Aller au contenu principal

POLL: DAM - yes? no? In C1 or external?

Commentaires

26 commentaires

  • ---
    after my experience with aperture I decided to not get burned again, so no dam ! I organize everything in dated folders with the help of photomechanic. photomechnic and the osx provide everything i need to manage and search my files.
    0
  • syncrasy
    My vote: external.

    I've used Media Pro for over 12 years (iView MediaPro -> Expression Media -> Media Pro), before Aperture and Lightroom became popular as all-in-one DAM/raw editor applications. Because I use Nikon cameras, I've been able to rely on Nikon NX2 and NXD software as my raw editors, plus Photoshop for certain needs. I never purchased CO, Aperture or Lightroom because I didn't need them; my DAM needs were handled better and more flexibly with Media Pro and I already had good editors. To be more specific: I maintain a large archive of stock photos and regularly generate HTML galleries from virtual catalog sets. You can't do this without a good DAM. Folder-based organization schemes can't do this. CO catalogs can't do this. Aperture/Lightroom can do this, but Media Pro is more straightforward and dedicated to the task.

    Over the years I've had to deal with tradeoffs in my workflow (e.g., having to make JPEG derivatives to see my edits in Media Pro, resolving sidecar conflicts), so an all-in-one application would seem to be the ideal solution. But I never liked Lightroom's UI, and CO's DAM capabilities still fall short of Media Pro. And because I prefer to use different editors for different situations, I have long advocated for a standalone DAM (agnostic of raw editor). I hope that PO keeps developing Media Pro as a standalone product. I wish they would simply offer a a slim version of CO (without catalog) that would integrate better with Media Pro.
    0
  • Robert Farhi
    [quote="Thomas Geist" wrote:


    Would you like to see C1's cataloging evolve to a level as LR provides it?

    Would you rather see an external DAM product (like Media Pro) that is kept fully current and integrates very tightly with C1?

    What do you think?


    It seems to me that C1 v11 cataloging is now not very far from LR's.
    I am not sure about an external DAM product : for me, it should be able to display my images developed with C1 (including adjustments), and not only original RAWs, what Media Pro is restricted to.
    0
  • syncrasy
    [quote="tenmangu81" wrote:

    It seems to me that C1 v11 cataloging is now not very far from LR's.


    Depends on your needs. C1 lacks many DAM features of Media Pro (and LR), such as HTML galleries, custom fields, sorting by annotation (metadata), etc., that are essential to my work.

    [quote="tenmangu81" wrote:

    [a] DAM product ... should be able to display my images developed with C1 (including adjustments), and not only original RAWs, what Media Pro is restricted to.


    I agree in principle, which is why I wish Phase One would release a slim version of C1 that works better with Media Pro. [Side note: Actually, Media Pro wasn't always restricted in this way (at least on Mac). Years ago, I think up through Mac OS Tiger, Expression Media/Media Pro previews displayed raw edits. But that stopped after Tiger. I never knew why it stopped working in Expression Media/Media Pro (SDK licensing from Apple?). I think it was handled at the OS level but I'm not sure since I believe Photo Supreme (a DAM) can display raw edits.]
    0
  • Thomas Geist
    There are many things in LR that make it an incredibly good DAM system.

    Just a couple of them:
    • Geotagging

    • tons of plugins, some super helpful like LR/Transporter as well as many to online galleries, tagging etc.

    • besides many values in the EXIF/IPTC info panel there's an arrow - click on it and everything with the same value will be displayed (these values can be folders, ratings, dates, ISO etc.)


    Of course LR is also lacking in some aspects. It's sluggishness is one of the things, no list display is another. But all in all I still consider it the superior DAM.
    0
  • Drugstore
    [quote="Thomas Geist" wrote:

    In my opinion Lightroom's DAM capabilities are some of the very best out there for photographers and it's one of the last things keeping me still with a CC subscription.


    Exactly. Would be great if CO would have a good DAM on board without doubling their prices.
    0
  • Franz J Wenzel
    I too would vote 'external' for a DAM!

    To my mind, C1P is primarily a RAW converter and second a very flexible tethering tool - for these tasks the Sessions concept is just 'perfect' and very well and robust implemented in Capture One.

    The R&D efforts and future advancements should clearly have its priority in these areas of the software...

    As for DAM, I think almost every user has its own vision for the 'right' features of such software....
    For me, I primarily want to know where particular photos / images are 'hiding' in my mass confusion of external hard drives (12 and counting, lol). For that task, Media pro and Neofinder are doing a great job - currently I prefer Neofinder over Media pro because it is a little faster and has a significantly smaller database footprint.
    Most of the time I do not need the 'accurate' reflection of my work done in editing my images within my DAM - if I do, I export my finished image and catalog it alongside my original RAW.
    There are many other 'topics' that are to be considered when talking about DAM applications (slideshows, social media connectivity, collages, Albums, etc.)

