Author Topic: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer? (Read 228414 times)

JeffK · « **Reply #75 on:** April 03, 2007, 10:52 PM »

IIRC, the catalog built by exifPro was about 180MB, that would be with minimum size thumbnails. There may be 30,000 graphics but they are all small ones (like website buttons). So my situation may not if fact be as demanding as yours.

It is a shame if exifPro can not handle your job.

Jeff

Darwin · « **Reply #76 on:** April 04, 2007, 12:04 AM »

Well... early days yet. I'm not giving up on it just yet. I'm going to try indexing individual folders and see where that gets me. As I said in an earlier post, it's a shame that there's no option to skip files/folders that contain errors.

PS Indexing smaller batches of files will also allow me to experiment with the thumbnail sizes!

JeffK · « **Reply #77 on:** April 04, 2007, 12:30 AM »

Not worth an uninstall and reinstall? Perhaps an email to the developer might be helpful?

Jeff

Darwin · « **Reply #78 on:** April 04, 2007, 01:20 AM »

I might try that, Jeff, although I just indexed a folder with exifPro at three different settings for thumbnail generation (normal, small, and tiny) which resulted in an index that ranged from 484K to 14MB in size. Not even the thumbnails generated at the Normal setting (EDIT: 560 X 560 Box) had the resolution of the Photo Collector thumbs, which were rendered into a much smaller database. Anyway, I think I'll try contacting the developers before doing anything else.

JeffK · « **Reply #79 on:** April 04, 2007, 01:23 AM »

Yes that's not good performance relative to Photo Collector. I might be totally off beam but I'm wondering if the size of the files has something to do with the metadata it's trying to save???

Darwin · « **Reply #80 on:** April 04, 2007, 01:47 AM »

I might be totally off beam but I'm wondering if the size of the files has something to do with the metadata it's trying to save???

Worth a look-see, anyway. I've no idea how to go about checking this and will wait to hear what the developer has to say. In the meantime, can anyone else who's used/using exifPro comment on the size of the database that results from indexing digital camera photos (files sizes in the 700-800KB range) using the normal thumbnail size setting (560 X 560 BOX)?

tomos · « **Reply #81 on:** April 04, 2007, 02:51 AM »

Darwin, where does exifpro store thumbnails -
I had a look in the usual places but couldnt find it (& it's still morning here

)
- I just found one ExifPro folder hidden in an "MiK" folder in Anwendungsdaten (I forget the english name - User, Application folders?), but its only got a text file about LightTable ???)

in the viewer with more than one foto displaying,
zoom (+) enlarges all photos at the same time -
if you drag one you drag them all - super for comparing details of similar photos.
- Ctrl+drag just moves one ...

JeffK · « **Reply #82 on:** April 04, 2007, 03:44 AM »

FWIW ExifPro cataloged my 224MB of 1024*768 photos in a 68MB file containing "normal" size thumbnails (560x560) in about 2 minutes. Two files had errors and as Darwin found each error had to be acknowledged manually before cataloging continued.

tomos · « **Reply #83 on:** April 04, 2007, 06:52 AM »

It seems I havent created a catologue or even a thumbnails folder ?? -

I thought because ExifPro scanned my photos folder

then i clicked on a shortcut to my photos folder & it proceeded to create thumbnails for all 12,180 pictures
(I didnt know how many were there till now )
-me

but
I see that its set to scan subfolders so if you select your photo folder, everything gets scanned.

But I'm still not sure what that means - does it just create temporary thumbnails?

**

I'm going to show my ignorance & ask what the advantage of creating a "catalogue" is -
is it simply to differentiate it from other catalogues?
or is it for searching reasons?
~~or can you only tag stuff in catalogues~~ No, tagging works fine

I must go look in the help i think

EDIT on looking again I guess its partly so it loads [even] quicker?

