Moose Loc: North Carolina

I'm interested in finding a fairly simple relational database software product to organize my photos. I'm aware of Picasa and PSE11 organizers, but I believe they both copy the images with tags. The database I would like to create would only have pointers to the photo images, thus not creating a duplicate image file, but a much smaller and shorter file. The pointers could be anything you choose, like date, subject, event, etc. When you want to see all the images with Flowers, you would go to the database and enter Flowers and the software would extract all the images that had been tagged as Flowers. Again, the objective is not to duplicate the images. Is there such an animal out there? If so, I'd love to hear from you and your opinion on how easy it is to use.
BTW, I currently use my Windows file options of date created, and some with just event.
Thanks in advance.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Lightroom by Adobe.

The best database program available for keeping your images organized. It does not make dups of your current images.

Moose Loc: North Carolina

Since I've already have PSE and that took some time to learn, I've held off on getting Lightroom. However, if something else doesn't come up I'll have to bite the bullet.
Thanks JeepDaddy for your prompt reply.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

There is the knee jerk response!

However there are several companies offering photo cataloging software. Most offer free demos. You can use google to find them and try out the one that suits your needs best.

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

Microsoft Access will do all you want, but it will not do it as well as Lightroom.

Both are baaed on SQL databases, but with Access you will have to design the tables, Queries and output reports. Lightroom is ready made for the Photographer.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

You've just described Lightroom.

Moose Loc: North Carolina

Thank you all for your comments. I definitely have to check out Lightroom.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

I recommend Adobe Bridge.
1) it is not a database but a pointer system to your files on disk. It tracks photos just like your operating system but it is specifically designed as a pointer system for photos. You can organize your photos and review them easily. You can grade them by a star system andadd other info. You can click on them to enlarge them you can review your photos in a small thumbnail large thumbnail(you can actually change the size of the preview and you can also put them in a rotator to move through images very quickly to find he ones you want.

2) why I don't use light room.. It's a database. It actually imports the image. It's keeps the images under an Adobe propietery format. You can't view them with anything but Lightroom. This is a common tactic by software developers to lock you into a product. The native operating system (both MAC and Windows)file system is very efficient. You don't have to keep one image that you originally took and another in a propietery format.
I understand why many use light room...because it's a simple editor and easy to learn.

As far as an editor Camera RAW does pretty much the same thing as Light room. The learning curves is less in Lightroom but not near the capabilities of PS CC. I exclusively use camera Raw with photoshop CC. Being in software developement for more than 30 years makes me a little bit biased on putting my pictures in any proprietary database that I will have to retrieve images from.

Maybe someone can tell me if you can get your images out of light room if you no longer have light room? If you loose Adobe bridge you still will have the file organization structure intact to acess the images you created in Adobe bridge.

Regards,
Russ

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Russ, I believe this is completely incorrect (beyond the simple fact that it is a database). LR does not import any images - all the images are "referenced" - that is, they are stored on your disk in the organizational hierarchy you create and LR merely points to them and maintains the file of the editing instructions (since it is a non-destructive editor). Aperture is the same thing (when the files are referenced - with Aperture you can actually have the image files imported into the Library but LR does not offer that option in the first place).

The Adobe format to which your refer, DNG, is also not a requirement, but rather an option that you can simply not select when you import images into LR.

As for seeing your images without LR: since the original raw file is not touched when you make adjustments in LR, then it's true if you open the image file without using LR you will only see the original rendering (i.e. - no cropping, red eye removal, rotation, etc.). But the same was true of Aperture - if you open a raw file in the Mac finder without using Aperture the image rendered is the original one without edits - this is the meaning of a non-destructive editor in the first place.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Correct! And even the .dng file is not stored in the database it is simply another file with a different extension. I find storing dngs of little value. I would suggest Palepics and any others that think incorrectly about LR check out http://digital-photography-school.com/understanding-the-lightroom-catalog-and-file-management-system/

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

I use Adobe Bridge all the time. Only go to Photoshop occasionally. Camera RAW is available in Bridge and can do batch editing. Very nice program but as mentioned, it is NOT a database.

mainshipper Loc: Hernando, Florida

It's amazing how many folks bash Lightroom because they don't understand what it is or can do. I have used it since version 2 and find it to be an amazingly simple portal for ingesting, managing, manipulating, and exporting the many shots that I take.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I use PSE 11. It does not copy photos for catalogue purposes. It simply records their location, associated data, and creates a small thumbnail for initial viewing. And it adds other data such as editing data, tags, events, et cetera that you can create with the program. Even when you do a backup it only backs up the data base, not the photos themselves. At least that's my understanding.

Ralloh Loc: Ohio

I just use Windows Explorer. I set up meaningful folder names like My Pictures/Nature/Flowers, to use your example. I rename all my photo files with the date and a number like 090515-1. Under the Flowers folder I create a sub-folder called 2015. I "tag" all my photos with at least one keyword. In this case it might be flower:purple. If at some time I want to find a particular purple flower photo, I just do a Windows Explorer search with those two words. Any that have them will come up as thumbs with the file name underneath. I then know it is in the 2015 folder under the Flowers folder. Even if there were hundreds, the file names are in order so it's easy to zero in on it from any image program I'm using. It really is a simple system with no confusions at all, and, no extra programs needed.

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

I'm using Windows 7.
In Windows Explorer, when I highlight a photo, at the bottom of the Explorer, the Exif data for that image will show, as well as a small thumbprint of the image.
The second item on the exif list is 'Tags: Add a tag'.
Put your cursor in front of Add and start typing: the semi-colon for adding more than one tag is alread there.
To find the images with specific tags, navigate to your photo folder, type the tag-name in the Search box on the top right, and hit Enter.
Just be aware that if your tag should happen to be part of a file name, these will show up as well.