    Cheers,
    Franz
    0
  • Mark Muse
    External.
    0
  • Peter Svancar
    Please, don't make C1 as another LR...for me the system works..its user per user, if you need that features, go for SW which have it 😊 .....you don't need the super uber video capabilities in your shiny new D850 and you will never use it
    But you have to pay for it.

    same with software...
    0
  • Peter Orczykowski
    For me, the problem with current implementation of catalogue in Capture One is two fold: speed and complexity. Same goes for Lightroom really with it's modular design. You have disk based folder tree AND you have separate, virtual, Aperture like system above that is Project based, called User Collections. C1 tries to combine Lightroom approach with Aperture approach which, while more flexible in theory, results in confusion and clunkiness. I tried to re-create my Aperture system using Collections, and you can do that to a large extend, but it's clear that it isn't a "natural" approach within C1 (there are limitations) and so I ended up using folders. Which is a shame because Aperture's approach was by far superior. But to be fair, C1's excellent search panel combined with one click ability to select images with colour tag or keyword makes up for a lot. Plus Capture's RAW editor has no equal, so I am resigned to live without my Aperture's DAM 😊
    0
  • Abbott Schindler
    I definitely want DAM (and decent printing capabilities) integrated with my Raw processor. I don't care about slideshows, photo books, social media links and stuff like that, but it really facilitates my workflow to be able to catalog (and add metadata) and organize my images, search for them (flexibly), and then process within one application.

    I think C1's DAM has come a LONG way since v9, and I'm impressed with the performance improvements in v11. For me, Phase One's getting pretty close to "right".
    0
  • C-M-B
    I think an external DAM would be better, otherwise C1 might become as sluggish as Lightroom (one of the reasons why I ditched LR in favour of C1).

    If you pack a DAM and plugin features etc into C1 not only will it become slower, but you also heighten the risk of incompatibilities, faulty plugins and I'm not sure you want to sacrifice stability AND speed for a built-in DAM solution.

    Also I'm a fan of somewhat differentiated systems; meaning I prefer to have separate but well connected programs to reduce risks for crashes or accidents.
    0
  • syncrasy
    One could compare a DAM to a refrigerator (long-term storage, organization) and a raw editor to a stove/oven (cooking). We store food items (raw images) in the fridge. We use selected items for cooking (raw processing). Items we don't cook, consume or discard right away get put back in the fridge so that they might be used in a different recipe (reprocessed or edited), eaten or served later (printed or posted to the Web).

    Would you prefer this?

    https://www.swanson-media.com/photos/identification/dam-humor/stove-in-fridge.png

    Or this?

    https://www.swanson-media.com/photos/identification/dam-humor/fridge-and-stove.png

    Want to use more than one raw processor or launch a pixel-based photo editor for the TIFFs in your archive? No problem...

    https://www.swanson-media.com/photos/identification/dam-humor/fridge-stove-micro.png
    0
  • matt mckee
    I am on the external bandwagon. I really like MediaPro and have used it for a long time, despite its myriad of faults and bugs. I do wish it would get a decent update and am terrified that it will go away.

    I really like that fridge/stove metaphor, too!
    0
  • Rick53
    My catalog needs are minimal (compared to stock shooters, for example) but I'm so excited about "switching" to C1's superior raw processing, 3 days into my 30 day trial, that I completely forgot/assumed it probably won't generate html galleries (I used C1/MediaPro years ago). Argh! So I'm less excited now...
    0
  • syncrasy
    [quote="Rick53" wrote:
    My catalog needs are minimal (compared to stock shooters, for example) but I'm so excited about "switching" to C1's superior raw processing, 3 days into my 30 day trial, that I completely forgot/assumed it probably won't generate html galleries (I used C1/MediaPro years ago). Argh! So I'm less excited now...


    Hope you still have Media Pro on your computer.

    By the way, even if I didn't manage a stock database, I would still want a powerful DAM for personal/art/family photos (for creating HTML galleries, managing derivative files for publishing projects, managing family slide/negative scans, etc.)
    0
  • John Doe
    [quote="Rick53" wrote:
    My catalog needs are minimal (compared to stock shooters, for example) but I'm so excited about "switching" to C1's superior raw processing, 3 days into my 30 day trial, that I completely forgot/assumed it probably won't generate html galleries (I used C1/MediaPro years ago). Argh! So I'm less excited now...

    You can generate an HTML gallery with C1.
    0
  • syncrasy
    [quote="John Doe" wrote:
    You can generate an HTML gallery with C1.


    I'm looking at the CO 11 user's guide and found their "Web gallery" section (also called "Web contact sheet").

    Not being a CO user, I can't tell what these galleries actually look like or how they work. They appear to be a single page galleries that require you re-enter text fields each time ("one offs"). I could be wrong, but I get the sense that CO templates are not in the same league as Media Pro's robust XML-based templates (easily regenerated without having to re-enter text fields, multiple pages (index + media pages), customizable if you know HTML/CSS, etc.).

    Anyone actually use CO's galleries? I'd like to see a sample.
    0
  • Thomas Geist
    [quote="syncrasy" wrote:
    [quote="John Doe" wrote:
    You can generate an HTML gallery with C1.


    ...

    Anyone actually use CO's galleries? I'd like to see a sample.


