# Question about organizing



## jkrm (Jul 14, 2011)

I have finally gotten to the point where I need to think about organizing by metadata rather than with my folder structure, as many on this forum recommend.  Today I was trying to find the photos of a trip to California that I made with my son.  First, I couldn't remember the year, and my system organizes by year.  Then, I thought the folder was named "Trip to California" but it turned out to be "California Trip", so even when I had the right year folder I was looking too far down and missed it!

But I immediately ran into a problem.  Sure, I can keyword photos by where I took them, like Indiana, Nebraska, etc.  But how do I structure keywords so that I can easily find ALL the photos from this trip?  I thought of using the keyword "trip" and "california", but that doesn't quite do it - what about the photos in Indiana that I took on this trip?  Or I could have a hierarchical structure with "california" a sub to "destination" or something like that.  Seems kludgey, though.

Then I thought about events, like birthdays.  When my son John has a birthday I could use the keywords "John" and "birthday".  But there will be photos taken on his birthday that have his sister Megan in them, so that when I try to find photos of Megan's birthday by searching on keywords "Megan" and "birthday", I'll pick up photos from John's birthday!  Not at all what I want.  And what about graduations, confirmations, and other events?

Since lots of you seem to be organizing by keyword I am sure there is a simple solution to this.  Maybe I am just overthinking it.  But I am looking forward to hearing some advice.


----------



## DavidHB (Jul 14, 2011)

The first point is that keywords are not a substitute for good,  systematic organisation of folders. There are two reasons for this. The  first you have already discovered; if the folder structure is a mess,  keywords will not always get you out of it. The second is that you will  very probably access images from a number of applications, and by no  means all applications use  keywords.

So I'd actually start by  tidying up your folder system. Your organisation by year is a good  start. I'd continue that at the next level also. Whatever the folder  title may be, prefix it with a sortable date or date range (in the form 20110714 or  110714 for today's date). Most people either know dates (such as family  birthdays), or can use them to narrow down the possibilities ("that must  have been in September 2003 or 2004").

 Dates are usually best for  identifying pictures related to known events. In Lightroom, you could  easily create a smart collection covering the dates of your trip, for  example. I actually start all file as well as folder names with the  date, and I very rarely rename files so that they retain their identity  (and therefore traceability) within the data  structure.

Keywords are good for  finding images of, say, a particular person or place when you don't know  (or don't care) the date on which you took them. If you are trying to  find "that picture of Mary by the window", using the 'Mary' keyword as a  filter is an obvious start. Whether you then want to do further  filtering, or, say, add particular pictures to a collection, will depend  on what you are trying to do.

To  summarise:

getting the folder organisation right gives you the best start, whatever else you do to organise your images;
the most effective system will often use several techniques (including keywords) in combination; no one technique will do everything you need.
I hope this helps.

David


----------



## dj_paige (Jul 14, 2011)

DavidHB said:


> The first point is that keywords are not a substitute for good,  systematic organisation of folders.



Disagree. Keywords and other metadata are a complete and superior method of organization, in my opinion, and your folders can be anything at that point, and you will always be able to find your photos.



DavidHB said:


> So I'd actually start by  tidying up your folder system.



Disagree. If you are going to put the energy into keywords and other metadata, then don't waste your time tidying up your folder system, it doesn't buy you anything, because you can use keywords and other metadata. Let Lightroom do the hard work of remembering where you photos are stored, so you don't have to.



DavidHB said:


> Your organisation by year is a good  start. I'd continue that at the next level also. Whatever the folder  title may be, prefix it with a sortable date or date range (in the form 20110714 or  110714 for today's date). Most people either know dates (such as family  birthdays), or can use them to narrow down the possibilities ("that must  have been in September 2003 or 2004").



The original poster apparently had done this with his folders, and it didn't help.


----------



## dj_paige (Jul 14, 2011)

jkrm said:


> Then I thought about events, like birthdays.  When my son John has a birthday I could use the keywords "John" and "birthday".  But there will be photos taken on his birthday that have his sister Megan in them, so that when I try to find photos of Megan's birthday by searching on keywords "Megan" and "birthday", I'll pick up photos from John's birthday!  Not at all what I want.  And what about graduations, confirmations, and other events?



Either using the Filter Bar, or a smart collection, you can search for only photos that have BOTH keywords "John" and "Birthday", and you won't get photos of Megan's birthday, because those photos would not meet the search criteria.



> But I immediately ran into a problem.  Sure, I can keyword photos by  where I took them, like Indiana, Nebraska, etc.  But how do I structure  keywords so that I can easily find ALL the photos from this trip?  I  thought of using the keyword "trip" and "california", but that doesn't  quite do it - what about the photos in Indiana that I took on this trip?   Or I could have a hierarchical structure with "california" a sub to  "destination" or something like that.  Seems kludgey, though.



You can create a keyword "California Trip 2011" — and also assign those same photos the keyword "California" or "Indiana" or whatever. These keywords go in two different hierarchies ... "California Trip 2011" goes into the hierarchy of major events in your life; the keywords "California" or "Indiana" go into a geographic hierarchy.


