Why use subcatalogs versus keywords?
I don't see how subcatalogs are better or worse than keywords.
Suppose I have photos of trees. Using a hierarchical method, I could have a keyword for trees and then under that have keywords for conifers and deciduous. I certainly could have a catalog or subcatalog of trees and the two subcatalogs of that for conifers and deciduous. Seems that either way I could find what I'm looking for.
Please lend some insight about the virtues of one way or the other.
Suppose I have photos of trees. Using a hierarchical method, I could have a keyword for trees and then under that have keywords for conifers and deciduous. I certainly could have a catalog or subcatalog of trees and the two subcatalogs of that for conifers and deciduous. Seems that either way I could find what I'm looking for.
Please lend some insight about the virtues of one way or the other.
0
-
Unless your subject is very catholic in choice then subcatalogues on that scale are not a good idea compared to keywords.
For example a person standing under a certain type of tree would require a seperate catalog for trees another for the sub catorgory of tree and yet another for the person in the image just to name one example, this could get awefully complicated and messy having to have many catalogues open to search for a particualar image.
Thats just my opinion, but in DAM everyone usally has there own way of working based on what works for them. The good thing about EM is that you can copy or move images between catalogues by drag and dropping and have the same image in mutiple catalogues, so if you wanted to go that route then you could. 😊0 -
Damn Phaseone server threw out my first message.
Are you talking about Catalog Sets perhaps?
Basically, I use Catalog Sets to group my images logically - Flickr exports, gallery submissions etc
Events and People fields are used for Events and People
Keywords to describe the content of the images.
Does this clear it up?0 -
I'll echo Chris's comments, assuming Vaughn is talking about "Catalog Sets" (as far as I know, there is no such thing as a "Sub-catalog"). Conceptually, Keywords/Events/People and Catalog Sets are very different. The difference is a matter of content vs. usage.
Here's my suggested approach:- Use Hierarchical Keywords for content-specific tagging. For example, tag all your trees with hierarchical keywords (e.g., "trees" > "deciduous trees" > "White Oak").
- Use Catalog Sets to create usage-specific groups. For example, you might want to group together only your best images of deciduous trees for use in a Web gallery. A Catalog Set "Deciduous Trees" would be perfect for this.
If you don't have needs such as Web or printing, then you might not need Catalog Sets. Another consideration is that Keywords become part of the IPTC metadata (if that's important to you), but Catalog Sets do not.0 - Use Hierarchical Keywords for content-specific tagging. For example, tag all your trees with hierarchical keywords (e.g., "trees" > "deciduous trees" > "White Oak").
-
Sorry folks, I am new to EM2 and used the wrong terminology.
Let me be more specific. I deal with a very limited number of clients and have used keywords to identify files from each client, one of the keywords simply being the client's name. I'm not sure whether there is an advantage to putting the work from each client into a separate catalog set, rather than simply finding the files using keywords.
Vaughn0 -
[quote="Vaughn" wrote:
Sorry folks, I am new to EM2 and used the wrong terminology.
Let me be more specific. I deal with a very limited number of clients and have used keywords to identify files from each client, one of the keywords simply being the client's name. I'm not sure whether there is an advantage to putting the work from each client into a separate catalog set, rather than simply finding the files using keywords.
Vaughn
Right, I did think you meant catalog sets. Good, we're on the same page.
Like I mentioned, I use catalog sets to group images by what I'm using them for. For instance, in your situation, you could use the keywords to identify the client and catalog sets for the different stages of the job - you could have a set for client picks, one for colour corrected files, one for final retouched images, one for web galleries, and so on.
I would still use keywords or the People field to identify your clients if you use the above scheme.0 -
I've noticed another reason to use Catalog Sets vs. Keywords. If you plan to sort your data in various ways, it is better to do it to a catalog set than a keyword set because sorting the keyword set will affect of of your catalog sets, but not vice verse. If you sort a catalog set, only that set has that particular sort and your other sets are left alone.
I agree with the other posters that keywords are best for more general descriptors, but catalog sets represent "man-made" groupings. For example: use keywords for things like "Tabletop", "Portraits", "Forest" "City" "Nightime" but catalog sets for things like "Nike Pitch", "HighSchool Gang" "Frank Jones Selects" etc.0 -
Hello-
Just to throw in a few additional ideas:
1. Keywords can be sync'd back to the image files, and are therefore completely portable. If I'm not mistaken, catalog sets are "virtual", and would have to be recreated in the event one had to port the images to another DAM program. (-which I've had to do twice now, over the years)
2. I can create a sort by having two keywords and doing a boolean AND search/find. So: keyword Smith AND keyword Portraits. An alternative to a catalog set.
3. For some items, I use a prepended keyword, so that I have an embedded hierarchy within a flat, non-hierarchical catalog. So: actress marilyn monroe, actress nicole kidman.
Just a few more thoughts to consider. --Bill0 -
While Catalog Sets are virtual, the set structure can be written to the image file. In fact, when you perform a Sync Annotations, one of the options is to export catalog sets to the original files.
These can then be read by other applications that are capable of reading xmp. I've done this with Idimager and have successfully recreated my catalog sets in that program.
rod0 -
Rod-
Very interesting. I will definitely explore this. The ability to sync the catalog structure would certainly make catalog sets a much more useful (and portable) tool for me.
(I realize now that my understanding about saving catalog sets was based on my use of iView, which does not offer the ability to write catalog structure when doing a sync annotate. I see that EM2 has that feature, exactly as you indicated.)
Thanks for the info. --Bill0 -
My catalogs are pretty complex. I do most of my work with catalog sets. I have hundreds in use and some contain thousands of members.
Keywords have no order, and no hierarchy. I think hierarchical keywords are just a section or catalog sets.
Catalog sets have both order and hierarchy. A catalog set is like a slide show, where the order is important. iView and EM never really grappled with the problems of catalog sets. As was pointed out, you can sync catalog set info to the media files. However, importing looses the sequence.
Back in the days when catalogs were more easily corrupted, I had to rebuild catalog sets. It was a 2-step process: first put the correct files into the set, second, put them into order. Needless to say, scripting was important.
Also consider genre as a useful coding in that a member can only belong to one genre.
Syncing. I've never used this. A session can change thousands of records. iView and EM have not given a method of tracking changed items. So to sync would mean guess work or resyncing ~50,000 records. Then Timemachine would want to back them up, as well as my carbon copy cloner backups. Better is to treat the catalog as gold!
Peter0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
10件のコメント