How should I organize a set of photos
I'm new to Capture one and seeking guiodance, there's probably an article on this but I'm having trouble finding it.
In other programs when I took a lot of pictures while on a trip I'd put them all in one "container" then create some sort of sub-containers in there for different subsets. One sub-container might be shots from a museum, then others for different islands, etc.
I'm avoiding using Capture One terms here. I'm wondering how to do this in CO as I'm not seeing how. The best I can see is to create an album in a project for all the pictures and then other albums for the subsets. That works but I'm not sure it's the best approach.
-
There are a lot of ways to work with C1.
Highlevel decisions: Sessions or catalogs (or both in combination), one catalog or many catalogs, import images into a catalog vs. catalog which only references images (add images to catalog).
Either you research and maybe try out a lof of different ways, or you just start with one of the simpler ones.
My advise is you define a structure at file system level, a folder hierarchy which is meaningful to you e.g.
year
date evente.g.
2023
2023-02-18 Football game chicks vs. eggs
2023-02-20 Trip to xyz
2023-03-03 Wedding Paul and Paulaand use keywords or metadata IPTC fields for museum x, island y, island z, where 2023-02-20 is the start date of your trip.
Or, you break down even further e.g.
2023-02-20 Trip to xyz
Museum x
Island y
Island z
City abcWhatever makes sense to you.
In any case keywording and metadata makes sense in order to easily find images or in order to define smart albums (kind of saved searches). I prefer this over normal (static) albums but even if you use static albums, metadata doesn't hurt.
Maybe you have already a file system organziation that works for you, then stay with it.
Then, import into a catalog using "add to catalog" option, which leaves your images where they are.
Whatever catalog system you use (C1, LR, DXO,or whatever), a basic organziation at file system level makes sense and is future proof e.g. when you want or have to switch catalog systems. Any good system should be able to adapt to YOUR organization, not the other way round.
0 -
Hello
Organizing a set of photos can be a daunting task, but with the right approach and tools, it can be made much easier. Here are some steps you can follow to help you organize your photos:
Collect all your photos: The first step is to gather all your photos in one place. This may involve transferring photos from multiple devices or storage locations.
Remove duplicates: Next, go through your photos and remove any duplicates. This will help you avoid clutter and save storage space.
Cull your photos: Go through your photos and select the best ones. This will help you narrow down your collection and make it easier to organize.
Create a folder structure: Create a folder structure that makes sense for your photos. For example, you could organize photos by year, event, or location. Make sure to choose a system that is easy to understand and navigate.
Rename your photos: Consider renaming your photos to something descriptive and meaningful. This will make it easier to find specific photos later on.
Add metadata: Add metadata to your photos, such as tags, captions, and keywords. This will help you find specific photos using search functions. Check My Rota
Use software to help you: Consider using software to help you organize your photos. There are many tools available that can help you automatically organize your photos, add metadata, and even create albums or slideshows.
By following these steps, you can create an organized and easily navigable photo library that will allow you to quickly find and share your favorite photos.
-3 -
The second Firstname Lastname is a spamming bot?
0 -
SFA,
I've seen a lot of these here, recently, and my assumption is Chat GPT (or alike) too. I've heard that no AI is capable of detecting whether or not such a text is generated by an AI, and even if, zendesk AI is certainly none of them.
0 -
Thanks everyone. I was really trying to ask if anyone has favorite ways of using groups, albums and projects for something like a collection of travel photos. I have no problem with using the OS file system as the main mechanism but wondered if there were better ways I hadn’t thought of.
I guess not.i am familiar with using metadata, I’ve done that a lot in past systems ( like aperture and LR)
0 -
I suggest keeping it simple on disk (the "OS folder side") and then use albums in C1 to further sort subsets of images. This helps to keep your folders on disk relatively straightforward.
On disk I create a master folder for each year and a subfolder for each shoot during that year - a shoot being a specific event, trip or other shoot. I import the images into C1 and each shoot appears in the C1 Folders pane. I then use C1 Albums in User Collections to further sort my images into subsets. (I also use C1 Groups for additional organizing.)
