What Everybody Ought to Know When Naming Your Scanned Photos – Part 2
In Part 1 of this 3-part mini-series about naming your scanned digital master files, we discussed how important I feel it is to start your filenames with the date the photo was taken. And this date is most useful when placed in the 4-digit: Year – Month – Day format.
So now, with Part 2, we will cover adding a description to your photo right in the middle of your filename.
Part 2 – Add a Description to Your Photo
In many ways, the point of a good filename is double duty. First, it allows you to organize and search for your photos on the “folder level.” So without even seeing the image loaded (previewed) on your screen, you are able to sort and find particular files in either Windows Explorer in Microsoft Windows 
or Finder windows 
if you are using a Mac.
Additionally, a filename can permanently replace much of the handwritten “caption” information you may or may not already have on the back or even front (sometimes) of your photographs.
Where I don't believe there is any room to budge on how you format the date field we covered in part 1, I believe you can experiment with the description – how you describe what you see in your photograph.
For this, I think you should devise a method that works best for you. But do you and your photos a favor and make whatever method you choose be … (drum roll here) …. useful.
What's useful is adding a description that will mean something to someone unfamiliar with the photo.
This filename you give it – often hammered out in a hurry – may not seem very important to you when you type it in. Maybe it's because you are actually in the photograph and are completely familiar with everything about it – the time it took place, where it took place, and everyone in it. Or maybe it's a photograph cherished by someone else in your family where even though you weren't around to have lived it, you have heard the story about it many, many times through the years. In either case, you are taking for granted the knowledge you have stored up in that head of yours.
But someone in your family 60 years from now, possibly long after your passing, may have no memory of this particular photo – or many of them – heck, maybe even most of them!
If you are knowledgeable of how many of today's image managers operate, you might be thinking to yourself you are far more clever than I am because you know how you can type in all of this descriptive “caption” information right into the image manager – such as in the “caption” field for each photograph.
Why yes, smarty pants – you can! And in fact, I recommend you type it in there as well (but do so in its entirety). Having a caption in an image manager is fantastically useful and fun. But I don't feel it's in your and your photos' best interest to neglect the master filenames because that is what identifies the photo outside of your photo manager – such as when you export them to your desktop or email them.
To me that would be like someone feeling there is no reason to have their full name and social security number on every page of their tax return (for identification) when their name is already written once on the outside of the envelope they're mailing it in.
These image managers, like Picasa and Lightroom, are tremendous programs with almost rock-solid databases. But you don't want to assume your digital photos will always be accessed only within them. Your photos need this “descriptive tattoo” – this “birth certificate” – to be carried along with them for when they are alone, “naked” without any proprietary database attached to them.
So What Should Go In Your Description?
I say make it easy on yourself. All you have to do is list what someone unfamiliar with your photo would want to know. Simply tell us “who” or “what” is in the photo, “where” it was taken, and “why” (what's going on in it that was important enough for a frame of film to be developed).
Though not all photos will have all of the “w's” to list. For example, some photos don't have a special occasion to be your “why” – like a wedding shower or a school play. Sometimes it's just a picture of the front of your home and the front lawn. That person wanted to remember how it looked at that point in time, so they took a snapshot of it. But if there was a significant reason the photo was taken it would be worth mentioning.
Here are seven additional tips that should help you out even more with your descriptions:
1. Don’t Write Overly Wordy Descriptions
Even though you probably are technically capable of typing in many characters, this really isn't the place to write everything there is to say about the photograph. Try and resist the urge if you have it. Just keep it to what's important – what's unique.
2. Add Useful Keywords
Another way to keep the filename shorter is to avoid using words like “to, the, went, we,” etc. Instead, just use specific keywords that you might use if you were using a search engine like Google or Bing. You want to be able to search your images' filenames to find your photographs.
For example, using the photograph above, I made part 1 and part 2 of its filename:
“1978-02-xx Blanket Tent Tunnel Winter Snow Day”
3. Make Your Descriptions Unique
Try not to use a description like “Moms Birthday.” Yes, it is better than no description at all, so pat yourself on the back if you at least get this much typed in.
But the thing is, your Mom probably had LOTS of birthdays photographed through her years, so using “Mom's Birthday” isn't very unique. Now “Moms 40th Outback Steakhouse Birthday” … now that is unique, and that is useful! Pat yourself on the back at least three or four times for that one!
Same with “Dad Fishing.” Unless you can honestly say this is the first, best, and last time he has ever fished, this is not a unique enough description to be useful. Call your Dad by his real name and type in what really happened:
“1970-07-xx Ronald Catching 7 pound Bass Montgomery Lake GA”
4. Give Attention to the Unfamiliar
You can't possibly list everyone's name in your description for a large group shot. So don't beat yourself up when you can't. But when only a half dozen or fewer people are in the photo, it's useful to have this information recorded.
