×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A File-Centric Photo Manager?

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the let-me-know-what-you-find dept.

Software 326

JeremyDuffy writes "I have a photo project of over 7,000 photos. I want to tag them based on location, time of day, who's in them, etc. Doing this by hand one at a time through the Windows 7 interface in Explorer is practically madness. There has to be a better way. Is there a photo manager that can easily group and manage file tags? And most importantly, something that stores the tag and other data (description etc.) in the file, not just a database? I don't care if the thing has a database, but the data must be in the file so when I upload the files to the Internet, the tags are in place."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

326 comments

Adobe bridge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32559558)

Just sayin'

Maybe Extensis Portfolio. It embeds pnot data

Re:Adobe bridge? (2, Informative)

golfbum (1408137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559574)

Lightroom

Re:Adobe bridge? (5, Informative)

woolpert (1442969) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559622)

Lightroom is likely more than you need, but Lightroom does this.
I convert my various (nef, cr2) raw files to DNG upon importation to my library, and save metadata to the files themselves, not XML sidecar files.

While Adobe Lightroom will want work with its own database, by always syncing metadata to file you will have a 100% portable set of images.

Re:Adobe bridge? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32559752)

A white guy, a black guy, and a Mexican are walking down the beach. A lamp washed up and they see it. They rub the lamp and they can't believe that a genie pops out!

The genie says THANK YOU FOR RELEASING ME FROM THE LAMP. I WILL GRANT ONE WISH TO EACH OF YOU, ANYTHING YOU WANT.

The black man says, "I wish that me and all of the other black people return to our roots in Africa, to live together as one people in harmony." *POOF* and it is done.

The Mexican says, "I wish that me and all of the other Mexicans return to Mexico and truly prosper." *POOF* and it is done.

The white guy says, "Well shit, if all the niggers and spics are gone, I wish I had a beer!"

Re:Adobe bridge? (4, Informative)

Kizeh (71312) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560338)

I second that reocmmendation -- I have not found a better tool than lightroom. You'll have to remember to either select the auto-write option or remember to manually sync, and quite oddly it won't let you add geotags -- it'll read them and even gives you nifty Google maps links, but it won't let you edit them; everything else you can, and the sorting and tagging features are superb. Of course it's also a brilliant editor, and not too cheap, but it's one software package I, as an avid amateur photographer, felt was worth every penny.

Re:Adobe bridge? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560316)

This is my insta-answer too.

I whine and complain about 98% of the software I use, but Lightroom just works really smoothly. I have very few complaints about it. (I have about 35 GBs of Canon RAW images in my LR database for point of reference.)

Windows Live Photo Gallery (3, Informative)

Bruce Dawson (1079221) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559562)

It stores the information in the images, as it should, and it maintains a database for fast access. And it's free.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (2, Funny)

molecular (311632) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559660)

can't seem to find linux-version

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (0, Flamebait)

Bruce Dawson (1079221) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559736)

I'm sorry to hear that you can't find a Windows version of Windows Live Photo Gallery. Such a shock. Luckily the OP asked to solve a problem on Windows 7, so your concerns are not relevant.

Now if you'd wanted to post some alternate suggestions that work on linux then that would have been productive. Merely mentioning that a free Microsoft program doesn't work on linux, when the OP asked about Windows, is just trolling

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (3, Insightful)

pipatron (966506) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559814)

Merely whining about an obvious tongue-in-cheek comment and taking it seriously, is just wooosh.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32559858)

I'm sorry to hear that you can't find a Windows version of Windows Live Photo Gallery.

Proofreading Fail.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32559748)

can't seem to find linux-version

He doesn't want a GPL Linux version because if he uses it, his photos become derivative works and therefore he loses all ownership of his photos, his camera, his computer, and everything that he photographed becomes GPL'd which means, if the guy photographed his girlfriend, all of the FOSS community has to sleep with her.

Mods, this is a fight between Trolls, go mod something worthwhile.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (4, Interesting)

pipatron (966506) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559834)

You mean like how everything he films with his camera will become covered under the MPEG-LA patents and thus forbidden to share? Too bad I'm not trolling, like you. :(

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560026)

You mean like how everything he films with his camera will become covered under the MPEG-LA patents and thus forbidden to share?

