 |
Digital
Access
Image
Management
Organize
Before It All
Gets Out of
Hand ...
Quickly.
Now.
|
Okay, if terms such as 'workflow' haven't totally bummed you out already,
enter 'Digital Access Management' as a word image, seemingly applied to
photography by your broker, to completely sap any enjoyment you may have
previously had in your visual arts endeavors. As if 'Image Browser' wasn't
good enough, high-end enough – or serious enough, the people who forge
these terms can only be granted an apt description of their own: Pure Evil.
For those who don't shoot professionally – and even for those who do
– words such as 'Management' and 'Workflow' greeting your day can only
sour one's enthusiasm for living, itself. Yes, I know that such terms may
well excite those cardboard middle-management dullards who endlessly email
one another on 'mobile management smartphones' exchanging their latest ideas,
such as they are, concerning the upcoming PowerPoint presentation for Houston
– simply because ... they can. But for those of us whose lives haven't
completely degenerated to a 'Whiter Shade of Pale', further decayed by a
tragically false sense of self-importance, there has to be a way to describe
innately basic functions without the task-elevated bullshit. But no ...
Suggesting the simple notion of, “I want to organize and tweak my frigging
pictures” just doesn't cut it in an age of 'Solutions' ... Software
Solutions. Investment Solutions. Marketing Solutions. Dry Cleaning Solutions.
Septic Evacuation Solutions ... Prior to the digital age, who was I to know
that we had so many problems, seeking … solutions?
If true, there's more than a vague implication that the entire techno-industrial
world is in desperate need of mass-psychotherapy. Problems. Management. Work.
And so it is now, it seems, for those who had once kept their negatives and
slides in a three-ring binder as the high-end professional alternative to
shoe boxes. But, clearly, there are those who simply love all of this shit
...
As I once perused the internet blogs and forums, I was amazed to read the,
essentially non-professional, fanboy reviews of one image browser or another,
proudly proclaiming that they could easily breeze through a single 1,500
image shoot with, say, Adobe Lightroom – or iView, whatever. I'm sorry,
but if you're banging away 1,500 shots of a local carnival to generate five
'keepers', it's your head – or your eye – that needs some 'Asset
Management'. In your software praise, you've successfully indicated that
your photographic batting average is miraculously less than mere statistic
chance would otherwise allow, shooting blindfolded. I don't care that you're
banging away 5 images per second in some rapid-fire burst mode. You still
look fucking ridiculous.
As for me, I've increasingly looked for things to simplify my life and keep
it somewhat organized, while also retaining some degree of functional
versatility, without slavish rigidity. The quest for this simplicity is,
in itself, often complex. As a Mac user, the variety of photo organizers
– and image editors – has always been fairly vast. Adobe Lightroom
– or Bridge, combined with Camera Raw, along with Apple's own Aperture,
as well as iPhoto – the scaled-down Aperture for soccer moms, included
with every Mac sold. The diversity doesn't, in any way, end there. Both iView
and Photo Mechanic have also had their adherents, particularly among photo
journalists. And this short list doesn't include image editors – with
a variety of filters and layering capabilities, such as Photoshop –
as well as the scaled-back, but remarkably proficient Adobe Elements (also
incorporating browser functionality). For those living behind Windows, one
also has a fairly broad range of popular image browsers from which to choose
... and, again, editors – inclusive of the primary Mac choices listed
above, save Aperture and iPhoto. And then there's Google's entirely free
Picasa – the family snapshot 'iPhoto' for the Windows platform.
Most image browsers, indeed, offer some basic editing tools – or
image-tweaking capabilities, more accurately, for even a delete into the
trash is, indeed, an 'edit'. For many, these additional tools offer all one
would require. Some browsers, such as Adobe's Lightroom and Apple's Aperture,
provide image manipulation capabilities that are highly sophisticated –
at a somewhat sophisticated price, for many ($200 ~ $300 USD).
But the diversity above presents the rub. I had tried them all, and outright
owned most, in search of an ideal. This, simply, was never to be found –
much like most options presented in one's life, I suppose. As such, I can
only offer my impressions that led to particular choices – the ones
that worked for me ... reasonably well. After all, choices must ultimately
be made to achieve that aire of simplicity – or lack of complication.
But, herein, I also provide some alternatives that may work exceptionally
well for you, inclusive of less expensive options ... I won't be covering
the 'feature sets' of each, as this is already widely covered on the web.
Rather, again, I lend my impressions as a mere guide to consider ...
Most who read this area find limited utility in the likes of iPhoto or Picasa.
Both are actually quite good for their intended targets. For many, they both
could be very good with a few additions, combined with a little structural
re-thinking. But for most of you visiting these pages, neither one is up
for consideration. And with this in mind, here is my thinking – and
picks – on this day ...
Adobe Lightroom
While I generally love most things Apple, as a second-generation, mature
version of Aperture still resides somewhere on a hard drive, I ultimately
gave the nod to Adobe's Lightroom as my primary image browser. Some of the
decision was based upon mere subjectivity – the very look of the interface.
But from the start, Lightroom proved to be more intuitive in its structure,
relative to Aperture – an impression that wouldn't significantly change
as I became more familiar with Apple's offering. And for image editing, outside
of tweaking for the web, most of what a photographer requires – professional
or otherwise – is provided in Lightroom's 'Develop' mode – inclusive
of handling common 'jpeg' and 'tiff' images, in addition to camera RAW files.
The same can be said of Aperture – with a few additional tricks
of its own. But in my view, Lightroom won out by a small margin, with a little
more elegance, organizationally, as well as in its general handling of processes
in a somewhat more coherent interface. Price ... yeah, 300 buckaroos. It
is a program aimed at professionals, after all. To them, $300 is a
bargain, relative to its capabilities.