----------



## jkrm (Jul 14, 2011)

Thanks to both of you.  I think that I have a pretty decent folder arrangement, though I have been inconsistent about using a date prefix in the name of a folder.  For some years I did that, and in others I decided it was easier to remember to look for a folder called, say, "Hike up Old Rag Mountain" than to try and remember when exactly we took that hike.  I guess no system is perfect.

dj_paige - I appreciate your suggestion about dealing with the birthday issue, but I don't think it solves the problem, which I guess I did not make clear.  Suppose I take a photo of John and Megan on John's birthday.  Later, if I do a search on "Megan" AND "Birthday" in the hopes of finding photos of Megan's birthday, I am going to pick up that photo that I took at John's birthday, as well.  (But it just occurred to me that I can filter further using dates - I guess that's the solution.)

I like the idea of creating keywords for major events.  I could also try a hybrid - search for photos taken in California, find one from that trip, then go to the folder containing that picture, and I've got it.

So now maybe I have too many choices.  :razz:


----------



## erro (Jul 14, 2011)

Keywords can be setup hierarchicaly in many different hierarchies. I do this, and I differentiate between the person "John" and the event "Johns birthday". For example.

I have a few top level keyword "categories":
- event
- persons
- places
- and so on....

Under each I have more sub-categories and keywords:
- event
- - birthdays
- - - Johns birthday 2009
- - - Johns birthday 2010
- - - Johns birthday 2011
- - - Kates birtday 2010
- - - Kates birtday 2011
- persons
- - family
- - - mom
- - - dad
- - - John
- - - Kate
- - friends
- - - John
- - - Kate
- - others
- - - John
- - - Kate
- - no-one
- - unknown
- places
- - Asia
- - - Thailand
- - - - Bangkok
- - - - - Petronas twin towers
- - - - - China town
- - Europe
- - - France
- - - - Paris
- - - - - Eiffel tower
- - - - - Notre dame
- - - Sweden
- - - - Stockholm
- - - - - Royal castle
- - - - - at home

So, a photo taken at Johns birtday, at home in Stockholm, including my mom, my brother John, my friend Kate, and Kates friend John (whom I don't know) would have these tags:
- event
- - birthdays
- - - Johns birthday 2009
- - - Johns birthday 2010
*- - - Johns birthday 2011
*- - - Kates birtday 2010
- - - Kates birtday 2011
- persons
- - family
*- - - mom*
- - - dad
*- - - John*
- - - Kate
- - friends
- - - John
*- - - Kate*
- - others
*- - - John*
- - - Kate
- - no-one
- - unknown
- places
- - Asia
- - - Thailand
- - - - Bangkok
- - - - - Petronas twin towers
- - - - - China town
- - Europe
- - - France
- - - - Paris
- - - - - Eiffel tower
- - - - - Notre dame
- - - Sweden
- - - - Stockholm
- - - - - Royal castle
*- - - - - at home
*
The photo would also inherit all the corresponding parent tags (event>birhdays, persons>family, persons>friends, persons>others, places>Europe>Sweden>Stockholm)

This way I can see all photos where my brother John appears, or all photos taken in Bangkok, or all photos taken anywhere in Europe, or photos where anyone of my friends apper, or..... you get it?


----------



## jkrm (Jul 14, 2011)

I do get it, Robert.  Thank you for the long, well-thought-out example.


----------



## jliu (Jul 14, 2011)

Wow.  I had no idea that LR keywords can be setup hierarchicaly in many different hierarchies.
This should be a topic that Victoria should add to her Missing FAQ book.

Is there a way to submit "suggestions"?


----------



## DavidHB (Jul 14, 2011)

Well, I'm sticking to my guns, but in the friendly spirit of the forum, I hope .



dj_paige said:


> Keywords and other metadata are a complete and superior method of organization, in my opinion, and your folders can be anything at that point, and you will always be able to find your photos.


Of course it depends on what you mean by 'complete' and 'superior'. But I can think of no meaning of those words in the present connection that I could agree with. I think that keywords can only become more than an ancillary tool when, as in a full time professional context, the resources and skills are available to operate a controlled vocabulary in a systematic and disciplined fashion.

The difficulty for most amateurs (and I hold up my hand too) is that the time and effort required to do keywording properly can seem like an impossible mountain to climb when you come to the task with thousands of existing images to be dealt with. And, as the OP rightly observes, it is really hard to know, beyond rather obvious cases, it is rather difficult to know how to create a keywording system that suits one's particular needs. In short, I believe that, for many if not most users, keywording, though extremely useful in conjunction with other techniques, is too high risk to be regarded as a complete solution. The beautiful example of a controlled vocabulary that erro gave us bespeaks a level of skill that can only be acquired with effort and experience, and the typically rather steep learning curve involved is a risk issue for new users. It is possible to 'buy in' controlled vocabularies, of course, but, having looked several times at that option, I have never found that it met my particular need.



dj_paige said:


> If you are going to put the energy into keywords and other metadata, then don't waste your time tidying up your folder system, it doesn't buy you anything, because you can use keywords and other metadata. Let Lightroom do the hard work of remembering where you photos are stored, so you don't have to.