MPEG? That's for movies. The poster was talking about stills. Did you mean JPEG or TIFF? JPEG and TIFF aren't in MPEGLA.

I thought the parent was funny, btw.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560236)

You mean like how everything he films with his camera will become covered under the MPEG-LA patents and thus forbidden to share?

What the hell are you talking about?

MPEG LA doesn't forbid sharing of anything.

MPEG LA collects royalties on the big green - large scale - for-profit - commercial sale and distribution.

2 cents per disk or download for the H.264 distribution of Toy Story 3.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (1)

play_in_traffic (946193) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559788)

One should be very careful to distinguish between free and "included" the second includes that which you have paid for with other goods.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (4, Interesting)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559818)

Seconded.

It's really a fascinating indicator of the situation Microsoft is in that they are so scared to include or promote basic photo gallery features in Win7 that people like this are completely unaware it exists.

For my money I like it much better than Picasa for the simple reason that it treats your photos *as files* rather than as a *database*. I got completely fed up with Picasa *pretending* it had modified my files when it had really only made changes in it's own database. Then you give photos to someone else and you find Picasa never really applied any of your changes. Or worse, you ditch Picasa and find out that years of long hard work is gone because Picasa was privately storing all that information (even things like rotations, cropping, etc.). (Yes, I know it has some option somewhere to turn this off. I resent the fact they make it the default).

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (2, Insightful)

snugge (229110) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559972)

I think it's exellent that the app does not alter the *original files* as the default setting.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (4, Insightful)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560112)

I think it's exellent that the app does not alter the *original files* as the default setting.

How many people do you really think want transformations like rotations only applied as metadata in some unknown database someplace? When my mother clicks "rotate left" she wants the photo rotated, not some bit twiddled in Picasa's database record for that image. If she uses Windows' interface to print the photo or emails it to a friend, it is the rotated image she cares about.

Not only that, but if you are backing up your photos to an external source like a good user, imagine the frustration when years of transformations, edits, tags, etc are all lost when you recover from a failed hard drive using your backup. You did everything right, but because you didn't include some hidden little .dat file buried in your profile as part of the backup you lost hundreds of hours of work.

Modifications to the files should be applied to the files. Metadata should be stored in the files. To do either otherwise is asking for problems.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (4, Insightful)

Cytotoxic (245301) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560176)

I actually agree with both methods. I don't want my files destructively altered by my photo cataloging software. I also don't want to lose my hours of work.

Having used Picasa extensively since it was purchased by Google, I have suffered the lost hard drive issue - losing all of my folders that had taken years to put together - with 50k+ photos, that's no joke. It was a royal pain in the ass. The picasa backup tool brought back all of the photos, and something of a database of folders and faces, but hopelessly corrupted so that I had thousands of "faces" in the wrong file or wrong location on the file, all labeled "unknown".

I want to have my cake and eat it too... a file format that holds all of the meta data, is completely portable, even across platforms and applications, never makes destructive changes to the original data and yet displays the rotated, cropped and edited photo, complete with faces and names. Oh, and let's keep the information about people's identities secure, unless I chose to release it, but make sure that it can tie out to any other face management system. Crap, I think I just specified my way out of any real product.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (2, Interesting)

Kizeh (71312) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560356)

I like Lightroom's approach -- a mix of database, sidecar files, and ability to write the metadata back into the files if I want to. Doesn't fit your casual user paradigm, but addresses your problems. Also, any of the modern photo workflow tools deal with the concept of a digital negative and allow you to do edits, changes etc. non-destructively, where all the actual image edits are stored in a sidecar or a copy of the original.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32560342)

Most people don't know or care about the difference. They press the rotate button, and it rotates on the screen (The photo). You're used to the concept that the photo = the file, so you don't like when it doesn't, but grandma isn't used to that concept. Grandma isn't going to go exploring 12 levels deep in her filesystem when iPhoto or Picasa is a much easier way to get to the files. When they use the email/upload/print features in Picasa or iTunes, they do what they should too.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560172)

And when you save the file it creates a duplicate so you have a copy of the original and a copy of the edited version. I suppose if you were some uber photographer this would be cumbersome but for the rest of us that's just fine. http://picasaweb.google.com/4brutus [google.com]

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560180)

The problem is, that's the opposite of the default of how virtually every other piece of photo editing/management software out there works. To both a) not act in a standard manner *and* b) to fail to notify the user that you not acting in the standard manner is very bad behavior. (And one of the reasons I dropped Picasa.)

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (1)

HJED (1304957) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560282)

Not exactly the same, but windows live photo gallery does save backups of files you edit using, however it only saves one backup for each files (If you edit it twice you lose the original) and you have to 'restore' them using their interface as it puts them in a obscure folder with hashes for file names.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (0, Troll)

mcmoyer (219649) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560074)

Non destructive photo editing is actually an advanced feature. Destructive photo editors are yesterdays tech which doesn't surprise me that MS is still using.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (2, Insightful)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560114)

I *like* the fact that the changes aren't saved in the file immediately - it gives me infinite undo, even months later. And if I click the save icon on a folder, it *does* save the changes in the files, and makes backups, too. Best of both worlds, I think.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560156)

Or worse, you ditch Picasa and find out that years of long hard work is gone because Picasa was privately storing all that information (even things like rotations, cropping, etc.). (Yes, I know it has some option somewhere to turn this off. I resent the fact they make it the default).

File>save usually works for me. And yes they can do that because it's free.

Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32560020)

Is the new version more stable than the previous version? The previous version couldn't survive my 75GB archive. Not that it matters as the project of the submitter consists of probably less than 10000 pictures..

draw on the photos if you really need the info (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32559566)

sharpie crayon on screen.

Adobe Bridge (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32559576)

Adobe Bridge sounds perfect.

Besides being one of the best photo managers I have worked with, you can directly edit the metadata for each file. The only downside is that it usually comes bundled with other Adobe software, which can be costly.

Re:Adobe Bridge (3, Interesting)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559920)

Adobe Bridge sounds perfect.

Besides being one of the best photo managers I have worked with, you can directly edit the metadata for each file. The only downside is that it usually comes bundled with other Adobe software, which can be costly.

Yea, that seems like a significant draw-back.

*Adobe Bridge is not available in standalone versions of these CS5 components: Adobe Acrobat Pro, Flash Catalyst, Flash Builder, Contribute®, Soundbooth®, and Adobe OnLocation.

So, what, I spend $700 for photoshop (and at least have something useful for my money), or buy InCopy for $250 and just install Bridge since InCopy is useless crap by itself?

There's got to be a better way of tagging photo files than dealing with Adobe, their crappy website, and their annoying phone-home DRM.

Lightroom (4, Informative)

SolidAltar (1268608) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559578)

Adobe Lightroom is pretty awesome. Has a free trial. Check it out.
Picasa by Google is pretty good, too. Free.

Google Picassa (5, Informative)

Bizzeh (851225) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559584)

Google Picassa is actually quite good at everything you asked for, and, it has face recognition, so once you tag one face, it generally recognises most of the images of the same person for you.

Re:Google Picassa (2, Funny)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559646)

I second Picasa, and it works fine under Wine too.

Re:Google Picassa (3, Informative)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559924)

Why would you use wine to run it? http://picasa.google.com/linux/ [google.com] --- Linux version

Re:Google Picassa (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560334)

The Linux version is older. At the time, it only had the 2.X series, when only the 3.X (available for Windows) had face recognition.

Re:Google Picassa (2, Funny)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560066)

I second Picasa, and it works fine under Wine too.

Works well under beer and vodka too. Editing those pictures can truly become a night to remember... even if you don't remember it the next morning

Re:Google Picassa (1)

djhertz (322457) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559680)

I've gotta give the nod to Picasa. Free and easy to use. The ONLY drawback I've had with it is reading mp4 video files (which my Sony camera takes). I had to install a codec pack to force windows to make thumbnails and then Picasa would recognize them. Aside from that it has all the fun home features you need, auto face recognition and nice easy ways to do things in bulk.

Re:Google Picasa (1)

dhammond (953711) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559772)

I would second Picasa. The facial recognition is very good and makes going through a lot of photos pretty fast -- I don't think that information is stored in the image file itself though.

Geotagging in Picasa is pretty good too, but it also connects easily to Google Earth for geotagging, which makes it even easier.

Re:Google Picassa (1)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559782)

Yep. Picasa's amazing. And free. And it stores most of its stuff inside the actual file, exceptions being face tags and effects (until you export the files).

Re:Google Picassa (1, Informative)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559804)

Picasa would be a wonderful solution for pictures that are stored on only one computer, which is is running either Windows or Mac OS X. I've tried to setup Picasa 3.6, through wine, on Linux. The interface is wonderful, but there are two shortcomings that are dealbreakers, in my mind :

1. Any tagging you've done cannot be synced the to other computers. Picasa doesn't store its tagging info locally in each directory; this information is put in the "Program Files". You can, presumably, backup your collection through Picasa (if this function works in wine, which I believe it does not) and restore on another computer, but this doesn't replace a sync.

2. Videos do not work. You can get the video portion of .mov files to play, through an elaborate procedure (http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-1385837.html). But I have yet to get the sound to work on these videos. Audio works otherwise in my wine installation.

I hope these things shortcomings improve in Picasa, which is officially only version 3.0 on Linux. Picasa really is wonderful.

Re:Google Picassa (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559936)

Theres a LINUX version of Picasa.. why does everyone use wine?

Re:Google Picassa (1)

ichthyoboy (1167379) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559988)

Answering my question from earlier....Picasa uses Wine internally for Linux compatability. From the download page:

Picasa 2.7 for Linux

Total size: 24MB. Picasa software (9MB), Wine (12MB) and Gecko engine (3MB).

Re:Google Picassa (1)

leamanc (961376) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560312)

And to further answer the question, the "official" Linux version from the Google Linux repositories is behind the Windows and OS X versions. If I am not mistaken, it is WAY behind, as in I think the Linux version is 2.x and Windows and OS X have 3.x.

Personally, I don't care a whole lot because the version I have on my Ubuntu boxes does everything I need it to do, and the OS X version I use is great too. (I used to love iPhoto, but once they went to the "Events" paradigm and blew away my years of sorting photos by date, I dropped it). I honestly can't be bothered to look at the version numbers of the Linux and OS X versions, because they just work.

I do remember reading a while back a way to get the latest Windows version of Picasa running in Linux by downloading the latest Windows binary and copying it into the Linux package that has Wine bundled with it, if having the latest and greatest is important to you. Or, as has been mentioned, you can just install wine and grab the latest version and be done with it. I like to use what will update automatically with the Ubuntu package manager.

Re:Google Picassa (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560344)

Two things,

1. after further checking your absolutely right it does use wine.

2. the version 3.0 beta is out (It too uses wine)

Its odd, last time I tried to use wine I couldn't get anything to run, but I had Picasa and it ran fine. Perhaps when I installed wine after installing Picasa I screwed something up. Its kinda misleading to say they have a Linux version that requires wine to run. Mea Culpa

Re:Google Picassa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32559952)

Picasa is not professional photo management, but it does have some of such features, including some unique ones. It supports tagging, face recognition, and also geolocation (if you have a camera with a GPS...)

But most of all, its fast and can handle execessively large sets of files, unlike most other programs. 7000 is not a problem at all - I can't recall how much pictures I already used it on, but rest assured, it worked with much, much more of them. The only other program I know that can handle a similar amount of pictures is feh on linux, and that does not show thumbnails.

fototagger (5, Informative)

epedersen (863120) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559588)

Re:fototagger (3, Informative)

nsrbrake (233425) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559928)

Last updated 319 days ago and the homepage no longer exists.

Re:fototagger (3, Informative)

uhoreg (583723) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560128)

The homepage does exist. It's just been moved. Add a ".html" to the link from the SourceForge page.

digiKam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32559590)

Did you try anything other than Windows 7 for your photo management software?

There is only one choice ... (1, Interesting)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559652)

There is only one choice ... ... per OS.

Windows: Picasa
Linux: F-Spot
OS X: iPhoto

I've used all three and with the inclusion of "free" they are, in my not so humble opinion, the best option for each platform.

Re:There is only one choice ... (3, Informative)

jvolk (229717) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559746)

Picasa is best, however, AFAIK it doesn't store the info in the files...stores the face stuff in its own database. I learned this the hard way...

digiKam (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559776)

There is only one choice ... ... per OS.

Linux: F-Spot

I've used all three and with the inclusion of "free" they are, in my not so humble opinion, the best option for each platform.