Also, I find it really helpful to make sure I list the names of less familiar people in my collection – like your “cousin Eddie” that made his presence known just a couple of times over a twenty-year span. And if I have too many “unfamiliar” people in a picture, I try to just list the people that mean something to the family – the ones I might actually do a search for someday.
5. Don’t Guess With Anything
Like in Part 1, when adding the shoot date, it’s very important you don’t guess with any piece of information. If you aren’t 100% sure that this is your cousin “Rita Mae Lynn” in the photo, don’t type in that it is.
Why?
The reason I have found is that you don’t want to be in a position later where you are second-guessing your own information as reliable or not. And especially after you have passed on (yes, that time will eventually come), you certainly don't want anyone else doubting your accuracy (read as “really long and hard work”).
Like using “x's” with the date field, there is a way around this problem. I use a “?” next to names and keywords when I'm not absolutely positive about someone or something. For example:
“196x-10-31 Alices Halloween Party – Houston TX – Randy Tom? Mark”
6. Be Consistent
Consistency is always important when it comes to the filename.
If your method is to build your description like this: [event] + [location] + [people] … then try and stick with it. Try not to have seven photos in this manner and then have 3 with [location] + [people] + [event].
Also, if you call your father “Dad,” stay consistent and always use “Dad.” If someone unfamiliar with your collection gets used to you identifying your father as “Dad,” then you suddenly label him in one of your filenames by his real name, “Jim,” it could get really confusing quickly.
Additionally, if you are doing a hard drive search in folders full of your photos for all the photos your Dad is prominently in, the photo with your Dad labeled as “Jim” won't come up if you are searching for the keyword “Dad.” And by the way, given a choice, I recommend using someone's real name.
7. End a Series with an Additional Word or Number
Invariably, you will have many photos taken at once — for example, at a wedding or your daughter's soccer game. On multiple shots where I use the same description for similar shots, I simply add a number or a word or two to differentiate the shots. For example:
“1986-10-14 Andys Soccer Game Chipmunks vs Otters – 1”
“1986-10-14 Andys Soccer Game Chipmunks vs Otters – 2”
“1986-10-14 Andys Soccer Game Chipmunks vs Otters – 3”
“1983-07-xx – Moms 40th Outback Steakhouse Birthday_wide”
“1983-07-xx – Moms 40th Outback Steakhouse Birthday_closeup”
“1983-07-xx – Moms 40th Outback Steakhouse Birthday_smiling”
“1983-07-xx – Moms 40th Outback Steakhouse Birthday_cutting cake”
So that's all there is to add a description with my naming formula. That wasn't that hard – was it?
Let me know in the comments below what you think of how I write my descriptions, or tell me how you write yours. I would love to know.
In Part 3, the last part of this series, I'll show you how to end your filename with a handy technique enabling you to simply glance at it and know exactly what scanner settings you used to scan in that photo. Very helpful! Skeptics… you might be surprised.
I have a suggestion to your convention where you add the number in a series at the end of your photos. Rather than 1, 2, 3; perhaps 0010, 0020 (or 10, 20, 30). I learned this when I was designing online learning. The reason you might consider this method is because, let’s say, you are numbering them sequentially, say, the first photo is of the interior of the church (1), the next photo is Jane entering the church(2), then Jane walking down the aisle (3), etc. But, suddenly, you found the photo of the little flower girl… It should go before Jane entering the the church! Now you have to renumber them all! If you used 0010, 0020, then when you found the flower girl photo, you could make it 0015, leaving numbering room on either side in case you encounter, say, the ring-bearer photo, which could now be 0017. It saves renumbering all the items. Hope this helps! 🙂
Hi, and thank you for your detailed posts. One thing I might change in your naming system is I would avoid using “Mom” or “Alice,” etc., as an identifier. While it makes sense to you, later genealogists will be forced to decipher who that person is. Maybe something such as: 1962-01-31_SMITH_Arthur-John_Masonic-Award_Bosworth-MO… Or, if the full name is too long, perhaps: 1962-01-31_SMITH-AJ_Masonic- Award_Bosworth-MO…
P.S. I don’t like all the dashes and underlines, but I am reading that we should do that for programs to read the info… You could do the same thing without them…
Thanks for your very useful article. Formatting is a bit of an art and there are some characters that are best avoided. First up is a space. Common practice is to use a dash, as-in, instead. Here’s a list of dodgy characters:
Loved this 3 part series!!!
