Image Management Software

[W2R]

For organizing my images, I don't use software. I just organize them by date in folders with names like "2017 photos", or "scans from 1948-1975". Then inside those folders I have subfolders such as "2017_01_31", and so on. You get the idea.

For processing my images to improve their quality, crop, change size, and so on, I use Paint Shop Pro, for two reasons:

(1) I have been using it since the last century so for me it is as familiar and comfortable as old socks; and

(2) it doesn't require a subscription.

I used a version that I apparently updated to, back in 2000 (v6.02) until this month when I bought the latest 2018 version on CD. The 2000 version just had an installation zip file which I could copy onto a new computer whenever I needed to do so and it still works with Windows 10. But the 2018 version seems to require interacting with their website during installation. I assume that if I uninstall from one computer then I can install on another but haven't done that yet.

If that turns out to be difficult or impossible, I still have the file needed to install the 2000 version again.

 

[walkinwood]

I use lightroom to organize and edit my photos. It is slow, but works & integrates well with Photoshop.


The images reside in a folder tree - year / month.


The key attribute is "tags" or labels that are attached to each picture that tell me the what where who of the image.



For me, these two aspects (folder tree & tags) is enough to find pictures when I want to. Are there other aspects that you need?



I back up all user data (including images) to the cloud & occasionally to a USB disk.


LR is overkill if you're not doing major editing. I haven't played with the open source program you mention, but my experience with opensource software has been very good (I used mythtv for years as my DVR), but occasionally opensource projects get orphaned and you're stuck with an old version that you'll have to abandon as OS's continue to evolve.

 

[steelyman]

W2R and walkinwood: the time-based tree structure is what I’m leaning toward. It’s simple and static, even if you’re only making a wild guess at the date of something like an old print now scanned.

I know very well the risk of open source projects being abandoned and it’s a real one, valid. I once was active but now I’m found (or is it FIRE’d?). I’m thinking that understanding features/implementations imposed by a specific piece of software (OSS or commercial) and keeping those separate within the file system may be helpful down the road.

For example, digiKam (not a plug, it’s just what I’m using) creates a few databases specific to that package. That’s where things like some tags, captions, deltas, and so on are stored. The location of the DBs on the filesystem can be independent of the actual image files. Right now in my case that’s not how it is but I’ll soon move things around to achieve that.

 

[steelyman]

Right now in my case that’s not how it is but I’ll soon move things around to achieve that.

In the spirit of "If not now, when?", I moved things around. It took much less time than I thought it would, less than five minutes. A couple of preferences had to be adjusted within digiKam (one to specify the database location, the other to specify the location for the images). Movement of the files and directories/folders were all drag-n-drop from within digiKam.

So now I have three folders in HOME/Pictures on my iMac: "digiKam" (DBs, currently slightly less than 55 MB, mostly taken by thumbnails), "Photos Library" (Apple's mysterious directory for "Photos") and "Images" (my image files, currently unaccompanied by any additional associated files).

It's a small change but I feel like I'm starting from a cleaner base.

 

[W2R]

W2R and walkinwood: the time-based tree structure is what I’m leaning toward. It’s simple and static, even if you’re only making a wild guess at the date of something like an old print now scanned.

Right! If I don't know, but have a hunch, I will use that date. If I don't know and don't have a hunch, then, for example, inside the directory "scans from 1948-1975" I might have a photo that is NOT in a subdirectory, but instead is named "steelyman date unknown" or "steelyman about 1950 or so". For me this homebrew method has worked out pretty well for most photos.

I did all this a few years ago when I bought a photo scanner and scanned in thousands of family photos, for which I have been custodian over many years. It took a week to scan everything in and longer to name and arrange them in a time-based tree.

BUT - - when I was done, I could put all of it on each of three SD cards, which I sent to various relatives. Amazingly, I haven't had to mess with any of this ever since.

If I enhance or alter a photo I just name it with "enhanced" or "cropped" or whatever added to the original name and put it in the same directory as the original.