There's also digiKam which happens to work quite well Gnome even though it is targeted for KDE.

I evaluated many photo programs for Linux last year and digiKam came on tops. But, if you're doing HDR when editing, FSpot had that capability built in whereas digiKam didn't nor does Gimp for that matter - at the time I looked at them.

How about... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559658)

folders, arguments and wildcards?

Sheesh. Get with the 1970s technology already ;)

Re:How about... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559708)

I agree putting that into the file isn't wise. If for no other reason than it makes verifying the images much harder. Well that and adding a chance to corrupt the files.

Try Mapivi (4, Informative)

Demosthenex (513513) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559668)

I've been searching for the same feature set, a file centric image manager whose metadata is stored exclusively in the file.

One of the best ones I have found is Mapivi:

http://mapivi.sourceforge.net/mapivi.shtml [sourceforge.net]

I still often use Digikam, but its metadata support is inconsistent at best. On the other hand the front end is more useable than Mapivi.

You should also look at ExifTool, because you can manipulate and query metadata with it on the command line.

http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/ [queensu.ca]

If you find a solution, please share!

Photo Mechanic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32559672)

By Camera Bits at http://www.camerabits.com/site/

"Photo Mechanic makes it easy to add common "IPTC" (or metadata) information (like city, state, keywords, and caption) to groups of photos at once."

Copy them to a Mac, use Automator (3, Informative)

techmuse (160085) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559676)

OS X comes with a graphical scripting tool called Automator. You can set up a batch file rename script with it that will rename every photo in a folder of your choice with the date and time added to the file name, plus a sequence number, and any other text if you desire. I used it to rename over 8000 photos originally named img_xxxx in 2 or 3 minutes.

So just copy them onto a Mac, run the Automator script on them, and copy them back.

Re:Copy them to a Mac, use Automator (1)

ChrisMP1 (1130781) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560036)

Yes, because scripting and batch automation are unique to Mac OS.

Re:Copy them to a Mac, use Automator (1)

KahabutDieDrake (1515139) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560104)

Rather than your wry wit, you could have given some alternatives. Like RenBatch (free ware). Or I could spend the next 200 lines explaining how you can already do this with Batch files and proper command line fu, but somehow I doubt that would be helpful for most of the readers. The few that would understand, already know how.

Re:Copy them to a Mac, use Automator (2, Interesting)

ChrisMP1 (1130781) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560184)

This is Slashdot. Anyone here who doesn't know about scripting can Google it, and anyone who can't Google things, well.... I don't know how they even got here.

Gnome gvfs (1)

miknix (1047580) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559722)

I just use Gnome's filesystem manager called nautilus, it supports tagging and commenting filesystem files. Filenames and tags are then indexed by "tracker" which has a multitude of client interfaces and applets for searching the indexed data. I always find my fotos easily by this way.

The fotos are stored in a organized collection which the only backends are the regular filesystem and gvfs. On my collection's toplevel directory I put every event prefixed by its date:
20100105_Birthday.of.xxxx
20100120_Going.to.Ski.with.Pedro.Ana
etc..

Filesystem's features like softlinks, hardlinks allows me to keep redundancy down and the album organized. Gvfs features like tagging, commenting, setting icons and emblems do the rest. The tracker is only used for searching fotos.

Since I don't use facebook or anything similar, I have Gallery http://gallery.menalto.com/ [menalto.com] installed on a private server. It is really great! You should try.

apple aperture (1)

mdaitc (619734) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559744)

not gonna bore you with features here, suffice to say, it's a great tool :-)
http://www.apple.com/aperture/what-is.html [apple.com]
http://www.apple.com/aperture/features/ [apple.com]

Re:apple aperture (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560038)

Was my first thought too: that's what you do not even need to do in Aperture, cause it does all that automatically for you.

Sadly it's Mac-only. And over-priced - if tagging is only what you want.