Please recommend some free photo editing soft ware.
(I was directed to GIMP – but way too sophisticated for me.)
Thanks!
I’ve read and reread your 3 part naming convention probably about 30 times.
My question is this: When you are doing your naming (which I’m in the process of organizing and renaming things now). Do you list everyone in the picture in the filename if you can? I know if it’s a big group that would be a long file name and I probably shouldn’t do that but if there’s like 5-6 or less people do you name them in the file name?
I’m trying to figure out the easiest process. Right now I’m just putting the date (ex: 2009-08-14) the event (Mom’s birthday) and then I thought I’d go back through all of the pictures and put in the names of people I can identify. I’m just wondering if that’s worth the effort.
I’m trying to learn and understand Picasa as well. I know it has face recognition but I don’t believe that adds it to your photo so unless you have that program I’m not sure what that does for adding the “people” to the photos.
I think I’m finding a happy medium for myself that’s not including everything in a photo, but then again, not so little that this information isn’t useful later.
I think it’s totally worth the time adding people’s names when you can. Finding photos with certain people in them is very important to all of us.
I think what’s important is creating a system for yourself and stay nearly 100% consistent. For example, make sure you use the exact same keyword for each person each time. If you have a sibling named Emily and her middle name is Roseanne, don’t use “Emily R.” in one photo and then next week add “EmilyR” “Emily_R” or “Emily” to another file name. This is being able to search and narrow down photos in the future is key, and if you do a search for “Emily R.” a year from now, photos labeled in a different way won’t show up.
Create a legend — a cheat sheet — that lists people and what you used for them, or anything else you’ve “abbreviated” (places, objects etc) This can also be printed out, or digitally archived with your collection so that it gets handed down to family members to help them out with less familiar family members they are trying to locate in photos if you aren’t around.
Including a middle initial might really be useful when considering families that have members with the same first name. This should reduce confusion (at least a lot) later and in searches.
And I think 5-6 people or less like you suggested is a good rule of thumb. I think that’s about what I do. I also label objects sometimes if they are important in the photo, and are something I might want to search for some day. For example, I had a favorite stuffed kangaroo I got when I was really young, and this became my favorite animal. Adding the keyword “kangaroo” in any photo with me in it could be very useful when trying to isolate photos that mean a lot to me.
FACE RECOGNITION IN PICASA:
Yeah, I think the face recognition features are a bit too “basic” and “gimmicky” to really be taken seriously for a serious archiver. You’re right, they are very software specific, so I can see where if someone is determined to use a program like Picasa for the rest of their lives (if that’s even possible), then trying to make that feature pay off could be advantageous. Unless this feature for sure writes these “tagged” people’s names as metadata that is stored in your master images.
KEYWORDS:
Keywords in metadata is what’s important. My goal is to “tag” or “keyword” (these terms are the same but different programs call them different things) each photo with the important words I would like to search for later. A good image managing program will also write these tags BACK into the master image file as well so that if you take this photo to another program, the new program will pull this keyword from the embedded IPTC metadata field and allow you to search for the keywords as well.
So, a good rule of thumb when thinking about your filenames and keywords is to almost think of both of them as being the same — same important key information to search with. The file name keywords will be helpful when searching and reading photos without being able to see/read the embedded metadata. And the metadata keywords are great once in a great photo managing program to search and filter photos. You could stick with just using one and save yourself time, but having both is always better.
Think how useful it will be for me to be able to search for my name, my brother’s name, and “kangaroo” some day and every photo my brother and I are both in AND with a kangaroo in the shot (including at a zoo too!) would come up. That’s power! That’s what I want. 😉
I think the Face recognition feature could help you get a start isolating groups of photos with certain people in them, and then you could do a “select-all” type highlighting of them all and then batch-keyword them. Time-saving tricks like this could be useful for you.
Thank you so much for this site, Curtis. So much great information here!
Re: identifying people in the photos, I would strongly suggest using first and last names, rather than “Mom”, “Grandpa”, “Joe”, “Cousin Adelaide”, etc. Yes, it feels weird and formal, but your heirs will thank you. Remember that your familial relationship to the person in the photo will differ from that of whoever is viewing it 50 or 100 years from now, so it’s best to keep identities generic and viewer-agnostic.
I recently inherited some boxes of old photographs of my ancestors, dating back to the 1860s. Thankfully, many of them are carefully labelled on the back with the subject’s full name and age and the name of the studio or photographer where the portrait was taken (photography was a big deal back then). However, my great-great grandmother’s photo album has a lot of cabinet cards simply labeled “Grandmother” or “Cousin”, which means doing some detective work to figure out who’s who.