Actually, I'd turn this argument pretty much on its head. Somewhat obviously, keywords are pointers to data, not containers for it. The storage of the data is handled by the file system, and any sensible data handling (including, of course, archiving and backup as well as retrieval) will require an organised file system. The writers of Lightroom have recognised this, and have provided for it. So getting the file/folder organisation right is needed in any case. If, when you do that, the system you adopt helps you to find images (as my date-based system certainly does for me), that added benefit comes at no extra cost. So I still believe that getting the file system right should, for many people (including the OP as he describes his situation), come logically before an all out assault on the keywording task. I would however advise those same people to add at least basic  keywords to any images they import from now on, as that will make  full-scale keywording that much easier later. And that is also what I do,  though, as it happens, I don't use Lightroom for the job.



dj_paige said:


> The original poster apparently had done this with his folders, and it didn't help.


Well, he can speak for himself, but that's not at all how I read his posts. As he describes it, he started with year-based folders at the high level, but then had no consistent system for storing sub-folders within those year folders. My  point was that consistency throughout the file/folder system (which, if  done on download, can be achieved at little or no cost) makes it easier  to find and manage files. As I experience this benefit on a daily basis,  it would be rather hard to convince me that it is not  real.

The main point is that different people will  need to use different techniques (in different combinations) to meet  their different needs. And, the more one can reduce the perceived cost  and complexity of the various techniques, the more useful they are  likely to be. What worried me about your post was the use of the words  'superior' and 'complete' in combination: it came across, if I may say  so, as rather more dogmatic than I would ever like to be in advising another  user. Perhaps that was also a fault of my own post; if so, I beg your  and the OP's pardon. The one point we can surely agree on is that we are  here to help each other.

David


----------



## erro (Jul 14, 2011)

DavidHB said:


> The beautiful example of a controlled vocabulary that erro gave us bespeaks a level of skill that can only be acquired with effort and experience, and the typically rather steep learning curve involved is a risk issue for new users. It is possible to 'buy in' controlled vocabularies, of course, but, having looked several times at that option, I have never found that it met my particular need.



Well, thanks, I guess.... 

I am just an amateur hobby photographer myself. My keyword list and hierarchy is something I have come up with myself over the years.


*WARNING: Long text ahead!!!*


I started organizing my photos just using folders and filenames in Windows explorer, but as time went I realized I needed something better. I started googling and reading about image organization, DAM and lots of things. In the end I decided for Lightroom, and I haven't regretted that choice.

So, to start with I had maybe 20.000 images without keywords, stored in folders by year and month. I soon decided that I would use LR's built-in import storing facility to instead use YYYY\MM\DD. I probably could just as well have sticked to my YYYY\MM structure, but I decided to add the \DD also. Doesn't really matter.

Then I set out on the keywording journey. A journey that is not finished yet. And maybe it will never be 100% finished. But I make small stops along the way all the time, finishing small parts. That's where hierarchies and smart collections help me.

To start with I used a flat keywords structure. I soon realized this was not very efficient. If nothing else, the keyword listy becomes hard to manage when there are hundreds or thousands of keywords in a long list. So, time to start some hierarchies. At the same time I came across "the 5 W's":
- who?
- what?
- where?
- when?
- why?

The 5 W's are used by some journalists to summarize what is important in a story or a photo. They want to describe the who, what, where, when and why of something. This idea appealed to me so I started my hierarchy based on that. When is already taken care of by EXIF placing date and time in the metadata automatically. Now I just needed four top-level "categories":
- people (the who: who is in the photo?)
- subject (the what: what is the photo of? What is the motif/subject?)
- location (the where: where is the photo taken?)
- reason (the why: why is the photo taken?)

So far I have started populating the people and location categories. I'm not fully done yet, but almost there. I haven't even started on the subject and reason categories (mainly because thay are harder to describe).

The people hierarchy started of as a flat hierarchy under the main "people" keyword. I soon realized this would be far too many people in one huge list, so I quickly started using sub-categories:
- people
- my family
- - person A
- - person B
- my wifes family
- - person A
- - person B
- collegues
- - person A
- - person B
- friends
- - person A
- - person B
etc......
As a side-effect this allows me to quickly view all photos with anyone from my wifes family for example.

The location hierarchy actually started out not as a hierarchy. To begin with I used the IPTC location fields: Country, State, City, Sublocation. But I soon realized that it was a lot of double work having to type text in four fields for every location. Quadruple work actually. So I switched over to a keyword hierarchy instead using this structure:
- location
- - continent
- - - country
- - - - county
- - - - - municipality
- - - - - - city
- - - - - - - part of city
- - - - - - - - even more detailed location if necessary
The degree of detail levels depend on how many photos from each location I have. The more photos, the more detailed.