If you are serious about pictures (4, Funny)

retardpicnic (1762292) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559778)

What you really need to do is this. Buy a couple plaid shirts, some black socks and some Birks but make sure you pay a lot for them. Get some capri pants at the GAP (make sure you pay full price). Next, get some patchouli scented shave lotion and a Mac(don't worry...you will pay full price for this and we have begun. Go home set up your make and get changed, you are now a Mac owner! You will find that tagging, sorting,arranging via meta data is easy. Its living that has become hard. Now you must tag everything using iambic pantameter and haiku. Instead of tagging things buy the current dating system use what day of the BP disaster it is. If your wife asks you what you are doing, try to be condescending... no one understands you anymore but steve. While tagging your photos try to use the words postmodern and neo a lot. it will begin to feel natural soon... Good luck! A new mac user| so fragile and delicate| like leaves on a breeze

Re:If you are serious about pictures (1)

retardpicnic (1762292) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559848)

aparrently someone can't take a joke. Lighten up. You'de figure the haiku at the end was worth not getting modded down at least.

Re:If you are serious about pictures (4, Funny)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559946)

A simple Haiku
won't excuse a trollish joke.
Sorry, dude, nice try.

Re:If you are serious about pictures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32560272)

Do you know what sucks?
SanityInAnarchy
On slashdot dot org

Lightroom + EXIF data update (1)

Bysshe (1330263) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559792)

Lightroom is the best for this kind of work. you can batch-update their EXIF data (EXIF is the extended file information location for images), and organize it based on files and folders in physical locations on the drive. Picasa is a good amateur tool but won't let you have the custom control Lightroom gives you.

Photogallery - This is what is was made for... (2, Informative)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559824)

http://download.live.com/ [live.com]

Install Windows Live PhotoGallery from the Windows Live Essentials. This is exactly what it is designed for and can do smart tagging.

Even though Win7 doesn't install the 'Essentials' applications, they really are 'Essential' to get the most out of Windows7. There is also a download link for them in the Start Menu, and you can pick and choose what you want easily.

Doing all your tagging via Explorer is functional, but not the optimal way of dealing with Photos in Windows 7. In Photogallery you just drag and drop to tag photos or use the face identification system.

(The June beta of the next generation of Live Essentials and PhotoGallery should be along soon as well with several new tricks that pulls in several of the MS Photo R&D work.)

*Don't waste your time with 'Album' or other tagging software that shoves your photos into their file structure, which is a LOT of them.

Tons of things do it. (1)

barfy (256323) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559868)

Iphoto, picassa, lightroom, aperture.

Besides finding bits of useful metadata in exif, filename, date, and content, the biggest issue will be able to wade through the data quickly and in human time.

Lightroom is available for Beta. If you have the images, try it with say Picasso. This should give you a good enough feeling as to whether you should pay for it.

But products like lightroom and aperture are exactly designed for your problem.

try photoshop elements (1)

jdanilso (128963) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559902)

Photoshop Elements is a good choice. I have over 15,000 images. The windows version is good at organizing. You can tag, group, etc. Once you've collected the tags, etc, you can write the information to the actual images as exif metadata so that you are not dependent upon the embedded Microsoft Access db they use. You can also leave the images where they are in PSE and don't need to move them around or stick them in a proprietary db.

For comparison I've also tried Photoshop Lightroom, Apple's Apperture, and Iphoto (the latter two are os/x only). I found PSE to be superior to any of these and cheaper too.
I've heard that Picasa is good too but I have no experience with it.

Hope that helps.

Irfanview (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32559918)

It has mass-batch processing capability including mass visible-watermark-addition capabilities, mass-thumbnailing, mass-resizing/reformatting/file-type-change. Earlier versions - 3.8 is one if I recall - had mass JPEG-comment-editing features. I can't seem to get that to work in 4.23. The current version is 4.27.

It or another program that does the same things is a must have if you are going to be making wholesale changes to a lot of pictures.

Windows. Free as in beer for non-commercial users including home and charities.

http://www.irfanview.com/ [irfanview.com]

Anything that uses XMP should work well. (5, Interesting)

jafo (11982) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559962)

I was recently wanting to do something similar. I decided on using the open source Digikam software (which may not be an option for you under Windows), because it has powerful photo management functionality, but also because it stores tags and more all as XMP data directly within my JPEG file.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Metadata_Platform

There is work being done to do face recognition to tag people in photos, one of the things that is taking most of the time for me.

My application was a custom photo-blog, with some neat tag-based features (like "show me the pictures taken at this person's house that have this oher person it them").