Using full names is also helpful if the same 2 or 3 first names tend to recur in your family over the generations.
Another thing I’ve learned, from sorting through my late mother’s photos: when you go on a trip, try to include yourself and your companions in some of the photographs. Even if you don’t like being photographed, your children and grandchildren won’t care. They want to see you. Photos of empty scenery won’t mean anything to them. I sorted through about 40 rolls of Cornwall landscapes and London streets, hoping for a glimpse of my mom, but she wasn’t in any of them.
I have plenty of vacation prints of my own, but I’m realizing now that they only matter to me (and whoever was also on the trip). Unless it’s a truly amazing and unique shot, has an interesting story to go with it, or includes family and friends, I probably won’t bother to scan those for the archive. They might be useful as part of a digital travelogue or scrapbook, but I don’t think they’ll become part of family lore.
Anyway, some food for thought. Thank you again for all your great tips and insights! This blog is exactly what I needed.
For complicated photos, say a crowd of relatives after a funeral: I add a white border around the photo, or just at the bottom, where I type in the filename as title, followed by full names of the people, left to right, occasion, etc. When coupled with genealogy work, this is most helpful. Also, when there are cryptic or important notes on the backs of photos, I use the bottom border (it can be made as large as necessary) to type: Back of photo: Winnie Smith wrote: “Harry was valedictorian 1923.” Appreciate all your great ideas. Thank you.
That sounds like a great solution Bonnie. What program are you using to add the border? Is it a quick process or does it take a bit of time for each photo?
I just had someone submit a guest-post to me where he explains a similar workflow that he uses to add a caption below a photo (in lieu of just using IPTC metadata fields like “Caption”). I would be interested in knowing how yours might be different. 🙂
“5. Don’t Guess With Anything…..Like using “x’s” with the date field, there is a way around this problem. I use a “?” next to names and keywords when I’m not absolutely positive of someone or something. For example:
“196x-10-31 Alices Halloween Party – Houston TX – Randy Tom? Mark””
Curtis, your suggestion from above about not guessing does not work for file names in the Windows universe; a ? is a reserved character and they won’t let you put it in a file name. Sometimes I add a [Q] in lieu of a ?, but mostly I indicate my uncertainty in the relevant IPTC field.
John, thank you for pointing that out for people reading this. I do forget sometimes how forgiving OSX on Macs is. I need to do a better job sometimes of remembering to put an alternative for Windows users if it’s not possible to do so.
“[q]” is a great idea to use instead. In fact, off the top of my head I can’t think of anything better that stands a chance of someone later down the line being able to see the “symbol” and know what you mean by that without a translation (legend) to explain it. Thanks for the tip! :beer:
I see that in your examples you used both “TX” and “Illinois.” I use iPhoto and have encountered search issues with both abbreviations and full names. For example, if you used abbreviations, searching for “IL” would find all the photos of “BILL.” If you used full names, searching for photos of your friend “Carol” would find all the photos taken in “South Carolina.” I know I can create Smart Albums (title includes Carol AND location does not equal North/South Carolina). But before I proceed I just wondered if you had settled on one or the other, or had any other insight. Thanks!
Astute observation there Bill. 🙂
I think I tend to create various examples for people in my articles so that different types of readers can latch onto a “concept” that might suit them best. So, as you noticed, I didn’t really pick one to show it’s the best choice or even my choice.
Apple hasn’t addressed this problem you brought up in either iPhoto or Aperture. It’s frustrating. One would hope you could enter “Carol” in a search and then filter “contains exact” or something like it, since putting Carol in quotes doesn’t rule out Carolina (as you pointed out). Doesn’t work in Aperture either.
If you can’t tell from my writing, I fancy myself as an optimistic guy, and iPhoto 11 and Aperture 4 are just around the bend. And it’s very possible this was on their todo list of minor features to add, or is on the list for a minor update later.
Point being, one insight I would suggest is to pick a workflow that would be your choice if these two programs didn’t currently limit you. Because, one day, the limitation may no longer be in place.
Additionally, I try and think towards the future with most everything I do. Even though it feels like iPhoto or Aperture is everything to us right now, 10, 20, 30 years from now, it may not be. You or I, or whomever inherits our collection, may not be using either one of them and will be on to a new piece of software.
Another thing to keep in mind, if you were to export out of a managed library or locate the master file on your hard drive from a referenced library, having ‘IL’ vs ‘Illinois’ may not pose any problems to you because in the finder application, you seem to be able to search for “IL” (with the quotes) and it will choose only ‘IL’ and not Illinois. So, sometimes it’s important to make decisions based on what’s best for the master image file name or title (if you export it from iPhoto) because of where these files may end up later for other uses by other people.
