its own previews of them), and it provides a facility
> to filter all "missing files", for you then to update Lightroom's library
> with the new locations.  But I think it would be much much simpler to use
> Lightroom's own database for such organization (of course, I would say
> that!). I am puzzled that you are content to use a simple flat-file database
> (the DOS directory structure) when you could have the equivalent of a
> relational database. Sure, if you want to use keywording you have to apply
> the keywords, but you *do not have to* (LR tells me I have 17770 of 25000
> images without keywords, what shame). Even without keywords, you can easily
> sort/select on EXIF data, so the facility is already there to reproduce your
> directory structure AND to apply the modification you are thinking of when
> the time comes. And if it doesn't do what you need, make another
> sort/select.
>
> Not that I am trying to convince you to change (I think your comparison of
> Lightroom with Adobe Camera Raw in Bridge is absolutely correct)  - I simply
> want you not to 'misunderestimate' the database capabilities of Lightroom
> which are available without having to change your own existing
> filing/sorting system outside Lightroom.
>
> Piers
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 24 March 2012 23:48
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] How'd they do that?
>
> The first part of your reply tells me I should look at Lightroom more
> closely then.  The second part of your reply I don't understand at all...
> perhaps because I would never confuse a directory listing with a FAT.
>
> But, since I've been considering a change to my structure (adding "year
> directories to encapsulate all the entries for a given year since the simple
> linear list is getting too long at 880 entries) I'm wondering what I'd have
> to do in Lightroom when it could no longer find the structures I told it I
> created.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 3/24/2012 10:34 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
>> Eh?  If you have neither desire nor need, you don't have to use
>> anything else - Lightroom is perfectly happy for you to "add" your
>> images to its
>> catalog(ue) *in their existing locations*. You do not have to "move"
>> them, you don't even have to "copy" them, nor "copy as DNG" although
>> you can do any of those if you choose.
>>
>> If I didn't know you better I might suggest that you are confusing a
>> directory listing with a file allocation table!
>>
>> Piers
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: 24 March 2012 12:35
>> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
>> Subject: Re: [OM] How'd they do that?
>>
>> My existing file structure consisting of folders named:
>> yyyy-mm-dd - long, descriptive event or subject name suits me just fine.
>> I've been using it for about 10 years and have no desire or need for
>> something else.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>> On 3/23/2012 2:13 PM, Jez Cunningham wrote:
>>> What is it about the 'catalog' that irritates you?
>>>
>>> On 15/03/2012, Chuck Norcutt<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>    wrote:
>>>      But that means I have to tackle Lightroom and its silly
>>>> requirement that I use its catalog system which I do not want to do.
>>>> It's why I own Lightroom but don't use it.  It would be nice to have
>>>> an integrated solution.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/15/2012 10:28 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>>>> Thanks. My PSE is a long expired trial version. I don't think PS
>>>>> does slide shows but Lightroom probably does. I'll have to check
>>>>> that and whatever other imaging related software I have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/15/2012 9:54 AM, Jez Cunningham wrote:
>>>>>> IIRC even Photoshop Elements does it (with music...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 March 2012 14:48, Chuck
>>>>>> Norcutt<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other day I saw (briefly) a slide show playing off a DVD
>>>>>>> directly to a TV projector with no intervening computer. The show
>>>>>>> was in the Ken Burns style with slowly changing images and
>>>>>>> zooming in/out and panning back and forth on each image during
>>>>>>> its play time. Somebody here ( don't know who) must have made it
>>>>>>> since the photos were of a local event no more than a couple days
> old.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to be able to produce slide shows also that run off a
>>>>>>> DVD with no intervening computer required. A number of the
>>>>>>> elderly folks here either don't have a computer or, even if they
>>>>>>> do, don't know how to use it other than for a few limited things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Ken Burns style is OK but I'm really just interested in
>>>>>>> software that can get still images into video format and write it
>>>>>>> to a DVD. Most folks here do have a DVD player and know how to use
> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone know what's available?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>>>>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz