Coming from Aperture, very confused by file management
This is a bit of a cry for help. I'm trying to move from being a very long-time Aperture user to Capture One. I love Capture One's power in actually working on the images themselves, but I have to admit that no matter how much time I put into it, no matter how many documents and tutorials I read, the organization scheme totally baffles me. Has this been the experience of any other former Aperture users? Will this all magically make perfect sense once I look at it differently?
I think the biggest thing is that the meaning of libraries, catalogs, folders, sessions, groups, albums, and projects seems extremely weird. I really can't figure out when to use what and why. With Aperture it was very clear that folders were pure containers (and clicking them showed you everything contained within), projects were the "real" location of the photo, and albums contained references to photos in projects (and could be wherever you like).
In Capture One, I thought there was something similar going on. Groups act like folders in that they can contain anything (although clicking them shows you nothing, which is kind of odd). I thought projects were the same in both apps, but in Capture One you *must* add a photo to an album within a project. Okay then, I figured that albums must be the "real" location of the photo and projects were just a grouping convenience. But dragging an image between albums -- either within a project or between projects -- just makes a copy of it. And deleting a photo with either its project or album just removes it from its album, but it's still there -- not visible in *any* project or album -- only to be found in the massive unorganized catalog. So apparently the catalog is the "real" location, but why all these arbitrary limits on projects and albums? And why do I have to laboriously dig through my catalog if I actually want to delete something? Why can't I have some kind of container in my organization that has a singular location for my photo? Argh!
Another thing that I don't understand is that no matter what I do, I can't get more than one catalog to show up in the pull-down list at the top of my library. Whenever I create a new catalog, it just replaces the one I had and I have to manually open up the other one. Am I missing something? Does Capture One want me to use lots of catalogs, or generally just a very few, if more than one? I'm not sure how Capture One intends me to use catalogs at all, and I'm not even getting to "folders", the meaning of which within Capture One is completely beyond me.
Basically Aperture from day one felt like there was a clear correct way to use it, with enough flexibility to define one's own organization. With Capture One, I feel like I must be missing something because even very simple organization workflow tasks seem extremely difficult and counterintuitive. I really don't mean this post to just be a lengthy rant. I desperately am hoping that somebody can help point me in the right direction because I really want to love Capture One.
I think the biggest thing is that the meaning of libraries, catalogs, folders, sessions, groups, albums, and projects seems extremely weird. I really can't figure out when to use what and why. With Aperture it was very clear that folders were pure containers (and clicking them showed you everything contained within), projects were the "real" location of the photo, and albums contained references to photos in projects (and could be wherever you like).
In Capture One, I thought there was something similar going on. Groups act like folders in that they can contain anything (although clicking them shows you nothing, which is kind of odd). I thought projects were the same in both apps, but in Capture One you *must* add a photo to an album within a project. Okay then, I figured that albums must be the "real" location of the photo and projects were just a grouping convenience. But dragging an image between albums -- either within a project or between projects -- just makes a copy of it. And deleting a photo with either its project or album just removes it from its album, but it's still there -- not visible in *any* project or album -- only to be found in the massive unorganized catalog. So apparently the catalog is the "real" location, but why all these arbitrary limits on projects and albums? And why do I have to laboriously dig through my catalog if I actually want to delete something? Why can't I have some kind of container in my organization that has a singular location for my photo? Argh!
Another thing that I don't understand is that no matter what I do, I can't get more than one catalog to show up in the pull-down list at the top of my library. Whenever I create a new catalog, it just replaces the one I had and I have to manually open up the other one. Am I missing something? Does Capture One want me to use lots of catalogs, or generally just a very few, if more than one? I'm not sure how Capture One intends me to use catalogs at all, and I'm not even getting to "folders", the meaning of which within Capture One is completely beyond me.
Basically Aperture from day one felt like there was a clear correct way to use it, with enough flexibility to define one's own organization. With Capture One, I feel like I must be missing something because even very simple organization workflow tasks seem extremely difficult and counterintuitive. I really don't mean this post to just be a lengthy rant. I desperately am hoping that somebody can help point me in the right direction because I really want to love Capture One.
0
-
As an Aperture user now in C1, I want to share what I do in case that makes sense.
1) In Aperture, I used REFERENCED files. So if you as an Ap user imported files directly into the catalog, this may not help (or you may want to change). I used REFERENCED because I never want to be stuck in a vendor's catalog per se. With Referenced I can open the same files in Aperture, LR (which I was testing as well) and C1.
2) After a shoot all images went into a file folder like this designated for that shoot. I had three tiers of folders (Year, Month and shoot) and named them like this.
Year
..YYYYMM
....YYYYMMDD - description
....YYYYMMDD - description of another shoot
3) I did not use Aperture for import into the folders. I actually use Photomechanic. Why? well I used to have a PM based workflow with Capture NX2 prior to Aperture. But what I like about PM is that when I keyword and rate photos, writes that info into the RAW file. The key here is keywording. I'm a firm believer in just using chronological folder structures as "subject" or "type of photo" structures never work. When you have an image of a dog at christmas, does it go in the Holiday folder or the Pets folder? I would rather spend time key wording images so that I can build smart albums later to pull them together.
So PM is wicked fast, I see the images, I import into the folder structure above, I rate them, I delete the bad images and I shut down PM
4) Next I go into the DAM and import "as referenced" or in "original location". I was doing this with Aperture, LR and C17/8 for a while as I evaluated all three. In Aperture, I imported each folders as a "project" in an of itself. I also used Aperture folders which mimicked my external folders. This way I could go into Aperture and the organization looked the same as LR or C1. The good news here is that the ratings, keywords get imported as well and I could evaluate all three DAMs.
I like C18 a lot and have moved toward it. I have not imported my last 10 or 20 shoots into the other tools, but I still could because I'm in "referenced" mode. When I import in C18, I leave the images where they are (I do not import into the catalog) but all the ratings done in PM are there and I have a great starting point.
In C18 then, I see my folder structure under the catalog which looks the same as Aperture and LR. (I don't really care about that now, but I did when I was evaluating all three).
5) I then setup "user collections" in C18 for things like- all images rated 2 stars or better,
gallery (keyword) images,
all images rated 3 Stars and up,
all images for rated 3stars or better for "pet photography" (keyword),
all images rated 3 stars or better for "portrait" photography,
etc,
etc
At the point, I'm pretty much where I want to be. My quibble with C18 is in the extra steps I have to take to use external editors (Nik Silver Efex for instance). I've got a workflow for that which I've posted here before, but it is not as clean as AP and/or LR.
6) Advantage of referenced. My 1TB of images are on a large, fast thunderbolt external drive with spinning disk. My Catalog is on an internal SSD drive. So having the images separate from the database/catalog allows me to do this, and this setup is much faster. E.g the catalog is on super fast SSD, while the images are too big for SSD but are on as fast a spinning-disk arrangement as I can find. Note: I'd about given up on C17 due to the catalog seizing up and not "scaling" up to 50k images, but C18 is swimmingly fast with 60k images so I'm happy.
I don't know if this helps the discussion but the key for me is "key wording" which drives User Collections (smart albums) and a simple, referenced file structure.
Hope that helps in some way.
Peter Guyton0 -
I have the same issue with COP8 (coming from Aperture 3).
I really have a hard time getting the file management to work for me.
In Aperture - I could make projects and import them directly from the import windows - can't do that here. I can't import to an Album and like some else said: When I delete an images from an album, it only remove it from the album - not from the lib (to the trash).
And the overview was better in Aperture - I find it hard to navigate with my 5 projects and have in COP8 - in Aperture I have 50 and don't have that problem.0 -
[quote="NN635464958753676081UL" wrote:
I...
I can't import to an Album ...
You should be able to do that with CO8 (and CO7). Select the Album in the Library tool before you open the Import Images dialog. Next, in the Import Images dialog > Import To > Collection > Selected Album.0 -
Oh - that fixed the issue with import.
However I changed organizing method. I only do reference from now on - but having a hard time understanding the organizing in reference and user collection?
Why make a lot of sub folders in reference if I anyway do that with albums and so on ... I switch method because someone wrote that when I deleted an image from an album (catalog method) it only removes it from that album and doesn't delete it from the catalog. I can report that I got the same results, and I can imagine how that would end up by the end of the year.0 -
[quote="NN635464958753676081UL" wrote:
...
However I changed organizing method. I only do reference from now on - but having a hard time understanding the organizing in reference and user collection?
Why make a lot of sub folders in reference if I anyway do that with albums and so on ...
Interesting point. Sub folders can be found in the Folders section of the Library. If this gives you sufficient level of organisation, you're done. However, Albums and Smart Albums can add another layer of organisation. For example, I organise my images in folders per shooting date. In the catalog, I create Albums that group images spanning multiple days, hence multiple disk folders. Another album groups images per topic, or per client.[quote="NN635464958753676081UL" wrote:
I switch method because someone wrote that when I deleted an image from an album (catalog method) it only removes it from that album and doesn't delete it from the catalog. I can report that I got the same results, and I can imagine how that would end up by the end of the year.
That is another issue that confuses users. It is correct that when removing an image from an Album, it is not remove from the catalog. Sometimes this is preferred behaviour, sometimes not. Do not have a clever workaround yet.0 -
The distinction mentioned by Ario between physical and logical organization is all-important when trying to come to grips with Catalogs. The two are distinct and separate. [quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
[quote="NN635464958753676081UL" wrote:
I switch method because someone wrote that when I deleted an image from an album (catalog method) it only removes it from that album and doesn't delete it from the catalog. I can report that I got the same results, and I can imagine how that would end up by the end of the year.
That is another issue that confuses users. It is correct that when removing an image from an Album, it is not remove from the catalog. Sometimes this is preferred behaviour, sometimes not. Do not have a clever workaround yet.
If you access the image from the Library's Folders section, click on it and choose Delete you should see this dialog box:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8c3g2majynx2vqm/C1P_catalog_remove_from.JPG?dl=1
...allowing the user to remove the image from the Catalog (logical assignment) and offering the choice of deleting the image file from disk (physical) also.
That this last choice isn't on offer when accessing the image from an Album is an excellent design feature in my mind: All too easy to overlook that the image might still be assigned to other albums, by a co-worker maybe.
Cheers,
Mogens0 -
[quote="mli20" wrote:
...
That this last choice isn't on offer when accessing the image from an Album is an excellent design feature in my mind: All too easy to overlook that the image might still be assigned to other albums, by a co-worker maybe.
Interesting point of consideration.0 -
[quote="mli20" wrote:
If you access the image from the Library's Folders section, click on it and choose Delete you should see this dialog box:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8c3g2majynx2vqm/C1P_catalog_remove_from.JPG?dl=1
...allowing the user to remove the image from the Catalog (logical assignment) and offering the choice of deleting the image file from disk (physical) also.
That this last choice isn't on offer when accessing the image from an Album is an excellent design feature in my mind: All too easy to overlook that the image might still be assigned to other albums, by a co-worker maybe.
But I'm not sure why that same dialog can't be used when deleting within a catalog as well as folders. I may want to just delete the reference to the image, or I may want to delete it from disk -- offer me the choice. In fact that dialog could even say right there that, for example, "this image is referenced in 3 other albums" or somesuch. Also, it would be great if, when selecting the "remove reference" option, the software could let me know if that is the only remaining reference of the image and offer the option to delete it, to avoid the zombie image problem.
The same goes for moving images. An option to move between catalog locations rather than only copy would be enormously helpful. Even just providing a hotkey to do this would solve the problem -- say, have simply dragging the image move it, and option-dragging copy drag it as in the Finder.
It seems like C1 is so very close to having this right. For me at least, just the changes I mention just above here would completely address my frustration working with catalogs.0 -
[quote="ymatto" wrote:
But I'm not sure why that same dialog can't be used when deleting within a catalog as well as folders.
Just to be clear: When you're accessing Library/Folders, that is catalog information, i.e. we are here talking of deletion from within the catalog. But I take it that you mean "From within a catalog or user collection" which makes sense.[quote="ymatto" wrote:
I may want to just delete the reference to the image, or I may want to delete it from disk -- offer me the choice. In fact that dialog could even say right there that, for example, "this image is referenced in 3 other albums" or somesuch. Also, it would be great if, when selecting the "remove reference" option, the software could let me know if that is the only remaining reference of the image and offer the option to delete it, to avoid the zombie image problem..
Entirely reasonable and easy to implement (although I have pointed out the dangers of it), but...considering the problems with tethering, camera support, sessions and catalogs, or if you take a look at the Media Pro Forum, it will likely be a while before PhaseOne delivers on your wishes. Anyone care to see a roadmap for C1P and MP development?
Cheers,
Mogens0 -
Is a software/UI well thought when all this terms are used to describe locations for files?
library
catalog collections
user collection
capture collection
selects collection
import to collection
session
recent imports
album
smart album
folders
capture folder
select folder
output folder
image folder
import to: store files: folder
catalog
images
catalog trash
project
group
Christoph0 -
Is it well thought out?
Who knows the answer when so many people seem to "need" different approaches based on some sort of behaviour they have learned from various previous constrained concepts?
I often think it would be fantastic if someone could come up with a truly new approach to "file management". One that was based on how computers work rather then the embedded concept of "filing cabinets".
Apple seemed to be trying that years. Confused me completely coming from a Windows/Unix background where knowing the likely folder structure location of every file was the safest way to approach working with the systems of the time.
To settle on a simple approach that works would be ideal but likely to attract only the small number of clients who find it appropriate for their needs. Is that the way to commercial success and product continuity? Based on the many comments asking for all sort of additions to functionality, not all of them heading the design concept in the same direction, I doubt it.
For a very specific and relatively exclusive market it might work. It would be much easier to make a well thought out design for much more limited objectives.
My thoughts, for what little they are worth.
Sometimes things that seem to have become too complex need to re-assessed using a different approach - a fresh pair of eyes.
Grant0 -
This is an interesting thread as I'm also struggling with this right now. [quote="SFA" wrote:
Who knows the answer when so many people seem to "need" different approaches based on some sort of behaviour they have learned from various previous constrained concepts?
I often think it would be fantastic if someone could come up with a truly new approach to "file management". One that was based on how computers work rather then the embedded concept of "filing cabinets".
I think Apple had it totally nailed with their approach to DAM in Aperture and if I could give a single advice to the C1 developers, it would be to simply copy their approach 1:1 and call it a day.
There was only one rule in Aperture: any single image had to live in ONE project at all times.
EVERYTHING ELSE was organising around this rule in any way you liked. It was basically a free-for-all:
- organise your projects into folders
- organise inside your project with any number of albums
- put a smart album inside a project, using only this project as a source
- put a smart album basically anywhere in your library, e.g. top level, and use the whole library as a source
- put a book, a light table, a slideshow inside your project
The key was, that Aperture was totally object-oriented and fully ignored anything that happened on a filesystem level. It said "give me your images, I will take care of putting them in a solid folder structure on your hard drive and you go organise them any way that you want". Many people were and still are wary of this approach, which I do not understand. I used Aperture for 10 years and never lost an image or had any trouble at all. Why should I waste my precious time thinking about organising thousands of files into folders on my hard drive when I bought a computer for upwards of $4000 which could do this for me, and much more reliable?
Nobody, not LR, not C1 etc. deemed it worthy so far to carbon copy Apples' approach and it boggles my mind.0 -
I think like MikeA, Aperture is a very good DAM. I have 250.000 in my main library (2.5TB), it is a managed library. I don't want to know where are the files, i want to use it. I know my pictures are in my projects, if i delete a project my pictures go to trash. Like that i don't have ghost pictures in the library.
I have no choice with the end of Aperture, i need to migrate to C1 (not LR, i don't like it). I need to migrate because at every OS upgrade i have crashs of aperture if aperture don't have upgrade too.
If C1 catalog can work like Aperture library it could be a very good idea. Simply copy.
Just a question : what is the limit of a C1 catalog ? I make equestrian pictures, i work in team, for the last year i have 236.000 pictures in my aperture library, C1 can support this in on catalog or need i fragment my catalogs ?0 -
[quote="MikeA" wrote:
This is an interesting thread as I'm also struggling with this right now.[quote="SFA" wrote:
Who knows the answer when so many people seem to "need" different approaches based on some sort of behaviour they have learned from various previous constrained concepts?
I often think it would be fantastic if someone could come up with a truly new approach to "file management". One that was based on how computers work rather then the embedded concept of "filing cabinets".
I think Apple had it totally nailed with their approach to DAM in Aperture and if I could give a single advice to the C1 developers, it would be to simply copy their approach 1:1 and call it a day.
There was only one rule in Aperture: any single image had to live in ONE project at all times.
EVERYTHING ELSE was organising around this rule in any way you liked. It was basically a free-for-all:
- organise your projects into folders
- organise inside your project with any number of albums
- put a smart album inside a project, using only this project as a source
- put a smart album basically anywhere in your library, e.g. top level, and use the whole library as a source
- put a book, a light table, a slideshow inside your project
The key was, that Aperture was totally object-oriented and fully ignored anything that happened on a filesystem level. It said "give me your images, I will take care of putting them in a solid folder structure on your hard drive and you go organise them any way that you want". Many people were and still are wary of this approach, which I do not understand. I used Aperture for 10 years and never lost an image or had any trouble at all. Why should I waste my precious time thinking about organising thousands of files into folders on my hard drive when I bought a computer for upwards of $4000 which could do this for me, and much more reliable?
Nobody, not LR, not C1 etc. deemed it worthy so far to carbon copy Apples' approach and it boggles my mind.
The C1 catalog is actually more similar than different to the Aperture Library. Like Aperture, C1s catalog is a database of your images. Folders, projects, albums and smart albums are just organizational tools, views, and queries. Both offer endless organizational options. So far, I've found it extremely easy to adapt my desired organizational scheme 1:1 from Aperture to C1.0 -
Is a software/UI well thought when all this terms are used to describe locations for files?
You don't have to use *all* of them though, just the ones that apply to you.I've found it extremely easy to adapt my desired organizational scheme 1:1 from Aperture to C1.
Ditto. But then I have a fairly simple approach to catalogs, so that makes it easier. Now that I have imports worked out to go into the subfolders I want, it literally has exactly the same folder structure I used in Aperture, on import.
I use catalogs, I don't use sessions or tethering, so I have no confusion about the different approaches, what they do or how. I just use my workflow and ignore the rest.0 -
As a user that has never used managed catalog (except in iTunes) I wonder what happens when your library exceeds the limits of ones internal storage, and how should it handle external storages? I myself have files on two locations and I do know that pros use a lot of external storage.
I can't really elaborate and pinpoint what it is about C1 library interface that bothers me but I can say that Ligtroom made me organize and take care, and re-visit my files much more than I currently do. At the end I'm using Sessions much more than Catalog.0 -
[quote="VirtualRain" wrote:
The C1 catalog is actually more similar than different to the Aperture Library. Like Aperture, C1s catalog is a database of your images. Folders, projects, albums and smart albums are just organizational tools, views, and queries. Both offer endless organizational options. So far, I've found it extremely easy to adapt my desired organizational scheme 1:1 from Aperture to C1.
Well, it's certainly closer to Aperture than Lightroom is, that I do agree on.
But it seems not everybody was a heavy user of all the DAM flexibility that Aperture was offering.
This is what I can't do in C1:
- a smart album can only live inside a project or anywhere else (except in an album, for whatever reason). When it's inside a project, it actually queries only the images from this project (like expected). However, if you put it somewhere else (top level or inside a group) it always queries the images from the whole library. In Aperture I could even put a smart album inside something else and STILL decide to query the whole library, just by switching the "source" when editing the smart album. So I can't realise a organisational structure with multiple levels and smart search every one of them. I only have two choices: from the whole library or from a project.
- you can put your projects into groups, but you can't click on the group and then see all images from all the projects inside. In Aperture you always had an aggregated view of what's inside when you clicked on ANY of the organisational elements, there was no limit (why should there be one?)
The way I see it, C1 has only one project in the sense of Aperture and this project is called "All Images". If you want to really delete an image from your catalog, you have to go into your "All images" project and search for it there (makes a lot of sense when you're dealing with say 250.000 images). Aperture avoided this by separating the library into projects. An image had to live in one project at all times. It could not live in more than one. That way the library handling was broken down into smaller pieces.
The really disappointing thing here is, that this is not actually rocket science and what the Aperture developers did was implement the logic and the obvious. There's no need to explain anything. There are limitations by design in C1 which are totally unnecessary (and which should be fixable). I mean, after all it's a SQL database like Aperture, right? Why should there be any limitation to how the data cube is sliced and diced?0 -
[quote="MikeA" wrote:
[quote="VirtualRain" wrote:
The C1 catalog is actually more similar than different to the Aperture Library. Like Aperture, C1s catalog is a database of your images. Folders, projects, albums and smart albums are just organizational tools, views, and queries. Both offer endless organizational options. So far, I've found it extremely easy to adapt my desired organizational scheme 1:1 from Aperture to C1.
Well, it's certainly closer to Aperture than Lightroom is, that I do agree on.
But it seems not everybody was a heavy user of all the DAM flexibility that Aperture was offering.
This is what I can't do in C1:
- a smart album can only live inside a project or anywhere else (except in an album, for whatever reason). When it's inside a project, it actually queries only the images from this project (like expected). However, if you put it somewhere else (top level or inside a group) it always queries the images from the whole library. In Aperture I could even put a smart album inside something else and STILL decide to query the whole library, just by switching the "source" when editing the smart album. So I can't realise a organisational structure with multiple levels and smart search every one of them. I only have two choices: from the whole library or from a project.
- you can put your projects into groups, but you can't click on the group and then see all images from all the projects inside. In Aperture you always had an aggregated view of what's inside when you clicked on ANY of the organisational elements, there was no limit (why should there be one?)
The way I see it, C1 has only one project in the sense of Aperture and this project is called "All Images". If you want to really delete an image from your catalog, you have to go into your "All images" project and search for it there (makes a lot of sense when you're dealing with say 250.000 images). Aperture avoided this by separating the library into projects. An image had to live in one project at all times. It could not live in more than one. That way the library handling was broken down into smaller pieces.
The really disappointing thing here is, that this is not actually rocket science and what the Aperture developers did was implement the logic and the obvious. There's no need to explain anything. There are limitations by design in C1 which are totally unnecessary (and which should be fixable). I mean, after all it's a SQL database like Aperture, right? Why should there be any limitation to how the data cube is sliced and diced?
I actually think Aperture's concept of putting photos into Projects was a conceptual flaw... and people miss it because that's what they were use to, not because it makes the most sense. It makes more sense to me, for photos to live in the library or catalog database and for me to build views/queries into that database and then group those views/queries in logical ways. I think if you look at it this way, you gain even more power and flexibility... you can slice and dice your photos however you like. Now could it use improvement? Sure. Things like group views, delete from catalog vs delete from album, etc. are all enhancements that wouldn't hurt, but I'd say C1 is on the right track with it's organizational model.
C1's catalog construction is actually very analogous to how iTunes manages it's library. All music is stored in a central repository and you can view the contents by genre, artist, playlist, smart list, etc. It just wouldn't make sense to put some music in certain projects while other music goes into other projects. Same goes for photos IMHO... Put them into a central repository and build views to organize them.0 -
I've just finished migrating my 600GB Aperture Library, this is what I did:
I used Aperture's Export Projects to Folders to create a folder structure on an external drive covering 2004-2014.
I then moved this folder structure onto my MBP internal drive.
I then imported the Images into C1 choosing to store the images where they were so creating a Referenced Catalog for this period.
Into the same Catalog I had imported the 2015 files I had (I had bee trialling C1 so had 2015 images both in Aperture and C1.
So my single Catalog is a hybrid of referenced and managed with new images going into the managed section.
I have Smart Albums set to each Year within the 2004-2014 period, for more detail I can refer into the Folder structure to view the original Aperture Project names as these are now the C1 Folder names.
In the Managed section I have Collections by year (only 2015 currently), containing Groups which relate to events which in turn contain Albums.
The displayed hierarchy is very similar to how I had it in Aperture for the Managed section.0 -
Apertures projects were Apples alternative to manage filesystem folders within the program. It is an additional indirection and allows you to create a virtual organization of the structure that holds your assets in the library. Where and how the files are really stored is independent from this structure. The equivalent in C1 and LR is the "Folders View" which allows one to manage and organize the asset storage structure. The missing indirection means, that changing storage (e.g. move between disks) actually means changing organization.
The second task of projects was exchanging sets of a library: remember that it originally was not possible to export and import as a library. You could export and import projects. At least since one could export and import as libraries, this feature was unimportant. Since C1 supports essentially the same thing, this aspect is not missing.
--
Jochen H. Schmidt0 -
One additional question : with Aperture i can export a project, work on it on my macbook and reimport it at home. Aperture merge modifications in my main library
Can i make the same thing with CO or i will have my pictures two time ?0 -
[quote="yann.queniart" wrote:
One additional question : with Aperture i can export a project, work on it on my macbook and reimport it at home. Aperture merge modifications in my main library
Can i make the same thing with CO or i will have my pictures two time ?