I tend to abbreviate when I can in a filename — like states because some states are LOOOONG when you write them out. And I know this isn’t fair for iPhoto users, but I then make up for it by relying on using full names using IPTC metadata fields in Aperture. I have a field for “State” where the photo was taken and I can then write out the full “Massachusetts.”
You never know. iPhoto may include access to IPTC fields someday, or you can always upgrade to Aperture whenever you feel you want that extra power.
Hope this helps!
Your optimism definitely shines in an Internet full of people complaining about tech limitations. I have seen your posts about Aperture as well and have considered upgrading, so I will look at the IPTC route if I do. Thanks for your well-thought, thorough answer. -B(IL)L
ok.ok.ok.
thank you for reminding me to breath!
I read your helpful comments and calmed down and tried a few things. I think I was mainly freaked out when I thought there would be 1 picture with 2 names…but then realized that the original will be updated (name wise) eventually.
I imported some digital shots and relaxed!
I’m now swimming in figuring out the difference between projects/folders/albums. oh. my!
I had my digital pics…nicely organized in folders by year.month.date…
so I imported “folders as projects” and it has line them up very similar to the way they live in the external hard drive.
I’m really unsure as how to import the scans tho…as they are less organized…and much like yours are a “work in progress” as far as re-naming and sorting into folders. maybe a “to be sorted project” and when named…moved to a different project?
so, how do you organize your pics once imported? projects? albums? folders?
thanks again…for the reassurance that all will be well!!
You really did break it down and make it easier to understand!!
especially the breathing part : )
Nancy, so glad to hear things are coming along a little better for you in Aperture. : )
That’s a great question about where to put your scanned images inside of Aperture once you import them. So really are a lot of different ways to do it.
What I do may not be best for everyone, but for my workflow, I created a folder that’s basically labeled “Scanning Work.” Then every day that I do a new batch of scanning, I create a new project and put all of that day’s scans in there. The advantage for me is that if I need to find the original print for whatever reason in the near future, I could more easily trace it back to a stack or bag or box etc of prints that I did that day.
Another way I do it sometimes is to start moving them into a chronological order more quickly.
I have a folder for every decade — “1970’s”, “1980’s” etc. Then I have a Folder inside of each of those for each year. Then I put a project called “Unsorted” for example inside of each year and for those photos that I don’t know where they go in say a specific event project like “30th Birthday Party” or “Christmas” etc, I will place them in each of the unsorted folders.
This gets me going in the process of chronologically organizing them because it gets them in the correct year, but it doesn’t put the pressure on me to sort them any further until I know more about them.
I’ve been away for quite a bit recently, swallowed alive with my full-time relentless line of work I am in. But, I think I am back finally!
oh. my.
would you like to turn this into an “aperture” blog?
I bought it and am a little overwhelmed. It is less intuitive than I expected.
I had no idea until you mentioned it…that it doesn’t write meta data to the originals.
I am also a little confused about file names.
I thought I would be able to import files as referenced…and if I changed the name in aperture…it would change the master file…but it doesn’t…only the aperture “version”….that just confuses me…wouldn’t that get really confusing…later on.
You said you have your scans referenced. Do you make sure that you name them before importing?…what if you find out more info and want to change it from 196x_12_25 to 1966_12_25 ? It won’t change the master file…so how do you know later that the two images are the same?
Aperture may be a little beyond what I want…
All I want is something that will let me keyword…pictures…so I can type in a name i.e.: Curtis Bisel and find all the pics I have tagged of curtis. or: Bryant Family, or neon signs. I will rarely retouch…or use a lot of the bells and whistles in aperture.
I’m a little freaked out about this duel name thing. any advice…from your experiences??
Sometimes I think I would LOVE to turn this blog into just an Aperture blog. But, then I think I can help less people that way, and I know better. 😉
Don’t get overwhelmed with Aperture — breathe in. Breathe out. 🙂
Think of Aperture like a minivan with a sports car engine under the hood. You don’t have to use the power, but it’s there if you ever want it while on your long “haul.”
There are a lot of bells and whistles, but don’t tell yourself that you need to use them all. They are just there if you need them.
Aperture will write meta to the originals, but you have to tell it to. They have chosen, maybe for speed because it would slow the program down to keep writing to masters every 2 seconds, to store most/all new metadata in the “photo library” and then when you share (export) to then write that new info you added into the new file (versions).