The switchover from IPTC location to keyword location was fairly simple as I could filter for different places in IPTC and batch assign them the proper keywords. Now I have a hierarchy like this:
- location
- - Asia
- - - Malaysia
- - - - Kuala Lumpur
- - - - - city center
- - - - - airport
- - - - Langkawi
- - - - - Kuah
- - - - - - city center
- - - - - - harbour
- - - - - Tanjung Rhu
- - - - - - beach
- - - - - - mangrove swamp
- - - Thailand
- - - - Bangkok
- - - - - Bang rak
- - - - - - Sathon pier
- - - - - Chatuchak
- - - - - - weekend market
- - - - - Silom
- - - - - - hotel Tawana
- - - - Krabi province
- - - - - Koh Lanta
- - - - - Krabi
- - - - - - Ao nang
- - - - - - - beach
- - - - - - - village
- - - - - - Koh poda
- - - - - - Krabi town
- - Europe
- - - France
- - - - Paris
- - - - - 1er arrondissement
- - - - - - Ile de la cité
- - - - - - Louvre
- - - - - 5eme arrondissement
- - - - - - Quartier latin
- - - - - 6eme arrondissement
- - - - - - Jardin de Luxembourg
- - - Iceland
- - - - Blue lagoon
- - - - Geysir
- - - - Hraunfossar
- - - - Reykjavik
- - - - - city center
- - - - - airport
- - - - Skogafoss
- - - - Thingvellir
- - - Sweden
- - - - Dalarna county
- - - - - Avesta municipality
- - - - - - Avesta town
- - - - - Ludvika municipality
- - - - - - Fredriksberg town
- - - - - - Ludvika town
- - - - - - - city center
- - - - - - - Gatefall
- - - - - - - Highmountain
- - - - Kalmar county
- - - - - Emmaboda municipality
- - - - - - Boda town
- - - - - - Johansfors
- - - - - Nybro municipality
- - - - - - Nybro
- - - - - - - city center
- - - - - - Orrefors
- - - - - - - glassworks
... and so on ...

The initial setup of the hierarchy took some time of course. But I did it bit by bit, as needed.

The "beauty" of all this comes when I mix it with smart collections. The main categories are actually named:
- ¤location
- ¤people

I have two smart collections searching for photos that are missing those keywords. If I haven't assigned any location, that photo will not have the ¤location keyword. I use the ¤-symbol to indicate a "category" as opposed to a "proper" keyword. This makes it possible for me to assign location and people at will, to any photo, at any time, while still keeping track of things.

Location is fairly simple since any photo can have only one location. People on the other hand.... A photo can include many people, only one person, no persons at all, and perhaps unknown persons. I have cared for those as well:
- ¤people
- - _no-one
- - _unknown
- - - my family
- - - my wifes family
... and so on ....

The two special cases no-one and unknown also get tags, in order to allow me to keep track of things. I can't just NOT tag a photo where there are no people. Then it would appear as if I haven't evaluated that photo with regards to people. By tagging it with no-one I will know that there is in fact no people in the photo, and it won't show up in my smart collection looking for photos untagged for people (keywords doesn't contain ¤people).

As I said, I haven't even started looking into tagging the "what" and "why" of the photos. But when I do that, I will surely use hierarchies in the same way, with smart collections allowing me to keep track of what I've done and not done.

Phew.... that was a bunch of text. Hopefully someone will get something out of it?


----------



## MarkNicholas (Jul 15, 2011)

I prefer the belt and braces approach. I like have both a well organized folder structure and an extensive key word system. My key word system is almost identical to Roberts.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jul 15, 2011)

My keyword list remains totally flat - no hierarchy whatsoever. Explained here.

John


----------



## DavidHB (Jul 15, 2011)

Erro's long text is a very worthwhile read, and is also a good illustration of my point that building a controlled vocabulary takes skill, care and effort. That's not, of course, sufficient reason for not doing it, but it's a demanding enough task for everyone to make their own individual decisions about the costs, risks and benefits.

My own approach is twofold. Basic keywords and captions (those that are applicable to all the images in a shoot) are applied at download, and there may be some 'tuning', particularly of captions, before the images are imported into Lightroom. In Lightroom itself I tend to use the available keywords, but not to add to them much. The exported files (mostly JPEGs, but some PSD or TIFF files for further editing) go into a separate set of folders which are more subject based (RAW files are organised in a strictly date-based manner), and at that point I use the Photoshop Elements Organiser to keep track of (including adding further keywords to) what is, in effect, the final product. This Organiser has both a hierarchical keyword system and face recognition, and suits me (though it might not suit others as well). To answer an obvious question, I keep file names both date-based and consistent throughout, so it is trivially simple to back-track from subject-based folders to the original RAW files if I need to.

This process of separating the 'production' from the 'consumption' of images is a relatively recent development for me, but it seems to work by creating an implicit 'to do' list; until the exported files are moved to a subject folder, imported into the Organiser and further keywords added as appropriate, the 'production' process is not complete. That said, I fully recognise that this approach could infuriate folk who like to keep everything tightly organised in a single application, and there's nothing inherently wrong in that approach either.