I think C1 recognizes duplicate images being imported and it will ask you which version to keep. An alert box will pop up asking if you want to keep the old copy, the copy you are trying to import, or both variants.0 -
@MikeA wrote:
- you can put your projects into groups, but you can't click on the group and then see all images from all the projects inside. In Aperture you always had an aggregated view of what's inside when you clicked on ANY of the organisational elements, there was no limit (why should there be one?)
As an Aperture user of many years currently testing C1, this has been an interesting thread to read. I've seen individuals like @ymatto gain a better understanding of this new (similar but different) world and decide on how to progress. Like @MikeA however I still have a hang-up around C1 Projects.
In Aperture I would create a Project to group together all photos of things like 'Spain Holiday', 'Light Painting Photography', and 'Ben's Birthday'. Now, given that in C1 you can't place images directly in Projects (or Groups), only albums, should we create an 'All' album in every project for the purpose of being able to see all images from a particular event/occasion/theme in one place?
If users do not create these 'All' albums, is the answer instead "Use Folders" to view all images from these particular events? Are C1 users happy jumping between the "Folders" section (where the Originals are saved in) and Albums in the "User Collections" section to achieve this?
Hmm...0 -
[quote="amsquires83" wrote:
Now, given that in C1 you can't place images directly in Projects (or Groups), only albums, should we create an 'All' album in every project for the purpose of being able to see all images from a particular event/occasion/theme in one place?
This is actually what happens when C1 imports your Aperture library. It transfers a project into an "all images" album inside a C1 project.
I think, some things are just of different nature and concept and we need to adjust. No big deal for me.
BUT some things are just stupid and make no sense, given that the backbone of the catalog is a SQL database, just like in Aperture and in Lightroom.
The way folders/groups behave: you click on them and you see nothing in the browser. This is the standard behavior of the Finder or the File Explorer in Windows, but it is certainly not the standard of multi-dimensional viewing of data inside a database. When I click on a folder holding certain items, I expect to see everything inside and with every further click drilling down into the structure, my view should narrow down to less and less items.[quote="amsquires83" wrote:
Are C1 users happy jumping between the "Folders" section (where the Originals are saved in) and Albums in the "User Collections" section to achieve this?
This would only work, if you have folders on your HD for every "project" you want to see, but not if you set up your folders strictly chronologically, like I do for example (Year>Month).
Besides, I don't care about "folders". I have completely adapted the database-centered view on my images, that Apple pushed into the world since the 1.0 of Aperture in 2005. It's how things should be, when you deal with THOUSANDS of assets like we do as photographers. People who still think in folders are regressive thinking and have their heads in the 90s.0 -
but it is certainly not the standard of multi-dimensional viewing of data inside a database. When I click on a folder holding certain items, I expect to see everything inside and with every further click drilling down into the structure, my view should narrow down to less and less items.
100% agreed. This is one of just a small handful of changes that would make C1 pretty much the perfect workflow for me. I understand others do things differently, but I think there are some little things like this that wouldn't adversely affect other workflows if implemented.0 -
I'm one of the people who do not understand the purpose of a DAM. What do you guys use it for? I have been always leery of having something else manage my things, I want to manage them myself so I know exactly where my items are and I don't have to worry about it when I need to move to another system etc. I wish C1 would remove it, so I wouldn't have to select whether I want to session or a catalog. My folders at my OS level serve me very well and I have never had a need to have anything else. That exact folder structure is duplicated in my various backups. If I ever need to restore my backup, I get exactly the same thing I had before without worrying about some software that manages my images. I'm just curious what I'm missing. 0 -
A DAM lets to organize images in many more ways.
Yes, I agree about the file structure on disk, that is important and I do not let the category program do what it wants. I organize my file structure as <year 4dig>/<year2>-<month2>-<day2>/<project>/<raw>|<edited>|<jpeg>. <jpeg> is temporary for about 4 months or so, then are deleted, they are never put into the DAM. The <edited> all imported into the DAM and marked as 5 stars.