JeffK · « **Reply #84 on:** April 04, 2007, 06:57 AM »

If you simply click on a folder in explorer view (left hand pane) it will simply create temporary thumbnails (and fast). Subfolders can be excluded or included at the user's choice. Creating a catalog enables one to keep images (thumbnails or bigger) in a file on your hard drive. I haven't tried yet but presumably one can create a catalog with images from different folders.

Jeff

tomos · « **Reply #85 on:** April 04, 2007, 08:08 AM »

I'm going to show my ignorance & ask what the advantage of creating a "catalogue"
-me again

well I notice with tagging,
you can only show tagged files for the folder you are currently looking at.

I presume if all your files are catalogued, that limitation doesnt exist? or exists on a catalogue basis as opposed to folder basis.

It's not clear to me -
if you add images to, say, your photo-folder, will or can your "photo-folder-catalogue" be updated?
This would have a major influence on how I might create catalogues.

Also, I see you can catalogue CDs/DVDs!

I might be totally off beam but I'm wondering if the size of the files has something to do with the metadata it's trying to save???
Worth a look-see, anyway. I've no idea how to go about checking this and will wait to hear what the developer has to say. In the meantime, can anyone else who's used/using exifPro comment on the size of the database that results from indexing digital camera photos (files sizes in the 700-800KB range) using the normal thumbnail size setting (560 X 560 BOX)?
-Darwin (April 04, 2007, 01:47 AM)

I notice when you create a catalog,
under "Show Options" you can vary compression of thumbnails - could that have something to do with it?

Darwin · « **Reply #86 on:** April 04, 2007, 08:43 AM »

Hi guys -

tomos, the catalogues are stored diffferently by both programmes. Photo Collector creates a folder in my documents called "Photo Collector" and places subfolders in this, one of which contains all of the thumbnails it generates. The folder also contains *.phc files, which are the catalogues themselves, and subfolders called templates and backups (where backups of the catalogue files are contained - I moved mine to a different location). My catalogue file is 9.8MB and holds info on 14GB (19000 images) of pictures. The thumbnails subfolder is 425MB. exifPro creates a *.catalog file that it places by default in "My Documents". The files are specific to each folder or drive that you index (kind of nice) - not unlike the way WhereIsIt? catalogues media - and are self-contained, ie the index and the thumbnails are all contained in a single (wrapper?) file. I did play around with the thumbnail sizes (compression) and found that the quality of the image reproduced in exifpro's image viewer suffered noticeably as a result. NOTE: I negelected to mention earlier that the degradation was most evident in files that I had compressed in the past (e.g. I created smaller versions of jpg's to use as my screensaver) BUT that these same files do not exhibit any perceptible degradation as indexed by Photo Collector. Note, too, that my Photo Collector catalogue was created using it's low thumbnail quality setting (it only offers two, that I can see, low and high).

Jeff - thanks for checking that, it confirms, to a point, my experience in terms of cataloguing speed and size of catalogue produced.

I've been trying to think over the last view posts how to slip this comment in and haven't succeeded so, baldly, let me state that I still think exifPro is AMAZING. I haven't composed a coherent note to the developers yet but am off to try that right now. Because I am a lazy sod, I'll probably direct them to this thread!

Thanks,

Mike

tomos · « **Reply #87 on:** April 04, 2007, 09:55 AM »

thanks for that info, Mike

I've been trying to think over the last view posts how to slip this comment in and haven't succeeded so, baldly, let me state that I still think exifPro is AMAZING. I haven't composed a coherent note to the developers yet but am off to try that right now. Because I am a lazy sod, I'll probably direct them to this thread!
-Darwin (April 04, 2007, 08:43 AM)

Yeah,
I've been thinking what i need is an ExifPro forum!

I did try contact the developer,
the email link at their website wasnt working so i sent something to info@website ...

But
I think a lot of my questions also are more general - about the benefits of cataloging,
how that relates to tagging,
how they interact (tags & catalogs)*,
whether catalogs update, etc., etc.