I go along with those who say that effective DAM requires both a good storage system (folder/file structure) and full recognition and recording of content (keywords and titling). It's big job, and it has to be done progressively. In my opinion, getting the file system right is the necessary point of departure, because it is much easier to add keywords to a properly organised set of files than to sort out a jumbled up, even though well keyworded, file store.

David


----------



## jliu (Jul 15, 2011)

Regarding keywords vs folder structure: It's kinda like the debate on "Search vs Sort".  "Gmail vs Yahoo mail".
I think both have valid arguments, and each individual will have their own preferences.
My own inclination is that as your pool of photos gets larger, it will be harder to find stuff without "tagging and searching".

Regarding flat keywords vs hiearchical keywords: again I think it's up to the person.   For myself, I see the benefits of a hierarchy as long as it doesn't get in the way or take too much time.  

And really, I think all of the above debates really focuses on how to get stuff done in the shortest amount of time, being the most efficient.


----------



## clee01l (Jul 15, 2011)

jliu said:


> Regarding keywords vs folder structure: It's kinda like the debate on "Search vs Sort".  "Gmail vs Yahoo mail".
> I think both have valid arguments,...


 The argument for a human readable folder name is only valid if you use the OS to search for files.  And it is not really a debate because the two systems are  If you are using the OS to find files you are missing the potential of LR  Even the OS mfgs recognize the shortcomings of data organised by a file system. This is why a great deal of background computer resources are spent indexing the data on the HD so that you can use the search feature of Finder or Explorer to  find that lost document that contained the word 'aardvark' or that photo that had 'trip' in the name or path. 
I have some albums on Photoshop.com One is located in the folder http://www.photoshop.com/users/cletuslee/albums/c58423444a3145fba6fa0e6405c6c072.  Now I did not assign that folder name.  Photoshop.com just needed to be sure it was located in a folder that was unique.  It's not likely that I will ever get the chance to brows the folder structure of the native OS that hosts my album. Nor should I need to.  People are about to start using the 'cloud' for storage in a big way. Your data will be managed by others like my album is at Photoshop .com or images at Flickr.  Perhaps in 10 years time, you won't even have or manage local storage.  All of that effort trying to organize by folder(path) will then be wasted effort.


----------



## dj_paige (Jul 15, 2011)

DavidHB said:


> because it is much easier to add keywords to a properly organised set of files than to sort out a jumbled up, even though well keyworded, file store.



The mental and physical effort of adding keywords does not change given the two different file structures you mention. Someone could very easily take a jumbled file structure and add a coherent and well-thought out set of keywords to those photos, and then never have to look at the file structure again.


----------



## MarkNicholas (Jul 16, 2011)

In my view keywording is no substitute for a poor folder structure. Afterall if you can't find your photos outside of LR how on earth are you going to be able to import them in the first place, and how can you be sure that you have not missed any !!

A good folder system does make keywording easier. A folder full of random photos would take significantly longer to keyword that a folder of photos taken on a specific day in a specific location and of a specific theme, much much longer !

Keywording is extremely powerful and I would recommend that all LR users do this. As to the degree and sophistication of your keyword system then that is up to you and it can be quite personal. It is also incremental. Once you have a basic keyword system in place it is much easier to develop your system and to make it into a hierarchical system if you wish. I remember in the early days fretting because I had spelt a keyword wrongly in over a 1000 photos. After a couple of minutes of playing around I found out that it took no longer than about 5 seconds to correct them all.


----------



## clee01l (Jul 16, 2011)

MarkNicholas said:


> In my view keywording is no substitute for a poor folder structure. Afterall if you can't find your photos outside of LR how on earth are you going to be able to import them in the first place, and how can you be sure that you have not missed any !!.


 I'll bet Adobe put in a lot of time with focus groups, surveys etc. determining the best folder naming schemes for Lightroom.  It should be no surprise that the choices are all date named schemes and "Roll your own".   Now, in support of your statement, anything other than one of the 'date named' schemes developed with lots of research by Adobe may qualify as a poor folder structure.   What common characteristic that won't be a keyword can you use to develop a folder structure -  Capture Date.

Finding your unedited RAW or JPEG photos outside of Lightroom does you no good unless you can view them. To do that you need a Viewer like LR.  With Lightroom you don't need to use any other tool on your unedited master images  If you are going to be using LR anyway, why not start In LR and take advantage of all the power search capabilities that LR offers. Why limit yourself to just a filename and a folder? 



> ...how can you be sure that you have not missed any


 Actually, LR does a much better job of this than you probably can with version 1.0 eyeballs.  Try pointing the import screen to the root folder of a large HD and check the box "Include Subfolders" LR will find every importable image on there and even eliminate the duplicates if you have the "Don't import suspected duplicates" checked.


----------



## MarkNicholas (Jul 16, 2011)

clee01l said:


> Finding your unedited RAW or JPEG photos outside of Lightroom does you no good unless you can view them.



I store my exported Jpegs in a folder next to my RAW files. I do not import my exported Jpegs into LR and only view them in Windows explorer.  A good folder structure is essential for doing that.



clee01l said:


> Why limit yourself to just a filename and a folder?