A DAM allows a single image to live in multiple so called "albums", say I have a image of a yellow flower at sunrise. With a DAM I can put the image in a album flowers, another yellow, and an other sunrise. With the proper keywording I could search for all the say 'flowers, either yellow or blue and at sunrise' and it would display all the images that match. Also a proper DAM would allow categorizing more than just images, you could have a PDF of the release, a movie file and other items associated with a group of images (CO8 does not currently support this).
As I live in a Apple centric system, I don't think I would ever give up using an apple product for the DAM, I have iTunes setup to always have my 5 star images sync'd plus any images from the last 2 months. Trying to do that with using the file system would take to much time. And no other DAM tool I have seen has been able to integrate into iTunes to do the syncing.
To me the requirement of using a DAM would also depend on what kind of photography you do, (Please no flames). I think a wedding photographer would have less use for a DAM, They shoot a wedding, render the images and send them off, I am not sure how much keywording they would do. On the other hand a stock photographer I think would require the use of a DAM, as they are going to keyword the '$hit' out of the images so they people can search of them, and they can find the images fast.
Robert0 -
Robert,
I think your last paragraph adroitly summarizes the practical extremes of DAM requirements.
Maggie,
Just use sessions and stick with your file structures for discrete shoots - Events for example.
If you need to for any reasons at some point there is nothing to stop you creating other sessions later that can make use of the work undertaken in previous sessions to satisfy, say, a special project on a theme that crosses over the original sessions.
If the DAM type search that Robert mentions related to Stock photographers sound attractive but not central to what you do there may be a way to satisfy that need too without compromising your file structure preference.
If you create tagged (therefore searchable) output files (as "samples" of the main content, you may not need all of it) and then make a catalog of the completed work you would have a fully searchable set of images. So long as the file name or something in the meta data could get you back to the original shoot images you may have enough information to do all you need for searching without having to catalog everything all the way from import through processing to output. The catalogue of medium quality "samples" could be quite small, fast and above all portable. Quite useful for a portfolio for example.
Grant0 -
Yes the needs for DAM are very different - depending on individual needs.
With Aperture I made different iterations of organizations over the years. In the beginning I used projects to organize images by topic. This was a huge mess in my eyes. It finally came down to a strictly chronological project organization which - most of the time - fits nice with my needs, because I seldom have more than one shooting per day and therefore this is also a chronological ordering of shootings. So there was a 1:1 relationship of shooting and Aperture project for me.
I used albums within projects to filter subselections within this particular job and out of projects to create sets of topically similar photos.
I can do much of the same thing in Capture One. The one difference is though, that the projects no longer are the fundament of the existence within the catalogue. This is no real problem for me because exporting a project as a catalog works well and deleting images works over the workaround to "reject" them using a red color tag and a filter on the catalog collection.
My use of keywords is not very comprehensive - so I do not suffer much from the current state. But it will get more important over time.0 -
[quote="MikeA" wrote:
[quote="amsquires83" wrote:
Now, given that in C1 you can't place images directly in Projects (or Groups), only albums, should we create an 'All' album in every project for the purpose of being able to see all images from a particular event/occasion/theme in one place?
This is actually what happens when C1 imports your Aperture library. It transfers a project into an "all images" album inside a C1 project.
I just imported a single project Aperture Library into my C1 catalogue and noticed that it created a "Project Name Images" album inside the Project. You're right, it's odd (different), but given that my folder structure mimics my User Collections, I can live with it.[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
[quote="MikeA" wrote:
The way folders/groups behave: you click on them and you see nothing in the browser. This is the standard behavior of the Finder or the File Explorer in Windows, but it is certainly not the standard of multi-dimensional viewing of data inside a database. When I click on a folder holding certain items, I expect to see everything inside and with every further click drilling down into the structure, my view should narrow down to less and less items.
100% agreed. This is one of just a small handful of changes that would make C1 pretty much the perfect workflow for me. I understand others do things differently, but I think there are some little things like this that wouldn't adversely affect other workflows if implemented.
When clicking on a group it would certainly be useful to see the contents of all images contained with it (e.g. from Albums inside Projects inside the Group). I see that the 8.2 hasn't addressed this.. There really shouldn't be a reason to not add this small feature.
A more general question: are the discussions in these forums likely to be seen and acted upon (if deemed appropriate/demand sufficient) by Phase One, or is there a better feedback method that we should be using?0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
61 comments