Managing Lightroom Catalogs (Page 5): Easily lost or broken if stepped on. Temporary secondary storage perhaps, but I would not consider a USB stick for permanent storage, neither...

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

collhart wrote:

Off topic. What are your thoughts regarding "Sticks" for photo storage only?

Easily lost or broken if stepped on. Temporary secondary storage perhaps, but I would not consider a USB stick for permanent storage, neither would I consider using an SD card for permanent storage. Too easy to have physical damage corrupt access in my opinion.

I prefer traditional storage, which also includes multiple backups for important data.

FWIW: I keep my images stored on an external spinning disk, backed up incrementally every hour to another external spinning disk, monthly I do a full backup to another external spinning disk that gets kept in a fireproof/waterproof box, and I also maintain copies of my original files to cloud storage using Amazon prime.

The incremental backup provides almost a full years worth of backup on line, the cloud storage is unlimited, and the monthly is basically a snapshot in time of the day it is run - a complete full current backup.

Dano Loc: North Carolina

i completely agree about USB sticks - great for temporary storage and transfers, but too risky for any type of permanent storage IMHO.

I'm still trying to get workflow and cataloging straight in my head. I typically do a high level culling of a days shoot to delete trash images using a basic preview program. I'm assuming I should now be importing directly into LR and do the culling and deleting there. But if that's the case, when and what size previews do I make? Smaller previews seem to make more sense for culling and speeding up import, but then 1:1's would need to be created for manipulation. Doing 1:1's during import would eliminate having to do them later, but seem to be overkill if most will be deleted during culling. Could you share your process?

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Dano wrote:

i completely agree about USB sticks - great for te... (show quote)

I import directly from SD card into Lightroom and build 1:1 previews to save time when I start editing.

I also import as raw (NEF) and after deleting the bad shots convert to DNG and perform editing/adjustments after dng conversion. I used to convert on import, but then after waiting for the conversion process I was only deleting some of them, so I figured switch to deletion THEN conversion ;)

I figure the time spent on 1:1 previews reduces the waiting when I start editing for 1:1 for each image as it is edited.

As for your workflow, using a viewer to go thru images then only import what you know you will be working on is fine.

Copying from SD card to a disk folder, then viewing/culling and then importing into Lightroom is a valid workflow. It is what you are comfortable with and sounds like not a time waster - better to cull out the non editable shots before editing any.

I usually do not delete any images from my SD card until after I see that they have imported into Lightroom - then I format my card in camera.

Dano Loc: North Carolina

Dngallagher wrote:

I usually do not delete any images from my SD card until after I see that they have imported into Lightroom - then I format my card in camera.

Great idea to not erase the card... provides a good failsafe in case something goes wrong importing or during initial culling.

Is it significantly better to erase/format SD cards in the camera rather that on the computer? I use both, and both have worked fine for me, but in-camera seems like it would provide a more compatible or reliable solution.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Dano wrote:

Great idea to not erase the card... provides a good failsafe in case something goes wrong importing or during initial culling.

Is it significantly better to erase/format SD cards in the camera rather that on the computer? I use both, and both have worked fine for me, but in-camera seems like it would provide a more compatible or reliable solution.

Yes, always do your card formatting in camera. After you are sure your image is safe in at least 2 places.

Incidentally, my workflow is nearly identical to dgallaghers except I do not convert to DNG but leave my base file in my camera's raw format. I do not use LR for downloading but apple image capture instead. I do some culling prior to import but most on first look within LR where I can do comparisons more easily. Culling for me is on ongoing process, not a single event, and varies for each of us according to our own approach.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

minniev wrote:

Yes, always do your card formatting in camera. Aft... (show quote)

Agree 100%, format in camera - always best to format in the device being used, or use the official format program from the SD association.

http://www.sdcard.org/downloads/formatter_4/index.html

I always format in camera.

Dano Loc: North Carolina

minniev wrote:

Yes, always do your card formatting in camera. After you are sure your image is safe in at least 2 places.

Makes perfect sense!

Dano Loc: North Carolina

Dngallagher wrote:

Agree 100%, format in camera - always best to format in the device being used, or use the official format program from the SD association.

http://www.sdcard.org/downloads/formatter_4/index.html

I always format in camera.

This is great. Thanks. Just because I've never had a problem doesn't mean it's the right way. And you know it'll always blow up during the most important event!

dononelson Loc: Colorado

Searcher wrote:

I am always open to new ideas and suggestions on "category storage" and find yours interesting.

Suppose you are on a landscape shoot and tied in with that your finished images include Landscape > rocks, Landscape > Trees and some Landscape + Metal. Do you then put the Landscape + Metal into two separate catalogues?

Nah, I'd put it in a catalog that reminds me of the shoot. So, from your description, I might put it in my landscape catalog, tag the photos with a "metal" keyword that apply, tag others as "rocks", and might also include them in a separate "industrial" catalog. The beauty is that the photo isn't duplicated - it's just cataloged, so can be accessed either way.

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

dononelson wrote:

Nah, I'd put it in a catalog that reminds me of the shoot. So, from your description, I might put it in my landscape catalog, tag the photos with a "metal" keyword that apply, tag others as "rocks", and might also include them in a separate "industrial" catalog. The beauty is that the photo isn't duplicated - it's just cataloged, so can be accessed either way.

I can see the benefits of your system, and a few albeit minor drawbacks.

The bit I don't understand is that if the image is in Catalog A and B and (as in the example) Catalog C, what happens if you edit the image in the three catalogues?

I think I have just answered my own question, you don't use xmp files, just store the edits in the various catalogues. Have I made a correct assumption?

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

dononelson wrote:

Nah, I'd put it in a catalog that reminds me of the shoot. So, from your description, I might put it in my landscape catalog, tag the photos with a "metal" keyword that apply, tag others as "rocks", and might also include them in a separate "industrial" catalog. The beauty is that the photo isn't duplicated - it's just cataloged, so can be accessed either way.

Excuse me for jumping in, but why not use 1 catalog and several collections? Seems it would be much easier and faster access. (No need to close a catalog and open another.)

Mary Kate Loc: NYC

Dngallagher wrote:

Easily lost or broken if stepped on. Temporary se... (show quote)

Thanks for your input. I have had 3...3 portable hard drives for backup. All "name" brands. All sit in a drawer in my desk. Just thinking of another solution to my problem.Once again...thanks

dononelson Loc: Colorado

Dngallagher wrote:

Excuse me for jumping in, but why not use 1 catalog and several collections? Seems it would be much easier and faster access. (No need to close a catalog and open another.)

Depends on how many photos you have. I have upwards of 9,500 across four catalogs - putting them all in one does get a bit unwieldy.

dononelson Loc: Colorado

Searcher wrote:

I can see the benefits of your system, and a few albeit minor drawbacks.

The bit I don't understand is that if the image is in Catalog A and B and (as in the example) Catalog C, what happens if you edit the image in the three catalogues?

I think I have just answered my own question, you don't use xmp files, just store the edits in the various catalogues. Have I made a correct assumption?

Yep, that's right. If I do want to share across catalogs, I'd use the sidecar method.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

dononelson wrote:

Depends on how many photos you have. I have upwards of 9,500 across four catalogs - putting them all in one does get a bit unwieldy.

Interesting, I have over 31,000 in one catalog, I find the ability to sort/search by metadata is very easy. I would suspect that 31,000 is not really that big a number, and the database is probably good for many times that number before a slowdown will be seen.

I tend to be heavy on the keywording on my images and do not worry about the file structure, preferring to let Lightroom manage the disk file structure for me.

I make use of collections for grouping.

So far results of searches/sorts are pretty much instantaneous.