So, I tag them in digikam, do cropping and comments, and then save the image. I then wrote some Python programs to check this data for consistency, and to load the data into a database for the web server. The web server also has the ability to edit tags and comments, so I then have code to, once reviewed, write these changes out to the XMP meta-data.

But, the photos themselves are the authoritative source for this information. If I lost the database, no problem. The photos are the authoritative source for all that information.

Oh, I forgot to mention that one of the tools in the upload chain is to get rid of albums and instead encode it in the file with a tag called something like "Blog/Group/$UUID_STRING". It also saves off the "album thumbnail" in a similar way ("Blog/Group/IsAlbumThumbnail").

It's worked extremely well.

I use the command-line "exiv2" program to export and import the XMP data as XML, then I process it (the parts mentioned above) as XML.

i forgot to mention... (2, Informative)

jafo (11982) | more than 3 years ago | (#32559986)

Oh, I forgot to mention that my initial photo load was 3400-ish photos. So, about half the size of the OPs set of photos.

Exif tools (1)

ksandom (718283) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560032)

On a generic note, there's lots of Exif tools about. Under Linux I use exiftool in a script I use to take photos from an SD card. So personally, I script it since I can just set it going, and leave it be.

Adobe Lightroom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32560116)

It's designed for managing flipping huge numbers of files.

f-spot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32560194)

This does everything you want, but only runs on Linux. Which is interesting because it is written in C#. I use it to manage 25k photos.

Photo Mechanic (1)

cdrom600 (981598) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560224)

You should look closely at Photo Mechanic [camerabits.com]. It's not free or OSS, but it works very, very well. It is more of a metadata manager than a photo management database - it doesn't maintain its own database; it uses your existing folder structure.

It doesn't do any retouching, but it is flexible in letting you edit (select/reject), sort, and manage metadata for tons of photos. This sounds like the sort of software you're looking for.

It's practically the standard in the news/media photography industry, and it's widely used in other pro photographers' workflows.

I like/use IMatch from Photools (1)

frooddude (148993) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560234)

Yes it costs money, but it does a ton of things. It keeps a database for your tags/whatever but you can have it apply any and all info it knows about your pictures to the EXIF/IPTC fields. There's a ton of scriptability and you can export the DB to tons of formats (and define your own format). Hey just looked at the website and it supports XMP as well (another metadata in the file thing).

http://www.photools.com/ [photools.com]

No I get nothing for this (haven't even looked to see if I could). Satisfied customer.

How Aperture can help, and where not (0, Offtopic)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560260)

Aperture (from Apple, runs only on Macs, sorry) is probably the best fit for what you want to do.

It has face recognition now, it allows you to batch assign locations, it has tag management in that it has the ability to define tag sets to quickly apply to photos, to edit a tag library for general tag entry, and do very fast searches across the whole library by tags or any other photo metadata.

What it does not do, is store those tags in the file itself since the deal with Aperture is that the underlying philosophy is, never modify the master image. However the reason it would work for you is because you can easily export to pretty much anywhere through Aperture - there are a ton of export presets (and you can modify any of those or create new ones), and an export API that gives you export workflows for things like Flickr and so on - any of these options can include any metadata, including custom tags you have defined.

It also handles videos now which is quite helpful, I'm not sure how exactly tags work with exporting those as I don't use that much yet.

Image organization and searching is I think Aperture's strong point over something like Lightroom - since you seem very focused on that problem I thought this might be a good fit. Both Aperture and Lightroom have free trials to see if you like how they flow.

Lightroom (mostly) (1)

careysb (566113) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560264)

I recently read on one of my photography forums that if you convert your raw files to Adobe's DNG (digital negative) format that subsequent tagging and edits will end up in Lightroom's database and NOT in the image file. If, on the other hand, you stay with the original raw file Lightroom will write the changes out to an XMP (side-car) file that is at least under your control and not dependent on Lightroom's database.

If anyone has some additional info on this I'd be glad to hear it.

Carey

Microsoft did destroy one great tool (1)

rinoid (451982) | more than 3 years ago | (#32560300)

IView Media Pro did it all, then MSFT bought them, named it Microsoft Expression Media, and just recently sold it to Phase One.

Who knows if that product will evert live again. At least phase One is always in the right field for this product.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...