1) Yes, you can import photos as referenced and then change the names later — I do all the time. I don’t worry about telling Aperture to overwrite the originals with the new information immediately or it would just become too stressful — too OCD. I do some work in an event full of photos and then I select all of the photos and then I tell it to update the masters with the info I just changed in the versions. I believe the process is up under “Metadata” and then the option is “Write IPTC Metadata to Original.” (It will tell you that you can’t undo it, meaning hitting command-z) But, you could later re-write over that “wrong” metadata if you had another change.
You can also do batch changes with your metadata. This is how I do most of my changes routinely.
Select a bunch of photos, then under “Metadata” choose “Batch Change”. Do changes in the options — like you can change the City where the photo was taken to Atlanta e.g., and then if you check the box “Apply to Original Files”, it will THEN update the original master files immediately. So if you make changes in this window, it CAN (if that box is checked) make the changes to your masters. But yes, if you make changes outside of this “batch change” window, then you have to tell it to write the metadata to the originals.
2) I don’t name all my photos immediately with all the info I intend to store in the filename (title). I Mostly add just the info in my Part 3 of my file naming tutorial, and then I add the other info later — often with the batch changes option — and other info manually as I learn when the photo was taken and who’s in it etc. Then I at some point, I tell Aperture to update the original metadata in the originals. Again. No hurry. It’s in the database. I’ll get to it sometime ;).
3) So how do you know your new named-photo and the (temporarily) differently named referenced file are the same? When in Aperture, right click/control click a thumbnail/preview image and choose “show in finder” from the top of the list. This will open up a Finder window and will point right to your file! Very easy! 🙂
4) I can see how you’re initially freaked out. The program is more “exposed” than iPhoto. It’s showing you more of what iPhoto was doing for you in a way, and you think you need to know all of this to make it work. Which you don’t. But again, it’s there.
Think of master and version this way. When you are in iPhoto, you import a scanned photo — the master image. Great. You have the master image in there and it looks and behaves exactly the same as before you imported it.
Now, the SECOND you do anything new to that image, say make a slight crop, change the name (title) etc… your image is now a Version. iPhoto doesn’t use this terminology — they don’t want to confuse their more “novice” user base (they would rather confuse their Aperture users 😛 ).
But seriously. Your photo no longer is just like the master image you had before — it’s now cropped or whatever you did to it — it’s a version. If you export it from iPhoto, it will export this new version. The ONLY way in iPhoto to revert all changes back to the original state is to UNDO all of your work.
Aperture just makes it easier for you to quickly have access to your “before” and “after” copies by keeping one as the “master” and any other copy as a “version.” BTW, there’s this cool button when you are in adjustments at the bottom right that looks like a filmstrip with a bite out of it — click that and it switches back and forth between how your image looks in the original master state, and how it looks in your version state — say.. after you color corrected or copped it. Very slick. 😉
I think you are CLOSE! Just digest all the info in these two comments I left for you.. read them a couple times if you want or need to. Try out a couple things. Test out some changes and meta overwrites.. batch changes on COPIES of photos that if you messed for some reason wouldn’t hurt anything. 🙂
Then write me back with a follow-up question.
I think with Aperture, you can do your Keywording like you want. Don’t let “version” terminology scare you. Really, in the simplest terms, it just means you added something to it, from the original state that you imported it. That’s all. (Just like you do in iPhoto — without iPhoto using the term “version” even though it is).
Hang in there!
Best,
Curtis
Nancy, if this also helps you out… know that I almost am never in the main folders on my external hard drive — where my masters are being stored and referenced. I just think of it like a warm nest where I store my master images.
If a family member came to my house and said, “Hey can I have all those photos at xxx”, my first thought would NOT be to go in to Finder and find the folder of these images to give to them, and then worry if the master images have been updated with the latest meta information I typed in.
My first thought would be to to into Aperture, and find the collection of photos (as an event or album — however I have it organized) and then export those out for him/her. That will guarantee I can give them the latest info. And when I export, I can also choose to give them the photos as the master (the current state of the master images — after any updating with overwrites etc) or as a version with new color corrections etc.
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like you are currently just hung up with the idea that your original masters always needing to being updated. This is really only important if you need to access them with another piece of software like Lightroom. Because, Lightroom won’t have access to the metadata that’s only stored in Aperture and vice-versa. So for switchers that go in and out of multiple applications, this is important. Otherwise, for most cases, you won’t need to worry about always having your masters updated immediately. Just make sure you keep your Aperture library backed up in many places so you are prepared for a major disaster.
thanks Curtis.
I bought Aperture and am now on the verge of making this decision!
I like the idea of cloning…
but I’m still a little confused.
say I have the referenced masters on an external drive that sits in my house.