 

[steelyman]

Right! If I don't know, but have a hunch, I will use that date. If I don't know and don't have a hunch, then, for example, inside the directory "scans from 1948-1975" I might have a photo that is NOT in a subdirectory, but instead is named "steelyman date unknown" or "steelyman about 1950 or so". For me this homebrew method has worked out pretty well for most photos.

Now this is pretty funny to me and true. Just this morning I scanned three photos (about all I seem to do at one time, it’s so boring). They were delivered in a box a sibling found in a Chicago-area storage shed.

One was a picture of me as a baby. I distinctly remember seeing it at my grandparents home (also Chicago) when we visited them. It was displayed in their home on a cabinet paired with another of them, location unknown although the back of the photo had 1964 on it. The background trees don’t remind me of anything Chicago but who knows?

Maybe I’ll tag it “steelybaby”!

 

[dixonge]

My Mom, bless her crazy heart, labeled the majority of their photos on the back. Names, places, dates. All go into the file names and/or the metadata. For most of them, I just scanned the front and back using a duplex scanner. That way I can always edit the metadata later and then toss the extra scan. Theoretically.

 

[W2R]

Now this is pretty funny to me and true. Just this morning I scanned three photos (about all I seem to do at one time, it’s so boring). They were delivered in a box a sibling found in a Chicago-area storage shed.

One was a picture of me as a baby. I distinctly remember seeing it at my grandparents home (also Chicago) when we visited them. It was displayed in their home on a cabinet paired with another of them, location unknown although the back of the photo had 1964 on it. The background trees don’t remind me of anything Chicago but who knows?

Maybe I’ll tag it “steelybaby”!

Perfect!!! Or "1964 steelybaby". I'd trust a handwritten date on the back of the photo as long as you look about the right age for that date. Well, unless you are pretty sure it is wrong. It's such a judgment call. I did correct some dates that my relatives put on the backs of photos but only when I was sure they were just guesses and incorrect.

As for location, maybe your family including grandparents went someplace together that year, and the photo was taken there. Like, maybe they drove to a dense forest in Michigan for the weekend, or a park, or something.

 

[steelyman]

Wow - ask and ye shall find! Thanks for the pointer. As you say, gPhotoShow doesn't appear to work on Chromebooks but Photo Screen Saver is an option that installs as an extension (I just added it). At present, it isn't working when trying to access Google Photos but several users in recent days have reported the error, so I'll just try again later. I have quite a few photos already added in my Google Photos account, almost all "auto-added" by their iOS app courtesy of the Assistant backup. So they're mainly JPG format, as I have older iOS devices.

Happy news this morning: Photo Screen Saver is working on my Chromebook and working well. I think that the fix was done by the developer but I also made a change on my Google Photos page, specifically I created an album and placed about ten photos in it. The Chrome extension asks you to select an album, previously I had none. However, the error that I and others received was code 400 which I think indicates a malformed request.

But whatever the cause and fix were, it's a pleasant thing to have set up and working on a Chromebook! Thanks, donheff!

 

[target2019]

Picasa 3

I use Picasa. The last version is available here and other locations:
https://sites.google.com/site/picas...l-information/update-picasa-to-latest-version

I recall buying it from a private company, before it became free from Google. Google incorporated it, eventually, into Google Photos. I only use the 3.9 software version, on my old XP system. It works fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picasa

The software does create a database (db3) which is stored in your %user% account. This is important, as you want to backup, along with your photos. Just yesterday, I read that some have problems with databases which grow large, on SSD drives. Picasa dB holds the thumbnails and face recognition information. Yes, it performs facial recognition, which I find to be an essential feature. With recognition, and a library built on dated, named folders, you do not necessarily need tags. But they can be added if you choose.

I do not use the default location, but have photos on a shared partition, P:/Photo/Photos. Inside this folder are sub-folders, 2010_1002, 2012_0208, etc. When the sub-folder contains notable event, I add a vary short description: 2010_0607 Mike Wedding. One problem which grows over time to bite you is the "incredibly long path name" which I see some users have grown accustomed to. Some users disregard brevity, and over time it will hinder you. (At work, along with very long share path names, some users are naming files with sentences. One cannot see the entire filename, and the files are being truncated when emailed. Stupid user trick!)