For example, I'm currently doing a series of shoots at a church. Each shoot goes in its own folder on disk. So far, 4 shoots, 4 folders. I import the shoots into C1 and they show up in the C1 Folders pane. Then, in C1, I collect the images into different Albums in C1 User Collections: facade, lobby, offices, sanctuary, stained glass windows, murals, plaques, rooms, etc. I also have a separate project shooting different cemeteries for which I created a Cemetery Group in C1 User Collections and within that group created an Album for each Cemetery.
0 -
@...,
The point of the story, or at least the last part of it, is that the lack of structure in the file storage system, even from 20 + years ago, is no limitation to sharing and using data between different systems and technologies, even if the technologies themselves build barriers by dropping legacy support.
...
Hard as it is for those of us brought up in the filing cabinet age to become used to thinking in other ways, it is more flexible to do so even though it means working through concerns and relearning what we do if we head along that road.
I remember a discussion with you many years ago, me being a fan of folder structures (for images) whereas you being kind of an opponent to it.
My opinion hasn't changed a bit, and your experience and example here with the MP3 files doesn't cut it, because your MP3 files have all the relevant metadata embedded.
That is not the case with images SOOC whether they are raw files or jpgs. If, for example, Ernst would hold 800k images in just one folder and the catalog system or application breaks down than there is no easy way to find all images of "Sonja's wedding", because that is not part of the file embedded metadata, just as an example, other than viewing 800k images or let them search by an AI, how reasy and reliable that is I don't know.
On the other hand, if a folder structure requires some manual or semi-manual work for each folder (as in this thread the export and creation of a subfolder CaptureOne holding all the settings currently in the catalog), too many folders (e.g. close to 100k) can be a hinderance.
I am still convinced that the oldest digital organization method i.e. folders are most future-proof, if the files themselves don't contain the information the folder structure could or would contain.
Granted, my folder names and structure only uses a limited amount of data, particularly the date or a period (which is also part of any image file incl. raw, so kind of redundant, however that's true only if it is not a raw image from e.g. a film negative from another date), and a trip location, an event, or a theme or subject.
On one hand that is the level I feel is sufficiently deep for my needs - and not too deep to create to many folders on the other hand.
High-level organization by a not too deep folder structure plus metadata for finer granularity organization (which I prefer btw. over any static album in a proprietary software) is still my preferred choice when it comes to image files.
EDIT: In my post I was mistakenly referring to Ernst, 800k images and Sonja, which is actually from another thread, but I think it still illustrates my point.
0 -
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of metadata for images and music files.
Probably every system can read and make use of it (with some exceptions in the case of xmp sidecar files).
I'm not a fan of static albums (you didn't mention them but I want to address that here too), as only one system can work with it, the system in which you created them.
All files in one folder without any sub folders is a silly approach, imo, as it makes you totally dependent on metadata only, and because I don't put content description in the filenames a decent but lean folder hierarchy to save images with metadata embedded or sidely accompanied is what I prefer.
Cheers,
BeO0 -
You have a very good point in that metadata which travels with each file can, well, travel with each file. That's not the case with image containers like folders or static assignments like albums, if only the files or copies and exports thereof go on a trip.
More than 20years ago I worked for a company which only had Macs and I liked it, the Finder showed files and folders and the application icons were easily accessible and even drag&drop file(s) onto such icons worked to open it in the application, much better than on Windows. For my work I guessed I was 20% more efficient. And the UI looked nicer.
But in more recent years I hated iTunes (for Windows) for example because I never really understood where my files were and how "synchronize" works (one way or two ways etc.), I never was sure what I was doing (though I seldom used it).
Anyway, I even thought that my next notebook could be from Apple especially since the power saving Apple chips are on the market, but it seems that C1 and Apple are even more troublesome than C1 and Windows especially when the OS is upgraded, but that's just an observation of the forum here and might be wrong.
0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
9 comments