Adobe Bridge with Camera Raw (with a sporadic problem, so read).
For most practical purposes -- as well as for most people, it's about, say,
85% of the original Adobe Lightroom 1.x, and 75% of the more feature-laden
Lightroom 2 (depending upon how one considers such things) -- if with a little
less elegance and polish. And, it's free ... kind of. It's actually a 'value
added' browser that comes with a variety of Adobe products, inclusive of
Adobe Photoshop -- as well as the newer editions of the far less expensive
and extremely capable Photoshop Elements for Mac. So, if you’ve purchased
the $699 Photoshop -- or the $90 Photoshop Elements (Mac version), you get
this exceptionally fine 'freebie' in tow. The Windows version of Elements
has the remotely similar, but truly less graceful ‘Organizer’ to
replace ‘Bridge’ – with regret – but it still remains
reasonably proficient for basic cataloging. But Bridge – combined with
the ‘Camera Raw’ software that's also included, allowing for much
in the way of image adjustment – may well raise the question if Lightroom
is worth yet another $300 expenditure (unless, perhaps, you’re a pro
needing to sift through 30,000 images on both internal and external drives).
You, again, have the general essence of the $300 Lightroom package between
the interaction of Adobe Bridge and Camera Raw, which pops in its own dedicated
window. Bridge may be set to open Camera Raw with the click of any image
in the browser, by way of the Preferences menu (maybe, read on …) You
may also set Bridge to open an image directly into Photoshop or Elements,
naturally. Or Camera Raw may be opened by way of a drop-down menu after an
image has been selected (maybe) -- along with any other image editor you
may have on your drive. And yes, Bridge can catalog all of your keywords
with ease, as well as provide you with the metadata you may wish to peruse.
 |
The similar
Adobe Bridge software ...
Already comes in tow with Photo Shop ... and even
with the bargain, 'Photo Shop Elements' for Mac.
One may never require the pricey Lightroom ...
maybe. |
But … a problem: Many with the newer editions of Bridge supplied with
PS Elements for Mac don’t ever find the option to open an image in Camera
Raw - at least not a workable one – when a ‘jpeg’ image is
selected. Others have the option available from the start. Adobe has yet
provided definitive answers to this. And while you’ll find a variety
of work-around answers within Internet forums, they work for some people
-- but not for others, from Control and Command keying, to cache purges,
to complete reinstalls … Again, success for some, not for several
others… I have experienced both with multiple installs on different
Macs, reasons unknown … A shame.
With this regrettable and inconsistent problem that prompts a new reservation,
I think Bridge is an exceptionally fine image browser – in any event,
and Camera Raw has much of the 'tweakability' found in Lightroom's 'Develop'
module. With the advent of a more matured Lightroom 2 that would add a localized,
specified area ‘Adjustment Brush’ feature -- among a host of structural
refinements, LR2 did pull farther ahead of the Bridge/Camera Raw combo, however.
Perhaps it needed to … But … with the introduction of Bridge 4
(with its new Camera Raw module – that which borrowed some major adjustment
features from the new Lightroom), Bridge and Lightroom 2 would become
increasingly similar, yet again, where one release would coattail on the
other.
There are those who will strongly disagree with my appraisal of 'Bridge'
being remarkably close to Lightroom – often by those who laid out $300
for the latter ... But, particularly for those who have purchased the
value-priced PhotoShop Elements, freely use Bridge as your browser, by all
means (if on a Mac). Perhaps put the $300 saved towards a lens. In fact,
the Elements/Bridge combo is what I’d most often recommend for many
photo enthusiasts. After all, the Adobe Lightroom and full-featured PhotoShop
combo may only clutter the pathway towards intent, relative to the somewhat
slimmed Bridge and Elements fusion. Currently, I do use Lightroom
as my primary image organizer and image database, often employing the slimmer
‘Elements’ as the image editor, selected from Lightroom, itself
-- with other editor selections also available by way of the drop-down menu.
I more commonly call up my full-blown, $999 PhotoShop (expensive
‘Extended’ Version – not required for photo-only manipulation)
when specifically required, accessing some feature or tweak not available
in PS Elements.
With all of the above said, if you're a Mac user, I would be remiss if I
didn't make a passing mention of 'Graphic Converter' – the one
from the German outfit, www.lemkesoft.com – not to be, in any
way, confused with that found at www.graphic-converter.net ... Please. For
the Mac user, it may well be the best $35 you'll spend – perhaps even
if you already have other image programs on your drive. In addition to its
ability to convert most any image file format into another -- even the
long-retired ones, it also makes a very good folder-based image browser,
complete with a magnification loupe – but it doesn’t have the keyword,
tag and search prowess of either Lightroom or Bridge (or even iPhoto). But
it also provides a certain degree of Photoshop functionality – if only
supporting basic layering for text, alas. But still, it packs an enormous
editing punch for, again, $35. One could easily refer to Graphic Converter
when they wished to do something quickly – inclusive of reducing images
for the web, and adding a simple one-pixel border around the image. It does
this sort of thing with great ease, right 'out of the box' (or download)
– and is further less of a system burden (these ‘slimmed-down’
attributes can also be said of Photoshop Elements, to a some extent –
but Elements has greater Photoshop functionality in tow, to be sure). Consider
Graphic Converter for its image-browsing capabilities, primarily – with
its photo-tweaking feature-set as a mere bonus, if with an interface that’s
a little quirky and stodgy. You can download a trial version, but do ultimately
pay that $35 if it serves you well. For some of you, it will provide all
of what you require ... and more.
So there you have it, from the pricey to the dirt cheap. But please always
remember that the very best image editor ... is in your head, combined
with your innate sense of 'vision'.
|