Inside the dated folder are re-named jpg's (I don't do RAW). They may be renamed from the camera sequence to something like 2010_0607_001.jpg, and so on.

Yearly, I copy camera photos to a folder, named 2018_iphone, etc. Of course that is a large mess, but you can delete at least half when there is time.

Picasa performs edits in non-destructive fashion. In each subfolder there is a picasa.ini file with the edits. If you want to commit the edits, just save a copy.

Many of the common things you want to do are simple. Select a photo, export, etc. The interface is very simple to learn.

There is a feature to upload to cloud. However, I don't use that much, and the feature may be gone. Like other Google products, this can be tied to your gmail account, so uploaded photos are in your pictures folder. But, I keep masters of everything on my computer.

 

[steelyman]

Very interesting, both your writeup and workflow. i've quoted but edited your post for brevity.

I'd heard of Picasa and its acquisition by Google but hadn't really paid much attention although apparently as a Google Photos user I'm a Picasa user in a sense.

I use Picasa. The last version is available here and other locations:

[link removed]

I recall buying it from a private company, before it became free from Google. Google incorporated it, eventually, into Google Photos. I only use the 3.9 software version, on my old XP system. It works fine.

[text removed]

There is a feature to upload to cloud. However, I don't use that much, and the feature may be gone. Like other Google products, this can be tied to your gmail account, so uploaded photos are in your pictures folder. But, I keep masters of everything on my computer.

I've been trying to evaluate options for photo backup to (someone's) cloud and find that there are upcoming changes to Google+ that might shake things up a bit. I'm no expert but it seems that there are API changes that developers will have to adapt/pay attention to, some regarding authentication.

My current situation regarding off-site backup gets the big grade of "F" (have none).

 

[target2019]

I've been trying to evaluate options for photo backup to (someone's) cloud and find that there are upcoming changes to Google+ that might shake things up a bit. I'm no expert but it seems that there are API changes that developers will have to adapt/pay attention to, some regarding authentication.

My current situation regarding off-site backup gets the big grade of "F" (have none).

I have recovered data from client computers over the years. I think that my setup for Photos has evolved from that experience.
1) If the photos are scattered through your computer user account, backup and recovery needs more attention. For example, a user account with media folders (mp3, jpg, etc.) is very large. My photos stand alone on a separate internal drive, in a separate partition.
2) I don't have a backup schedule or routine. I do backup, but I am definitely lax compared with others around here, mostly because my backups are not automated. My backups are on a conventional drive inserted to external carrier whenever (like today sounds great!). USB memory has grown so cheap that I can buy another stick and backup to something that can be placed in a safer location.

 

[steelyman]

I have recovered data from client computers over the years. I think that my setup for Photos has evolved from that experience.

It sounds as if you're active in consulting/supporting (hope that's at least a close guess). Experience is a great teacher, experience with others even better!

1) If the photos are scattered through your computer user account, backup and recovery needs more attention. For example, a user account with media folders (mp3, jpg, etc.) is very large. My photos stand alone on a separate internal drive, in a separate partition.

Yes, for sure. My things were/are scattered around, a lot due to scatterbrained placement on my part over time but also a consequence of changing computers and moving/migrating old data. Consolidation is a good thing but takes time and thought.

2) I don't have a backup schedule or routine. I do backup, but I am definitely lax compared with others around here, mostly because my backups are not automated. My backups are on a conventional drive inserted to external carrier whenever (like today sounds great!). USB memory has grown so cheap that I can buy another stick and backup to something that can be placed in a safer location.

Right now for me, local backup seems satisfactory using Time Machine to two separate external drives. I'm currently trying to come up with a cloud-based solution for photos. It seems to me that a lot of photos I have or will eventually have scanned in really may not fall into a "must have/keep at all cost!" category, so trimming down what really gets saved off-site could help. Ideally, I want it done automatically on a regular basis (a "cron" job, in Unix-speak).

 

[SmallCityDave]

Great information.

 

[CaptTom]

On the question of old data "tagged" to images being ported to new software, to my knowledge there are two non-proprietary ways. I know the file formats (like JPEG) can store data like lat/long coordinates, camera used, date/time taken, and a whole bunch of other parameters.