I clone those masters to the portable drive that I carry with me.
and then i’m in this situation:
I’m back at that family members with my laptop and the portable that is cloned.
I want to a keyword search and burn a dvd with all the pics I have of say, “zach”
will aperture “see” the originals on the cloned drive?
or should I make the portable the Master and the one at home the clone?
I’ve also thought about just importing EVERYTHING digital and scans and making everything managed…going thru and using faces…to at least get pics sorted…and THEN as I process…name…correct…keyword…finish an image… export it to an external as referenced master.
what do you think of that???
aye, yi, aye….
overthinking!
Congratulations! So glad you jumped into the world of Aperture.
1) Yes, Aperture will see the keywords of your photos on the cloned drive because the keywords are stored in Aperture’s “Photo Library” file. When in Aperture and you want to say … make an edit/adjustment, zoom in on the image, or export an image, then Aperture will stop using the “preview” image, and with those cases, it will then pull the original image from your cloned drive and display it on your laptop screen. If you stop doing those actions, and return to the browser mode and are just looking at the thumbnail view, it will then go back to displaying just the “preview” sized images (stored inside of the “photo library” file.
2) I think it’s best to label your best, biggest, most dependable (trustworthy / high quality / best brand) drive your MASTER drive and keep that puppy at home. Protect it. Pet it. Keep it nice and cool.
Then, when you leave the house, take a clone. Worst case, you don’t have a couple “original master” photos on there that are new since your last syncing sessions with Carbon Copy Cloner or SuperDuper, and you have to drive back home etc.
Worst case if you don’t do it this way, is you lose or damage your master drive somewhere and then you have lost those few “original masters” forever — or have to rescan prints etc.
I think it’s best to just mentally see one as home-based and the “Mother” … and then see the clones as the “kids” that are doing the Mother’s work out in the world. 😉
3) It would take a long long answer for me to go into all the details for this comment, but my opinion is that you don’t want to think about exporting as a solution to your personal managed/referenced dilemma.
Reason, you don’t want to have to later keep track of 2 collections of the same images. I know one’s in Aperture and one would be outside on a drive somewhere, but once you wrap your head around how Aperture works, you will appreciate just having everything be in one place, and then exporting will be for just sharing — emailing to a family member etc.
overthinking = planning for the future
Cheers!
Curtis
so…….Curtis.
I know you are using aperture…
do you use referenced or managed files?
I’m going to make the LR vs. Aperture vs. iphoto decision this week…and will then need to make the referenced or managed decision.
I have a lot of space…but am leaning toward referenced to keep the drive on the mb pro as freed up as possible. used to be you could dump pics in the main hard drive forever…but with 10-15 mb. digital cameras…the space fills up faster than it used to! and video….well, I’m sure you know how fast space fills up with video!
any advice?
thanks.
So here’s what I’m doing. I actually use both “referenced” and “managed” files with Aperture.
I find advantages with both methods. So for the time being, all of my digital photos and videos — ones taken with digital cameras (1999 on) — are stored in an Aperture library that is managed, and all of my scanned photos are in one that is referenced.
My goal is to eventually merge them into 1. I haven’t done that yet, because my family is helping me ID photos in the scanned collection, and having the two huge collections together seemed like it might be too big and confusing for them.
Managed photos in Aperture have access to a cool “vaulting” backup feature. You can backup your library to any number of separate backup drives. It knows what is on what, and only updates whatever is new and changed to each “vault” drive you reconnect to the computer — perfect if you want to put one drive hidden in your house somewhere and one in a safety deposit box etc.
So you get the protection when they being managed (no accidentally deleting or moving them), but as your collection grows (as you know), so does the file size of that one library file. You can’t split it up when your hard drive is full like you can with referenced. Which, if you have the money to buy a bigger hard drive, isn’t really an issue for many people. A couple companies make 4tb single drives now.
And of course as you know, referenced files have the advantage of being stored anywhere you want on multiple hard drives (to spread out the disk space requirements) as well as the ability to be accessed by multiple applications.
So in the case of my scanned photos, I really wanted to do referenced so that I could use a number of applications like Picasa and Lightroom to access them so I could do a variety of tutorial videos and posts about my collection for this website. If I had gone with managed in Aperture, they would be “protected” but unaccessible to other apps.
So referenced is a great way for you to go if you are thinking about it. You just have to be willing to be a little more careful in the “finder” level — not accidentally moving and deleting them. And you will be responsible to back them up manually — since you may not have options like “Vault” available to help you make it easier.
And, for example in Aperture, if you later decide you want to manage them instead, it’s really easy to select all your photos and then tell it to “consolidate” them into your library file.
