"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| ste mc © wrote:
|
| >> I've played around with Photoshop album
|
| > I wouldn't say family orientated as such,
|
| So why the photo of kids playing in the sand and all the cartoon like icons?
Like I said in the previous post, "...they might be marketing it as an amateur/family product..."
Nothing wrong with a photo of kids, and the icons are similar to Windows XP icons.
| > but Adobe does describe it as consumer software, rather than professional software. But snobbery
| > aside, I think it's excellent.
|
| It does seem highly usable, but the distinction between consumer and professional is not snobbery.
So why mention the photo of kids playing in the sand and all the cartoon like icons?
| There are certain features that professionals need and if a program doesn't offer those options
| then it's of no use to them.
Fair enough. But even if I was a professional, I can't see what it couldn't do that *I* would want.
...except I read that Extensis Portfolio did a good job of sorting out websites, such as this one:
andyrouse.co.ukrouseimagesearch.htmlOpen ↗
| >> No display of the original folder structure
| >
| > Right click an image, and it tells you the folder location. You can even click the folder icon
| > to open that folder. Easy! :-P
|
| Ugh! It opens the actual folder window! That's no good to me, I never use "windows" as such. I
| browse all my images using ACDSee and do all my file operations in Total Commander. IMatch allows
| you to browse your images by the original folders or by categories and by various types of search
| results.
Well that suits your method of working, so good for you; but not mine, so hurray for me! :-)
| >> categories but no keywords
| >
| > I'm sure you can add keywords (they might be called 'captions?'😉, though I've not done this yet
| > (so don't quote me on it), as I'm happy just using the categories (tags) for now.
|
| No, captions are captions, keywords are keywords. Different things entirely. I believe captions
| are stored in IPTC data fields, which album also doesn't support.
In Photoshop Album 2, apart from using categories (tags) and collections, I can also add captions
and notes to photos, which I can search on. I think these are just applicable to Photoshop Album
though, and don't integrate with IPTC data fields though; which isn't a worry for myself.
| To quote IMatch;
|
| "This section describes the support for IPTC (International Press Telecommunications Council) and
| NAA (Newspaper Association of America) image information. The IPTC/NAA standard is a metadata
| model for associating additional information with all types of digital media. The IPTC standard
| has been widely adopted by the Digital Image Industry and within the Publishing and Printing
| Business."
|
| >> no exif data display.
| >
| > Can't say I'd ever been bothered by this, professional, amateur, or whatever. Why is this a good
| > feature, and why do *you* use it? I don't see how or when *I'd* ever need to find images that
| > had a 1/250 sec shutter speed,or f8.0 aperture, or whatever. Am I missing something? Or is it
| > just because you *can* do it *if* you need to.
|
| I regularly look at exif data to distinguish different photos. As I've said, I often photograph
| the same scene in different ways, using the same composition I may try different combinations of
| shutter speed, aperture and film speed. Just looking at the thumbnails I can't tell them apart, so
| a quick look at the exif data is necessary. For example one shot might be very grainy due to a
| faster film speed, but I can't tell that from the thumbnail.
Well I can look at this data using Photoshop Album 2. Right click an image, View Properties, then
click the metadata tab to see all the EXIF info.
| The time of day the photo was taken is also important to me, because of the angle of the light and
| it can sometimes be very useful to check the settings used to take a good photograph in order to
| repeat the effect. Often bad photographs are more instructive than good ones. If there's something
| wrong with an image (blurred, partly out of focus, etc.) checking the settings used will tell me
| why so that I can avoid making the same mistake next time.
Even without cataloguing software, I can view EXIF info. I'm not arguing against this, as it's
great. I'm just doubting why I would ever want to search for photos by any if this EXIF info, which
I'm assuming you're doing with iMatch.
| IMatch says;
|
| "Image files created with digital cameras store metadata along with the raw image data. This
| metadata may be a valuable information resource for your image database."
Well I can click the properties of the image and I can see this metadata for a shot, but I don't
think I can search for it. Not that I'd want to though, so again, no problems for me.
| >> Clearly not a program aimed at pros.
| >
| > It's not as such (from what Adobe say), but I think it's excellent,
|
| I think it's very good too.
|
| > and most importantly, it does the job.
|
| For most people yes, for professionals no.
No comment.
| > Although they might be marketing it as an amateur/family product, I wouldn't read too much
| > into this.
|
| I would. It's not suitable for professionals.
No comment.
| > Do Adobe have a more professional photo cataloguing software? If so, I don't know about it.
|
| Now that you mention it, why don't they? Perhaps they'll design one in the future, or perhaps they
| won't bother since there are other good apps available.
|
| >> However, the sorting that I'm talking about now is a different collection of images, those
| >> which have been processed and reduced in size. I don't intend to index them in a database, I
| >> just want to sort them in a manner convenient for personal viewing.
| >
| > Now you tell us!!! :-)
|
| I did mention this in my original post, but perhaps I didn't stress it strongly enough. No one
| else seemed to notice either. I wrote;
No you never. You never made any mention that the query related to a completely separate set of
images. It sounded like it was the images within your normal collection that you were having trouble
sorting. How dare you quote me your original message, I'm not having that! :-) :-) :-)
| "Obviously in a database I can use keywords and categories to put the same photo in multiple
| locations, but I'm trying to decide where to physically store the files.
Okay, the quote above is from the 8th paragraph. And still no mention that it's a different
collection.
| Not only that, but I'm redesigning my website with an area-based structure, so I also have to
| decide in which area to put each photo on my site."
And this quote, from paragraph 9, looks like another question, following the main one.
How's the website coming along? Are you doing any design changes, or just a redesign of layout
of content?
| > Now I know you don't think Adobe Photoshop Album 2 is up to the task for you, but as well as
| > having all the usual Tags which show the categories, there's also a 'Collection' tab along the
| > top. I use the collections tab so I can sort out which photos are used for Photosig, Usefilm,
| > etc. I could even have a collection called 'website' or 'alamy' 'calendar' or whatever.
|
| Well I've looked hard for it but I can't find a collection tab or any mention of it anywhere.
Can't find it in PSA2, or in iMatch? If you can't find it in iMatch, and you want it, just create a
category called 'Alamy' or whatever and use this as a workaround in your system of organising.
| But since you mentioned Alamy, don't you think it's important to include proper captioning,
| copyright and keyword information with your photos, in the official IPTC and EXIF data formats?
But why? I thought this was done online using the Alamy website. Alamy says: "If your images have
IPTC information embedded in them, Alamy will only import the 'Caption' and 'Keywords' IPTC fields -
no other IPTC fields will be imported." As far as I'm aware, these two fields can be added manually.
And they make no mention of copywright information, so I'd assume they don't import that anyway?
| Paul
Ste