I have looked at ExifPro helpfile but think I'll just have to experiment at some stage & see how things work

* Previously, I vaguely thought that tagging would be universal,
but as I say above I presume you only see tagged items for current folder or catalog.

superboyac · « **Reply #88 on:** April 04, 2007, 10:20 AM »

This is becoming an interesting thread.

So, which software seems to be better as a cataloger? To me, it seems like several people here have gravitated towards ExifPro and Photo Collector, and the primary reason for this seems to be the speed of the two applications. I know that the OP, MrCrispy, had started this thread with other very specific features in mind, but it seems like speed is really the key factor here.

I haven't tested either program in detail yet, but from a first glance it seems like ExifPro has more options and customizeability than Photo Collector. On the other hand, I think PC might have more powerful organizational tools, just based on my familiarity with collectorz software. As a viewer, I think ExifPro is the better program, I don't think PC is meant to be used as a viewer.

Right now, I use ACDSee as my viewer, as I'm sure a lot of people do. I don't use anything for an image organizer or cataloger, however. I can see myself replacing ACDSee with ExifPro as my primary viewer, but I don't know about cataloging. I guess that is the ultimate question in this thread; which is the better cataloging software?

Darwin · « **Reply #89 on:** April 04, 2007, 10:59 AM »

Hi Superboyac - that's a very nice summary of recent developments on this thread. I've invited the developers of both exifPro and Photo Collector to join the conversation, so I hope we'll be welcoming one or both of them soon!

As an aside, as alluded to by Superboyac, this thread has evolved significantly from MrCrispy's original post - I hope he doesn't mind!

superboyac · « **Reply #90 on:** April 04, 2007, 01:30 PM »

Yes, it would be nice to hear from the software authors. Of course, the collectorz authors have a pretty active forum of their own.

Even though this thread has changed from it's original intent, I think we are still keeping it relevant to the title question, "Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?". The reason why it's so hard, is because there are so many programs out there and a lot of them are very good at one thing or another, and it's very difficult to find the specific combination of features you are looking for. What I'm finding out now, after doing a few reviews here, is how difficult it is to review almost any kind of software. There are a lot of half-ass reviews around, but it is extremely difficult to do a nice comprehensive review of anything. You almost can't say anything is the best; everything needs to be qualified to some extent.

Darwin · « **Reply #91 on:** April 04, 2007, 01:34 PM »

Yes, again, well said. The issue of trying to do a comprehensive review is what has kept me from completing any that I have attempted.

JeffK · « **Reply #92 on:** April 04, 2007, 05:11 PM »

I agree with all of the above, even if it doesn't all agree with each other. And Sri Lanka beat England in the cricket ... woohoo - I'd like to see a picture of that!

Darwin · « **Reply #93 on:** April 04, 2007, 06:22 PM »

Just a note (and I should have commented on this earlier): Photo Collector funcitons quite well as a viewer. I don't really have a preference between exifPro and PC with respect to viewing - exifPro has some slick transition effects and allows you to tag images from within the viewer, but PC is every bit as fast and provides access to the same editing tools from within the viewer, with the exception of tagging. I find the GUI's of each to have their strengths - exifPro is visually stunning while I find PC to be simple and easy on the eyes (I LOVE exifPro's Vista-look, and the Vista-look in general, but find that over time I tire of its darkness... I've been using WindowBlinds 5.x to mimic the Vista GUI under XP on and off for 18 months - more off than on, as it happens).

exifPro:

Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

Photo Collector:

Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

EDIT: reduced the size of the screenshots and clarified some of the text

Darwin · « **Reply #94 on:** April 05, 2007, 01:45 PM »

Hmmm... the viewer in exifPro IS much more feature rich than I had realized. I dimly recall someone here posting about its ability to offer multi-pane views so that you can compare photographs. As far as I can tell, Photo Collector doesn't allow this; exifPro will let you view up to four photos this way. As mentioned earlier, exifPro will also allow you to tag, rate and edit the image descriptions which is a nice touch.