Less used, but available, are file "forks" (Mac) or "alternate data streams" (Windows.) Basically, the directory structure can hold other data for each file, without changing the original file. I've actually used apps which use this capability, but I get the sense it's not common.

The point is, knowing how the app stores all the "extra" stuff like tags, comments, categories, etc. should go a long way toward knowing if it's portable to another app someday.

That seems like it would be an important consideration. The investment in all that organizing and tagging is pretty large, and I'd hate to be locked into one proprietary system, and at the mercy of one vendor.

 

[mountainsoft]

For organizing my images, I don't use software. I just organize them by date in folders with names like "2017 photos", or "scans from 1948-1975". Then inside those folders I have subfolders such as "2017_01_31", and so on.

Same here. I have folders for each year 2018, 2017, etc. going back to 2000. From there I have folders for each decade 1990's, 1980's, etc. since I don't have as many of those.

Then I name each file with the following format, so they sort chronologically in each folder:

YYYY-MM-DD HHMMSS - Description

I use a program I wrote several years ago to move photos from my cameras SD card to the photos folder on my hard drive. It extracts the date and time information from the EXIF data in the photo and renames the photo file using the format above. Then I go back and add the description to the photo file name as needed.

With thousands of photos per year, I don't bother describing each photo in exact detail. I just describe them by event like "Trip to Hawaii" or "Hiking at Silver Falls", or "Zoo Lights".

I also copy many of our favorite photos to a second "Screensaver" folder so they can be displayed on my monitor when I'm not using the computer.

For processing my images to improve their quality, crop, change size, and so on, I use Paint Shop Pro

I still use Paint Shop Pro version 4.14 for most of my simple photo editing work. It's simple, fast, and I'm familiar with it. 90% of the time it does everything I need.

If I need to adjust colors, clean up noise, or other more sophisticated tasks I use PhotoShop Elements 6.0 that came with one of my old scanners.

Still, the vast majority of our photos are point, shoot, and file. I almost never do any editing unless I'm needing to make a print or something, which is very rare.

 

[steelyman]

The point is, knowing how the app stores all the "extra" stuff like tags, comments, categories, etc. should go a long way toward knowing if it's portable to another app someday.

That seems like it would be an important consideration. The investment in all that organizing and tagging is pretty large, and I'd hate to be locked into one proprietary system, and at the mercy of one vendor.

I think you are exactly right about this. It's not straightforward to find out what differs between software that works with your data. The software I'm using has nice side panels that you can open for an image to display metadata and the category under which it falls (is it contained within the image file, additional tags, extra stuff stored in an area, like a database, defined by and maintained by the software but not necessarily standardized).

Another person mentioned exiftool as helpful to examine what's actually contained in (and hence transported with) a specific file. It's good to have handy.

My hope is to separate these things out (within the file/directory structure) as cleanly as possible but I think I'll need more experience, trials, and so on.

Most likely, a lot of this doesn't matter in routine practice but forewarned is forearmed.

 

[MRG]

I think you are exactly right about this. It's not straightforward to find out what differs between software that works with your data. The software I'm using has nice side panels that you can open for an image to display metadata and the category under which it falls (is it contained within the image file, additional tags, extra stuff stored in an area, like a database, defined by and maintained by the software but not necessarily standardized).

Another person mentioned exiftool as helpful to examine what's actually contained in (and hence transported with) a specific file. It's good to have handy.

My hope is to separate these things out (within the file/directory structure) as cleanly as possible but I think I'll need more experience, trials, and so on.

Most likely, a lot of this doesn't matter in routine practice but forewarned is forearmed.

As a vendor we loved lockin. Not that I've ever seen it done. [emoji111]

 

[steelyman]

Perfect!!! Or "1964 steelybaby". I'd trust a handwritten date on the back of the photo as long as you look about the right age for that date. Well, unless you are pretty sure it is wrong. It's such a judgment call. I did correct some dates that my relatives put on the backs of photos but only when I was sure they were just guesses and incorrect.

