Photo manage & edit software or why bother?

darius

Still in the process of transferring Aperture libraries across to the newer imac.

I loved using Aperture. But its dead and replaced with Photos.

I dont think i can face importing many GB of pics into Photos for it to also become unsupported in a few years and have to start again, again. I don't even know how to import to Photos and keep all my lovely edits, but i bet its not simple...

I feel i might as well actually use nothing. Just organise the master image files in folders (like i do already as backup), and edit individual ones if needed.

What are people using?

And will it last?

Grumpyrocker

I use folder structure rather than a piece of software for my photo library. I have a folder for each year, Then the files for any day go in a folder YYYY-MM-DD TITLE. 

I've tried library software in the past and it was always annoying when changing software. So I keep organisation separate from whichever editing software I'm currently using. 

I have local backups of all these RAW and JPG files. Plus I have a JPG version uploaded to Google Photos.

darius

Similarly- for all the folders I use the excellent ExifRenamer to convert all filenames into YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS-id 
so folders are lovely and organised. But I really miss the Aperture ability to view, scroll, edit. 

TTBZ

It's not perfect but if you're using Adobe CC anyway, Bridge does an ok job.

RaymondLin

Not sure in Aperture, but if you convert the RAW files to DNG, it retains the edit.  It's what I do with really old wedding files, I convert the RAW to DNG, then if the LR library .CAT file gets lost the edits are there.  I don't see any loss of quality, and if there is, it is much higher than JPEG.

darius

RaymondLin said:

Not sure in Aperture, but if you convert the RAW files to DNG, it retains the edit.  It's what I do with really old wedding files, I convert the RAW to DNG, then if the LR library .CAT file gets lost the edits are there.  I don't see any loss of quality, and if there is, it is much higher than JPEG.

I dont use RAW. All JPG.

Its not pro photo stuff, just life and family stuff.

Brio

Lightroom for me.

Axe_meister

I import into lightroom and get it to organise the folder structure by date.
Recently had to export out of Apple Photos as my wifes MacBook airs screen died. What a painfully slow process on 63k photos (4 days) and it still failed on 20k files

poopot

Photo mechanic...

it’s what all the news desks use...

cheap n all!!!!

stickyfiddle

Lightroom here too. 

EDIT - I use it for travel photography, so the cloud stuff is brilliant. Import to ipad, do a first filter of keepers/deletions over drinks or while travelling or whatever, and every night it all goes up to cloud while I sleep. Then I take backups to external HDD via laptop when I get home. 

darius

Adobe is at least £10pm. Photos is free. I might go for a one off cost software but no way im paying a subscription for a photo manager.

Stratavarious

Adobe cloud.. lightroom here too...  but you need to be serious to justify its cost. I use it for work

Folders and editing with a photoshop clone like Gimp will do just as well too.  Easy to copy too.

Grumpyrocker

I mostly use Affinity Photo for editing these days. Great Photoshop replacement, inexpensive, and no subscription needed.

I use it for work, and hobby stuff.

Tannin

Grumpyrocker said:

I use folder structure rather than a piece of software for my photo library. I have a folder for each year, Then the files for any day go in a folder YYYY-MM-DD TITLE. 

I've tried library software in the past and it was always annoying when changing software. So I keep organisation separate from whichever editing software I'm currently using. 

^ This. Only way to go. Your operating system file system is designed to store hierarchical data quickly and efficiently. And it does. Use it as designed.