Incidentally, tomos, in playing around some more I discovered two things that relate to your comment about going to the start or end of a large number of images from within the viewer in exifPro. Check out this screenshot:

exifPro image viewer context menu-medium.png

Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

And you'll note that you can accomplish this from the context menu or using the Home and End keys on your keyboard. Also, note that there are buttons to accomplish this as well: |< takes you to the first photo and >| to the last one...

Finally, I had an e-mail exchange with exifPro's developer, Michal Kowalski, who has promised to change the way in which exifPro handles errors during indexing in a future release. He's also agreed to add a couple of suggestions that I had for additional editing features to a list that he keeps, although with no promise that they'll make it into a future version. I'm quite impressed as the reply came within hours of me e-mailing him. Definitely a good sign and one more thing that really makes me think that I want to support development by buying a license. It should be said, in fairness, that Photo Collector's support team has also been very open to suggestions and have been very quick to reply to my e-mails as well.

I'm beginning to suspect that superboyac's assessment:

...from a first glance it seems like ExifPro has more options and customizeability than Photo Collector. On the other hand, I think PC might have more powerful organizational tools, just based on my familiarity with collectorz software. As a viewer, I think ExifPro is the better program, I don't think PC is meant to be used as a viewer.

is closer to the mark than I had originally given him credit for (although I would still argue that while exifPro has a better viewer, Photo Collector's viewer is more than adequate).

tomos · « **Reply #95 on:** April 05, 2007, 05:53 PM »

as i said before
I was very impressed by this capability (in ExifPro) -

in the viewer with more than one foto displaying,
zoom (+) enlarges all photos at the same time -
if you drag one you drag them all - super for comparing details of similar photos.
- Ctrl+drag just moves one ...

-tomos (April 04, 2007, 02:51 AM)

Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?
Tagging from the viewer is very helpful, especially if trying to decide what to print.

At this stage
I'm also more curious about the "management" side of it -
so I'll shut up about viewers

... and get back when I've tried a bit of cataloging & tagging

Darwin · « **Reply #96 on:** April 05, 2007, 06:01 PM »

At this stage
I'm also more curious about the "management" side of it -
so I'll shut up about viewers

I'll do the same, and will also test fly the management side...!

MrCrispy · « **Reply #97 on:** April 09, 2007, 05:18 PM »

I haven't been able to check back in for a long time, thanks to everyone (esp JeffK and Darwin) for all the info! I've just tried ExifPRo and it is indeed amazing, I like its interface the best both in terms of looks and the speed. It also serves well as a way to tag my collection. The one thing it lacks is a way to query photos based on tag, like Photoshop Elements/Lightroom.

However, I'm beginning to think that Ill never find anything that serves all my needs. The main reason I want tagging is it makes it really easy to find a given photo. I use tagging extensively to manage my 35gb music collection and would be completely lost without it. And I would love something similar for other types of media, not just photos but video/documents etc. Thats a discussion for another topic though.

Size of the catalog/time to index is not so much of an issue for me as its a one-time cost. The spped of viewing a catalog and scrolling thru thumbnails is much more imp and it seems in this area ExifPro is the fastest.

Other programs I'm keeping an eye out for are the new versions of FotoAlbum and AcdSee Pro.

Darwin · « **Reply #98 on:** April 09, 2007, 06:52 PM »

I purchased a license for exifPro a few days ago - I'm going to install one or the other of Photo Collector and exifPro on my dad's notebook (which is actually mine, anyway!) and keep the other on mine. I really, really like them both. I'm waiting on an update to exifPro so that I can reliably index my entire collection unattended (it's likely going to take four or five hours) and then I'll start tagging with exifPro in earnest.

tomos · « **Reply #99 on:** April 25, 2007, 01:52 AM »

I purchased a license for exifPro a few days ago
-Darwin (April 09, 2007, 06:52 PM)

I finally got mine yesterday.

If you live in a Euro land,
buy it in dollars - it works out almost €5 cheaper (you get charged VAT either way)