A File-Centric Photo Manager? 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."
Windows Live Photo Gallery (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
can't seem to find linux-version
Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Its an analogy.
Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (Score:4, Funny)
It's a Car Analogy Disguise! (Score:3, Funny)
can't seem to find car-version
I can do better than that! I'd like to present the transformers analogy - it's like a car analogy, but it changes into a robot analogy!
Let's say the GPL and MPEG LA are both kind of like jeeps - both are utilitarian enough to help you accomplish quite a lot, but they can be rather unwieldy, too. We could say that GPL is more like the old army jeep and its relatives - it gives you access to a lot of things but it comes with its own hindrances. But you have the opportunity to pick through what's out there,
Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (Score:5, Interesting)
>MPEG LA doesn't forbid sharing of anything.
Yes, it DOES.
If you have enough "subscribers" if you do not charge per download (over 100,000) you MUST PAY A LICENSE FEE. And these fees are much steeper than Over-The-Air video, because the Internet is somehow special.
If you make video LONGER THAN 12 MINUTES and distribute it you must pay 2% royalties *or* 2 cents per movie, whichever is greater. If your home movie becomes popular and is more than 12 minutes and you have not paid your two cents per download (even if you do not charge for it!) and they take notice of it, you will soon see the sky blacken with lawyers.
If your video is longer than 12 minutes, MPEG-LA has its hooks in your content whether you like it or not. Even if it's a home movie of your kids that is 13 minutes long, you owe MPEG-LA money if you "broadcast" it over the Internet. Even if you give it away, the minimum charge is 2 cents per download as described above.
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Articles/The-H.264-Licensing-Labyrinth-65403.aspx [streamingmedia.com]
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (Score:5, Interesting)
Fun, huh?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting. Since when does patent override Copyright on pure content?
Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when that allows a corporation to screw you over more effectively, the same as with all other Intellectual Property laws, and with all laws if we really think about it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When did they make me sign the agreement. How are they going to enforce it on me? I did not breach the patent as I did not make the camera.
Re: (Score:2)
>just convert the file to a format not owned by MPEG LA
That's not how it works.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
I saw something a while back that suggested even that is insufficient, if they can demonstrate your camera filmed the video using an MPEG-LA covered technology. I don't think they've ever pursued such a case, but when you purchase a camera that records with MPEG-LA covered technology, your patent license sets limits on the content you record with it, regardless of what format it ends up in.
Personally, I'm hoping for some cameras that record WebM in the near future (of course, this hope hinges on the hope th
Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (Score:5, Informative)
SUMMARY OF AVC/H.264 LICENSE TERMS [mpegla.com]
Retail sale - disk or download:
where an end user pays directly for video services on a title-by-title basis...royalties for video greater than 12 minutes (there is no royalty for a title 12 minutes or less) are..the lower of 2% of the price paid to the
Licensee (on first arms length sale of the video) or $0.02 per title
Subscription services:
Where an end user pays directly for video services on a subscription-basis (not ordered or limited title-by-title), the applicable royalties...payable by the service or content provider are...100,000 or fewer subscribers during the year = no royalty; greater than 100,000 to 250,000 subscribers during the year = $25,000; greater than 250,000 to 500,000 subscribers during the year = $50,000; greater than 500,000 to 1,000,000 subscribers during the year = $75,000; greater than 1,000,000 subscribers during the year =$100,000.
Sponsorship
Where remuneration is from other sources, in the case of free television [over-the-air, satellite and/or cable transmission]...which is not paid for by an End User), the licensee [the broadcaster] may pay...according to one of two royalty options: (i) a one-time payment of $2,500 per AVC transmission encoder...or (ii) annual fee per Broadcast Market starting at $2,500 per calendar year per Broadcast Markets of at least 100,000 but no more than 499,999 television households
In the case of Internet broadcast (AVC video that is delivered via the Worldwide Internet to an end user for which the end user does not pay..for the right to receive or view, i.e., neither title-by-title nor subscription), there will be no royalty during the first term of the License (ending December 31, 2010) and following term (ending December 31, 2015), after which the royalty shall be no more than the economic equivalent of royalties payable during the same time for free television.
The enterprise cap
In the case of the...sublicenses for video content or service providers, the maximum annual royalty ("cap") for an enterprise (commonly controlled legal entities) is...$5 million per year in 2010.