Another aside on this that you (W2R) might find amusing: while flipping through the box of goodies, my sibling yanked out a b&w photo from wayyyy back. Very old-looking, as if it is from when poses were held for a while. They said, “Oh my God. It’s Steely in drag!!!” (using my name of course).

It was of a woman in period dress (e.g. a babushka, I think they’re called) with a basket full of fruit and a questionable smile. Likely taken somewhere in the Balkans. It was scanned today and yes indeed, one can detect a familial resemblance!

 

[OldShooter]

A few comments:

Re storing "extra" stuff AFIK there are only two basic approaches: a common database like Lightroom uses, and "sidecar" files, one each associated with an image file. Both have advantages and disadvantages. A common database is great for global searches for keywords, ratings, etc. Sidecar files are great for speed of access and fault tolerance. Sometimes both a database and sidecars are used.

Lightroom is said to use SQLite, which is public domain. This may give someone access to the "extra" stuff but will not necessarily help to understand what it means. Several, maybe all, of the LR-workalike vendors are working on import software for LR information.

Re backup, my images (10,000, maybe) are on a Synology NAS, with RAID/Mirrored drives. So I am pretty immune to hardware problems. Theft, fire, etc. not so much. Every few months (not often enough, I know) I back the Synology data to a SATA drive that normally lives in my fire-resistant gun safe.

re naming, I use a hybrid. Travel photos are in folders with names like "Sicily_2019" with subfolders by date. Other stuff is in folders with names like "2012_Bob_Murphy_Landscape_Class" with images organized underneath as appropriate. For me, looking for travel pictures by destination is much faster than trying to remember what year we went.

 

[W2R]

Another aside on this that you (W2R) might find amusing: while flipping through the box of goodies, my sibling yanked out a b&w photo from wayyyy back. Very old-looking, as if it is from when poses were held for a while. They said, “Oh my God. It’s Steely in drag!!!” (using my name of course).

It was of a woman in period dress (e.g. a babushka, I think they’re called) with a basket full of fruit and a questionable smile. Likely taken somewhere in the Balkans. It was scanned today and yes indeed, one can detect a familial resemblance!

Yes, that was funny and it's the kind of thing that can sometimes happen. I have a similar photo that looks more like my dear F than any photos I have taken of him - - but actually it isn't him. It's somebody a hundred years ago whose resemblance to F is uncanny.

 

[walkinwood]

For example, digiKam (not a plug, it’s just what I’m using) creates a few databases specific to that package. That’s where things like some tags, captions, deltas, and so on are stored. The location of the DBs on the filesystem can be independent of the actual image files. Right now in my case that’s not how it is but I’ll soon move things around to achieve that.

This may not be a big deal if digiKam keeps or allows you to export your tags, captions etc in the iptc fields of .jpgs. I've noticed that LR will place tags into iptc fields when you export images.


I would test it. Quicken allows you to export data, but it is very difficult to use that data well in any other software package.

 

[steelyman]

This may not be a big deal if digiKam keeps or allows you to export your tags, captions etc in the iptc fields of .jpgs. I've noticed that LR will place tags into iptc fields when you export images.


I would test it. Quicken allows you to export data, but it is very difficult to use that data well in any other software package.

Big deal or not, it helps to know and test, as you suggest. DK works with exif, iptc, makernotes, xmp. A quick test just now with a meaningless photo - a detached gutter, how memorable! - appears to be applied to the file. This was a JPG, imported from an iPod Touch.

 

[steelyman]

There are probably many articles like this, but this is a basic intro to these puzzling standards/acronyms about metadata that may be of interest:

http://www.myphotocentral.com/articles/exif-iptc-xmp-metadata/

 

[misanman]

I use a program I wrote several years ago to move photos from my cameras SD card to the photos folder on my hard drive. It extracts the date and time information from the EXIF data in the photo and renames the photo file using the format above. Then I go back and add the description to the photo file name as needed.

I use Winsome File Renamer for this purpose. Was very useful for combining photos from my phone, our camera, and BIL's camera in preparation for photo book creation. We often took pictures at the same relative time but the native file names for the three devices were in different formats. I was able to rename they all to a standard format that included the date and time. Then we could easily pick the best photos and discard the rest.