    I would recommend you start a new topic for this. That way your post doesn't get lost in here.
    0
  • Peter Figen
    I've been using C1 since about 2002-2003 and have been using Extensis Portfolio as a cataloging app since late 1995. Unfortunately Extensis stopped support and development for the consumer version of Portfolio a couple of years ago but it still runs on a slightly older OSX version. What I love about Portfolio is that it takes ANY file type you can through at it - from every conceivable Adobe format to audio and video, Word and Excell, pretty much anything, and it only takes seconds for me to find anything. For formats that it can't generate previews it still ingests and makes a generic preview, so as long as you've assigned keywords, that doesn't really matter. That's what I need in an app and neither Lr nor C1 provide that. There are a couple of viable options for me as I see it. One is to hire the guy who wrote my studio management program to do a custom FileMaker build that would do what I want, or to just plunk down the dough for the enterprise version of Portfolio, which I'm assuming is several thousand dollars. There have been rumors of other companies stepping up to fill that void, but so far, they only appear to be that. So, my vote is for a great third party app. Hell, I wish Phase would just leave all their DAM stuff as a completely separate option or just eliminate it entirely and concentrate on what they do best. And don't try to be what they're not - don't try and be some weird different version of Photoshop, which is where 100% of my images end up anyway.
    0
  • NNN635158767546269381
    I already use C1 as DAM. I wish the DAM would be faster.
    0
  • Robert Farhi
    [quote="NNN635158767546269381" wrote:
    I already use C1 as DAM. I wish the DAM would be faster.


    I don't know if we call it a real DAM, but, anyway, the catalog in C1 11 is far faster than in previous versions. And it covers all my simple needs.
    0
  • syncrasy
    [quote="Peter50" wrote:
    I've been using ... Extensis Portfolio as a cataloging app since late 1995. Unfortunately Extensis stopped support and development for the consumer version of Portfolio a couple of years ago but it still runs on a slightly older OSX version. What I love about Portfolio is that it takes ANY file type you can through at it - from every conceivable Adobe format to audio and video, Word and Excell, pretty much anything, and it only takes seconds for me to find anything. For formats that it can't generate previews it still ingests and makes a generic preview, so as long as you've assigned keywords, that doesn't really matter. That's what I need in an app and neither Lr nor C1 provide that. There are a couple of viable options for me as I see it. One is to hire the guy who wrote my studio management program to do a custom FileMaker build that would do what I want, or to just plunk down the dough for the enterprise version of Portfolio, which I'm assuming is several thousand dollars. There have been rumors of other companies stepping up to fill that void, but so far, they only appear to be that. So, my vote is for a great third party app. Hell, I wish Phase would just leave all their DAM stuff as a completely separate option or just eliminate it entirely and concentrate on what they do best. And don't try to be what they're not - don't try and be some weird different version of Photoshop, which is where 100% of my images end up anyway.


    Why worry about custom FileMaker builds or hypothetical DAMs from other companies when Media Pro already exists? If I remember correctly, Media Pro (or iView MediaPro back in the early 2000s) was touted as the "single user" alternative to Extensis Portfolio after Extensis ditched their consumer version. Is there a specific reason why you don't even mention Media Pro as an option?
    0
  • Thomas Geist
    [quote="syncrasy" wrote:
    Why worry about custom FileMaker builds or hypothetical DAMs from other companies when Media Pro already exists? If I remember correctly, Media Pro (or iView MediaPro back in the early 2000s) was touted as the "single user" alternative to Extensis Portfolio after Extensis ditched their consumer version. Is there a specific reason why you don't even mention Media Pro as an option?


    I surely come from a very different wish list / background but for me there are several things I can think of that for instance Lightroom can do and Media Pro won’t.
    • Geotagging

    • Tons of very useful plugins - some connect with publishing services (not so important for me), some allow extensive metadata modifications

    • Face tagging

    • a pretty sane bridge to devices via a cloud service that’s getting better and better over time (LR CC mobile or however it’s currently called 😉 )
    0
  • syncrasy
    [quote="Thomas Geist" wrote:


    I surely come from a very different wish list / background but for me there are several things I can think of that for instance Lightroom can do and Media Pro won’t.
    • Geotagging

    • Tons of very useful plugins - some connect with publishing services (not so important for me), some allow extensive metadata modifications

    • Face tagging

    • a pretty sane bridge to devices via a cloud service that’s getting better and better over time (LR CC mobile or however it’s currently called 😉 )


    Yeah, Media Pro is definitely getting "long in the tooth" and is in need of an overhaul/refresh with respect to modern technologies (and by "modern" I don't mean a black UI 😕 ). An HTML 5-compatible Web gallery generator with more modern templates is at the top of my list, but I'm probably one of the few people who doesn't have a SmugMug or Zenfolio account. MP used to have geotagging (I think PO removed it). Come on Phase One, CO 11 is out. Time to give Media Pro a little attention!
    0
  • Graham Smith
    I would prefer effort was put into updating Media Pro, which could then provide proper integration with C1 sessions (and other external editors), than putting effort into developing the C1 catalogue. But both would be nice.

    Cheers,
    Graham
    0

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.