Cletus, I don't think anyone is suggesting this. I am certainly not. What I am am saying is that it is better to have *both* a good folder structure and a good keyword system rather than a poor folder structure and a good keyword system. I realise that with LR it is not strictly necessary to have a good folder structure but if you do you will find it easier to develop your keyword system.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jul 16, 2011)

The difference is about what constitutes "good folder structure and a good keyword system" - though I'd phrase the goal as "a good folder structure and extensive keywording". A good folder structure is one which is geared to ensuring the continued physical existence of images, certainty of backup and restoration, and not to categorizing images. Time spent moving files into folders that try to categorize images is time that should have been spent on keywording.


----------



## DavidHB (Jul 17, 2011)

johnbeardy said:


> The difference is about what constitutes "good  folder structure and a good keyword system" - though I'd phrase the goal  as "a good folder structure and extensive keywording". A good folder  structure is one which is geared to ensuring the continued physical  existence of images, certainty of backup and restoration, and not to  categorizing images. Time spent moving files into folders that try to  categorize images is time that should have been spent on  keywording.


I agree with the general principle, but find the  distinction between categorisation on the one hand and the requirements  of 'physical existence' on the other somewhat unhelpful. 

Any  effective folder structure will use systematic file and folder naming,  and that in turn will imply some sort of categorisation. For instance, a  file/folder naming system that uses sortable dates at the beginning of  each folder and file name will be categorising by date. A system of that  kind is like the primary key of a database. As I pointed out in an  earlier post, if that key is meaningful for a particular search, there  is every reason to use it for that search. Adding keywords is a bit like  adding indexes or queries to a database; it broadens the capability to  search and order the data but does not thereby invalidate or necessarily  supersede the primary key.

This logic implies that similar data  management principles should apply both to file/folder naming and to  keywording; and that they should be regarded as complementary rather  than conflicting methods of achieving what we want. A key data  management principle of all computing we have known, now know, and can  conceive of in the future is that file/folder structures provide the  fundamental methodology for storing, organising and retrieving data in  information systems; image files are not different from any other files  in this regard. If the foundation is not solid , we build on it shakily  at best.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jul 17, 2011)

"Any  effective folder structure will use systematic file and folder  naming,  and that in turn will imply some sort of categorisation. "

Not in any meaningful sense. You're mixing up the inclusion in folder names of information, such as dates and descriptive text, with categorisation. 

John


----------



## DavidHB (Jul 18, 2011)

johnbeardy said:


> You're mixing up the inclusion in folder names of information, such as dates and descriptive text, with categorisation.


Categorisation is sorting entities according to the value of some property that the entities possess. I meant the term in this general sense, and not to refer to any particular scheme of categorisation (such as that used in IPTC data). It seems to me fairly obvious that any structured file/folder naming system will create de facto categories, which the user may use to identify and order image data. I do this routinely, because it serves particular purposes for me. I also routinely apply amd use keywords which serves other purposes. None of that is specially clever, but I don't think that it is muddled or confusing either.

David


----------



## johnbeardy (Jul 18, 2011)

A simple folder system with names such as 20110718 Paris is categorising only in your loose use of the term. It simply includes some descriptive text. Instead a folder system that attempts to categorise would be like Travel / France / Paris or Animals / Dogs / Spaniels / King Charles.

John

PS I have to say I think this is pointless - feel free to play with definitions by yourself


----------



## DavidHB (Jul 18, 2011)

johnbeardy said:


> A simple folder system with names such as 20110718 Paris is categorising only in your loose use of the term.


Strictly speaking, my definition is broad rather than loose. I do accept your implied point that any attempt to implement a controlled vocabulary through the file system is probably doomed to failure. Even so, a 'primary key' based on a data element that is meaningful to the user can be a very useful tool.

I've carried on with this discussion (which may have become self-defeating) only because I feel that it is risky to underplay the importance of the file system in the management of data (of all kinds, not just images). 

David


----------



## jkrm (Jul 14, 2011)

I have finally gotten to the point where I need to think about organizing by metadata rather than with my folder structure, as many on this forum recommend.  Today I was trying to find the photos of a trip to California that I made with my son.  First, I couldn't remember the year, and my system organizes by year.  Then, I thought the folder was named "Trip to California" but it turned out to be "California Trip", so even when I had the right year folder I was looking too far down and missed it!

But I immediately ran into a problem.  Sure, I can keyword photos by where I took them, like Indiana, Nebraska, etc.  But how do I structure keywords so that I can easily find ALL the photos from this trip?  I thought of using the keyword "trip" and "california", but that doesn't quite do it - what about the photos in Indiana that I took on this trip?  Or I could have a hierarchical structure with "california" a sub to "destination" or something like that.  Seems kludgey, though.

Then I thought about events, like birthdays.  When my son John has a birthday I could use the keywords "John" and "birthday".  But there will be photos taken on his birthday that have his sister Megan in them, so that when I try to find photos of Megan's birthday by searching on keywords "Megan" and "birthday", I'll pick up photos from John's birthday!  Not at all what I want.  And what about graduations, confirmations, and other events?