Renewable five-year license
License will be renewable for five-year periods...on reasonable terms and conditions which may take into account prevailing market conditions, changes in technological environment and available commercial products at the time, but for the protection of licensees, royalty rates applicable to specific license grants or specific
licensed products will not increase by more than ten percent (10%) at each renewal
To sum up:
If you are worth less than $2500 to MPEG LA they don't want to hear from you.
[Retail sale of 125,000 Trek Wars disks @ 2 cents a disk]
Under the existing formula, the licensing cost to Apple, Disney, Microsoft or Google for hosting freely distributed H.264 video on the Internet would be capped at $5 million a year.
Chicken feed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How does that refute anything I've said?
A self-hosted file, if it becomes popular, even if it's free, will cost you .02 per download.
There are many people on YouTube with more than 1,000,000 viewers per title, so this is not some figure I pulled out of my ass. Since YouTube absorbs these costs because they host, it doesn't matter to the people who upload videos like KeyboardCat. However, you are completely unprotected if you self-host. Should you be creative enough that something go viral, you are on the
Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, thankfully some (quite a lot actually) of us live in "communist" countries, where such blatant attempts at blackmail will be laughed out of court.
Some of us even live in countries, where the lawyer representing the MPEG-LA is likely to have his or her knuckles used as target practice for the judge's gavel.
See - not only did we not sign any contract with the MPEG-LA, nor do software patents apply, but if we've bought a product in good faith, any patent breach that might apply is going to fall on the head of the manufacturer, i.e. the company that made the camera - not us. And since any camera that can record video is designed to ... what's the term ... record video, we will always be in good faith, even if we record more than 12 minutes and turn it into a movie.
But hey - if that means we can't publish or visit the US without getting sued in the US - well, that's their loss, not ours.
Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (Score:4, Interesting)
ACTA is going to fix that.
So bend over and take it, just like the rest of us.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Whooosh.
(that was the joke passing by...)
Re: (Score:2)
MPEG LA collects royalties on the big green - large scale - for-profit - commercial sale and distribution.
Once those MPEG LA patented formatted files on your blog get popular and reach download numbers to attract the attention of the MPEG LA lawyers, you'll get a bill. Doesn't have to be commercial.
Re: (Score:2)
It's for the best (Score:3, Interesting)
He'll know much more quickly if there's a virus or backdoor, as someone in the community is likely to discover it first.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (Score:4, Funny)
He drafted the comment in MS Word, which spellchecked and autocorrected "linux" as "Windows". Nothing to see here, move along...
Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IPTC, Picasa & Lightroom (Score:2)
OP needs an app that supports reading and writing IPTC metadata. Pretty straightforward.
Parent is right that Picasa has inconsistent and proprietary behavior. It uses INI files in each folder that store most of the developing and album information in plaintext. So you can tweak and recover that to a certain degree. But it has a separate database for caption data. If you make a caption change and commit changes to disk, the captions are not updated in the JPG or the INI. (AFAIK)
I use Adobe Lightroom for
Re:IPTC, Picasa & Lightroom (Score:5, Informative)
Picasa doesn't store its tagging info locally in each directory; this information is put in the "Program Files"
I'm often surprised by how few people understand how Picasa really works, as this is not the case.
Any potentially 'destructive' changes to a photo are stored in a picasa.ini file in each folder. These changes include rotations, cropping, sharpen, etc. When you view a photo in picasa, it displays with all these changes applied. You can undo a change at any time. Changes are NOT applied to the file on disk until you press 'save'.
To be clear, there is no magic, hidden, or proprietary database; it's just a simple per-directory picasa.ini file. As for backups, if you've backed up the directory including the picasa.ini file, then any non-saved changes will be backed up.
Non-destructive changes, such as captions or tags, are applied immediately to the photo. Again, to be clear, these are applied directly to the photo and can be read by any other photo tool that can read exif data.
The one exception to this is the recently introduced face tagging feature. Unfortunately, Google really messed up with their implementation of this feature. Facial tags are stored in a combination of the picasa.ini file & a central database. I've found the implementation to be quite poor, and I would not recommend using this feature.
Re: (Score:2)
That’s also why I ditched everything that tries to tag files without actually using the file system to do it.
Including Amarok and Nepomuk. But especially Amarok.
Modern file systems have soft and hard links! Which make your tree into a graph, and allow you to put files in multiple directories. Just like with tags.
Use ’em!
Right now I’m moving to a full ontology in a graph as my choice of main data structure for the “file system”. It’s such a obvious choice that I can only e
Re:Windows Live Photo Gallery (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I never understood - why not create a container format that can store all this stuff?
Something like the XMP sidecar files, embedding the actual image/raw file, and leaving space for software specific XMP extensions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If it's a photo of the kids playing tennis, does that go in the "family" folder or the "sport" folder?
Please don't suggest symlinks. Grandma doesn't grok 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Lightroom (Score:5, Informative)
Adobe Lightroom is pretty awesome. Has a free trial. Check it out.
Picasa by Google is pretty good, too. Free.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lightroom, Picasa, Bibble Pro, practically anything on any OS works.
There's an "export version" or similarly named option on almost all modern photo managers that will create a new copy of the selected photo(s) with all of the changes embedded in the new file. It sounds like Mr. Duffy is just making changes in his photo manager, and then trying to upload the original file rather than using the "export version" option. The database system used by most photo managers is to help you preserve Masters of your ph
Google Picassa (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
I second Picasa, and it works fine under Wine too.
Re:Google Picassa (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is linked to a Wine library. That makes it installable from Googles repos (Google have repos supporting APT, yum, urpmi, and YAST), a bit better in UI terms, and may be a bit lighter.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its not free, its proprietary.
Yes, I know what you mean, but the point needs to be made in case anyone thinks its open source.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 collectio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 p
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Picasa doesn't store its tagging info locally in each directory; this information is put in the "Program Files"
Um, no. Regular Picasa tags are stored in the file directly using the EXIF information. The exception is the facial tagging; that indeed is stored in the proprietary database.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can attest to that, I've loaded ~16500 photos to Picasa, and although it took a while to process for faces, it was always fast and responsible.
fototagger (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
parent is first good post
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain why Fototagger is better than Picasa or Lightroom?
TIA
Re:fototagger (Score:4, Informative)
Last updated 319 days ago and the homepage no longer exists.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is only one choice ... (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Windows
Free: FastStone Image Viewer
Non-free but pretty cheap: ACDSee
Expensive: Lightroom
Re:F-spot (Score:2)
I will only use it when they get rid of mono dependency.
How about... (Score:2)
folders, arguments and wildcards?
Sheesh. Get with the 1970s technology already ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Try Mapivi (Score:4, Informative)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
See http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1684842&cid=32559722 [slashdot.org] maybe it fits your needs.
Copy them to a Mac, use Automator (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Windows does that since XP. Select all photos, rename one to "whatever". They'll be renamed to "whatever (1).jpg", "whatever (2).jpg", etc.
Do you really need to write a batch file in MacOSX? Lame.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what the original poster is asking. They want to rename the files using the time, date, and location metadata in the file itself, rather than ordering them sequentially.
No, you don't need to write a batch file. Automator is graphical. You drag the operations you want into the sequence you want them and click play and it runs.
http://www.macosxautomation.com/automator/ [macosxautomation.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Gnome gvfs (Score:2)
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.t
If you are serious about pictures (Score:4, Funny)
Mod Parent... (Score:2)
Brilliant!!
Re:If you are serious about pictures (Score:5, Funny)
A simple Haiku
won't excuse a trollish joke.
Sorry, dude, nice try.
Photogallery - This is what is was made for... (Score:3, Informative)
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. (Score:2)
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.
Anything that uses XMP should work well. (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm using Digikam with more than 15k files. Good program though it lacks some polish here and there.
I like/use IMatch from Photools (Score:2)
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.
Photo Mechanic (Score:2)
Lightroom (mostly) (Score:2)
If anyone has some additional info on this I'd be glad to hear it.
Carey
Microsoft did destroy one great tool (Score:2)
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.
Looked into jBrout? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Adobe bridge? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Two possibilities (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Adobe bridge? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
IIUC the geotagging has been added in LR 3.
But for those of us still on LR 2 there is the [b]excellent[/b] plugin:
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/gps [regex.info]
Agreed, DNG is key (Score:3, Informative)
I can vouch for the robustness of DNG files. I lost a HDD, recovered most of the files, dumped them back into Lightroom and everything was retained, even my ratings and edit history. DNG is an awesome format.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Adobe Bridge (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.