Since lots of you seem to be organizing by keyword I am sure there is a simple solution to this.  Maybe I am just overthinking it.  But I am looking forward to hearing some advice.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jul 18, 2011)

Uh oh, now it's "loose" vs "broad". Let's not go there!


----------



## MarkNicholas (Jul 19, 2011)

I think the exchanges demonstrates that everyone has their own ideas for both a folder structure and keywording and it is very personal. Its good to hear what others do but in the end do whatever works for you.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jul 19, 2011)

Can't let you get away with that, all methods are not equal - there is good practice and bad. What the exchanges demonstrate is blokes who seem to agree about the real point can still be argumentative about the meaning of a word....


----------



## MarkNicholas (Jul 19, 2011)

Well I am more on his side than yours


----------



## Brad Snyder (Jul 19, 2011)

Yes, I agree let's save the conversations about 'loose broads' for another venue. 

(Honestly, I think we should have the whole thread bronzed, put on the FAQ shelf, and never discuss it again, [yawn]).


----------



## DavidHB (Jul 19, 2011)

Brad Snyder said:


> I think we should have the whole thread bronzed, put on the FAQ shelf, and never discuss it again.


Yes, it has reached that point. And the one reader who might want to know why 'loose' is not the same as 'broad' (or, sadly, as a loose broad ) can PM me ...

David


----------



## Brad Snyder (Jul 19, 2011)

But civil discourse is the hallmark of these forums. 

If you're polite, and still interested in advancing one position or the other, or improving the state of the art, feel free to continue to have at it.


----------



## boneywhitefoot (Jul 19, 2011)

Brad Snyder said:


> Yes, I agree let's save the conversations about 'loose broads' for another venue.
> 
> (Honestly, I think we should have the whole thread bronzed, put on the FAQ shelf, and never discuss it again, [yawn]).



ahh it looks like a thinly veiled attempt at censorship.


----------



## Replytoken (Jul 19, 2011)

boneywhitefoot said:


> ahh it looks like a thinly veiled attempt at censorship.



Alternately, one could say that Brad, as a moderator, is gently reminding us that there are times, for the greater good of the community, when we need to state our thoughts and then agree to disagree.  To Brad's credit, he is allowing the discussion to continue, so long as we remember that our discourse remains civil.  Our (volunteer) moderators are much more laid back than some I have seen at other forums, and that is mostly possible because of the value members place on this policy of discourse.  Its a vlaue that keeps many of us here.

--Ken


----------



## Kiwigeoff (Jul 19, 2011)

boneywhitefoot said:


> ahh it looks like a thinly veiled attempt at censorship.



Well we do attempt to keep things on a friendly basis....... there are other venues for other types of discussion. It's worked so far, so let's keep it that way please.:surprised::focus:


----------



## Brad Snyder (Jul 20, 2011)

Ken, exactly what I was trying to say as a moderator. Thanks.

The first piece was intended as a humorous attempt to lighten the tone, the second when I realized the first could be misconstrued.

Carry On, That is All.


----------



## Munene (Jul 20, 2011)

I posted this in a similar discussion last April.  I come in on the side of starting with a strong folder structure...

Well, let me be the first to opine differently. Having worked in an archive of a major institution, we had several workshops working with databases for our newly digitized material and to have a digital record of our holdings (instead of the three ring notebooks we have, and still refer to). Everyone warned against just keeping everything in one folder, counting on only metadata, and the integrity of the database to order things. I had instinctively felt this and kept my photos in separate folders, although they are well key-worded.

I have heard this from people on this forum also, perhaps they will speak up so I do not sound like a lone voice in the wilderness.

First, I have studied and worked in commercial photography, but I am not presently making $$ at what I shoot, which is mainly street photography and some nature (I like to go camping). I have around 13,000 images on my computer, 8-9,000 that I work with.

I have 4 highest level folders (I am thinking of putting these four in one single one, which has been suggested by several people here). [note:  I did do this, and it saved me]

One folder is "Adjusted Images" Until recently, I had to open my LR adjusted images in P-shop to put borders on them and save them as tiff files (then convert them to JPEGs for my website). So, I just kept them as well. I no longer need to do this thanks to LR/Mogrify, so this folder will be pretty much as is. The folders within it, however, have a similar structure to where they originally came from, which would be one of the other three folders.

Since 2005 (July) I began shooting digital. I have a folder for "Born Digital Master Negatives." I have been working on a long term project to digitize the highlights of my negative archive, 30 years worth of shooting. These all go in a folder entitled, "Nikon Coolscan 9000 Scans." Until recently, these were the only three folders. But I have had trouble deciding what to do with images, of say Chicago, where I grew up, or Rochester, NY where I have been since before going digital. I have groups of images that are both scans and raw. So, I now have a folder, "Mixed-Master Negatives."

An example of the folders within: Within "Born Digital" I have folders, "Australia" "Baltimore" "Catskills Oct-2010" "China 2005", etc. You get the idea. Under Australia I have four folders: "Adalaide", Blue Mountains, Deep Creek Park, Sydney.

On Import (or in Bridge and then moved), I name them: Adalaide_1, Adelaide_2, etc. Keywords are Country, city, a park name, street scenes, storefront, cafe, nature, architecture, people, portraits, plaza, etc. For example, I am working on a collection for my website on cafes (www.visualquotations.com), so I can do a search and select the ones I want, move them into a collection and work on them. They come from all over the place from all different folders (i.e. Paris, Chicago, Buenos Aires, born digital, scans).

It is trickier with the scans, which I name as I scan them. I need them to coincide with the roll# and image # on the proof sheet, so I know what I have scanned. So, in a way, it is easier, already done by the time I am importing them into LR, just need to place them in the folders and add keywords. A name may be, "Peru_24-36a" 24 being the roll#, 36a the image on that roll.

Under the mixed-master folder, in the folder "Chicago", I have folders: 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, Beaches, and then some individual themes such as Millennium Park, etc.

I actually love being able to just go to my folder Chicago and see all of the images, or only open 1970s or millennium park, etc. It seems nicer this way then always depending on key-wording. I am often looking at my images this way. Like I may just want to see my images shot in Peru, so there is the folder. Open it. Also, I like to look at images in Bridge (sometimes while I am working in LR), and this works better (it would be nice if LR would allow you to open two windows like Bridge does). Other folders under Mixed are "Family Events" "Rochester", etc. each with there own set of folders within.

I like to see what I shoot and do not mind taking extra time on importing them to rename, look for the keywords, etc. Since I have no proof sheets, this lets me get dirty with them.

On the other hand, I am not a professional with clients and shootings nearly everyday. I can usually find an image on the first folder I open, and can always do a search for keywords when I am having trouble.

It may sound convoluted, but it works great for me. The only changes I am making, after some guidance on a thread I started, is to import them directly into LR and make changes, assign keywords there. But I still then have to move them into their permanent home, which I also just do in LR. (I used to do it all in Bridge, put them in their folders on my E: drive, then in LR synchronize the new folders or ones with new images as my way of importing them. This is still no big deal for me.)

Well, take that for what it's worth. Remember, whatever works for you is best (for the most part).

Cheers,

Munene


----------



## jliu (Jul 26, 2011)

Okay, this is a general question.  Does anyone tag their photos with keywords for the Year?
Will that be redundant? 

It kinda falls into the "5 Ws" - who, what, when, where, why.

I can see the benefits of tagging "John Birthday 2011", but would the year keyword make it easier to search for "John", "Birthdays", "2011"?  

Thanks,
Jeff


----------



## clee01l (Jul 26, 2011)

jliu said:


> Okay, this is a general question.  Does anyone tag their photos with keywords for the Year?
> Will that be redundant?


It's redundant information  The Capture Date is a field that already contains a precise date  in the EXIF  A Smart collection can be constructed {Capture Date}{is in the Range}{(YYYY-MM-DD) to(YYYY-MM-DD)} and a metadata file column can be set to "Date"


----------



## dj_paige (Jul 26, 2011)

> Does anyone tag their photos with keywords for the year?



I'm sure people do that, but its not something I would recommend. In addition to it being redundant, if your brain works like mine, as the years go by, you will not be able to remember the year your photos were taken. I can remember the photos I took in 2011, and some (most) of the photos I took in 2010, but beyond that, I couldn't tell you the year of most events. Thus, having a keyword for year is not a worthwhile thing to me ... it is totally worthless. I can't use keywords by year as a search tool, because I don't remember what year I visited Chicago, and I don't remember what year my daughter graduated from High School, and I don't remember what year I took those great pictures at the beach, and I don't remember what year I took a tour of Buffalo City Hall. But I can find those photos easily with the proper keyword search.


----------



## DavidHB (Jul 26, 2011)

dj_paige said:


> ... if your brain works like mine, as the years go by, you will not be able to remember the year your photos were taken. I can remember the photos I took in 2011, and some (most) of the photos I took in 2010, but beyond that, I couldn't tell you the year of most events ...


This is a classic example of just how different people are. For myself, I do remember, pretty much, when things happened (though I'm in my mid-60s and pretty good at forgetting all kinds of other important things). This is why a date-based folder structure and file naming works well for me. When I've discussed the issue with pros, they too have tended to say that they like date-based systems, because they make it easier to archive less current material. But I fully accept that it is foolish to try and impose a date-based system on someone whose mindset does not work through dates.

The general point I would draw from Munene's post is that it always makes sense to organise folders and files in such a way that you have an easy to use search path through your material, but that each person will have their own take on what that path should be. Keywords then give you other options that on occasion will answer your needs better.

And, FWIW, I agree fully with those who say that there is no need to record a year keyword. I always regard the EXIF time stamp as authoritative; if the camera has the time wrongly set, I adjust the time stamp, and I always make sure that the file creation date-time matches the EXIF information.

David


----------