You can easily go the other way too, you just have to tell it where you would like your collection to be exported to, to then become referenced. So it’s helpful to have a really organized collection inside of Aperture before you do that so that you can just tell it to export them out based on your Event folder structure.
Another thing you could do in Aperture is have all your photos be managed, but then reference all your larger videos on an/another external hard drive. That’s one way to deal with limited space on a laptop hard drive. Aperture lets you know what is managed by a little badge icon on the thumbnail image. You can mix and match any images you want in either storage method. It’s very easy.
And know that iPhoto does let you reference your files if you want too, but it’s really pathetic about letting you know what is referenced and what is managed. As of the latest version, there’s no way of knowing which is which — no graphical badges underneath telling you. So, it’s almost easier to have a library file that is all one or the other. If you start mixing, it will get REAL confusing fast.
And if you are unsure which app you want to “settle” with, referenced is the way to go, because you can access your files with any of those apps if they are referenced. The worst case would be going from iPhoto (managed) to Lightroom (referenced) because it would require a LOT of manually exporting that wouldn’t be fun.
Not sure if this turned out to be advice, or just information that might help you make the decision easier. 😉
Thanks for the response Curtis!
All the info and advice you have given is so helpful. I appreciate it!
I am leaning toward Aperture/referenced. I know the beauty of managed is that it just works and does it for you…but the past iphoto confusion about trying to find originals….has me skiddish to ever want to go into the library again and try to figure out its structures.
I think it’s a good choice you’ve made splitting the digital to the scan. If/when you merge will you go all referenced?
the questions I can’t seem to figure out is…
1. if I go referenced…and what I am seeing is a thumbnail…that is pointing to where the photo is stored (say an external drive)….
what happens in this scenario:
I’m with a family member at their house…
I am showing them pics…in aperture….on my laptop.
they want a disc burned…of various pics…
I know I can make a “album-iphoto speak here)…and burn it…
but if the files are referenced…this disc would only be thumbnails, correct?
2. Knowing this may be the case…
say I choose to use a portable drive to be the “home” for the photos…
I’m in the same scenario….
I create a “album” to burn for the family member…
it references them from the portable external….
in this case it WOULD be the full size pics right?
I like the idea of referenced…but I still need to have access to the original file sizes…so I think I would need them on a portable drive.
BUT the thought of carrying around a drive with all my Master files on them….scares the s*%# out of me!!!
So I could back them up to another external drive that sits in my house…but then…which one becomes the referenced drive??? since essentially they both have the identical masters? if I update info one pic…that is referencing the original on the ex. portable… (think keywording in aperture)…it won’t automatically update it on the external…home bound, right? that could get confusing in the land of backups.
God…I’m even confusing myself here…it will be a miracle if you follow this!
I fear this issue/decision is rivaling your why it took me 8 years to scan the second photo…scenario!
Also…do you only import a scan to aperture after it has been renamed…or do you import everything…and rename, tag and keyword…after importing to aperture?
sorry for all the questions…but I believe you have probably already thought thru most of them yourself!
I bought this new (to me) macbook pro used and got a great deal…but I’m wishing I could have got apple’s ONE on ONE to be able to take my aperture questions in and sort it all out. But then again, I think people like us are beyond what they teach. We know how to use…we just overthink a little on the details…and future proofing ; )
Good question. Hmm.. I think whether I will merge my collection as Referenced or Managed in the future could depend on what Apple does/changes with Aperture 4. (For example, in 4 they could make some way for Final Cut Pro X users to access videos from “managed” libraries)
But, my guess is I will keep some items managed and some referenced. I really like the “comfort” of managed, but I also like being able to access files like videos in my editing software. So, imagine I will probably try and manage most photos, but reference the videos so I can edit with them too.
Answers:
1) As of version 3 of Aperture, you would actually not even be able to burn the Preview (Thumbnails) either, unless you knew how to find them by rooting around in your library files. It’s my understanding, to burn anything from aperture, you have to export a group of photos. And you can’t export referenced images unless Aperture can access the “originals.” So you will get a message that pops up when you try and export that those images are missing.
2) Yes, if you had a portable drive with originals, you could export and burn the original sized images. Not to confuse you, but you could also export out “versions” that are any “size” that you want for family. In Aperture, when you export, you choose between two options “Originals” or “Versions”. Versions are like variations of your original, like color corrections etc.
You could export out smaller resolution versions — say 2MP instead of 8MP images, turn your TIFF files to JPG images to make them smaller etc… Or yes, you could export out complete duplicate copies — the high res original 1×1 images.
And in Aperture, you export your photos out to the DVD burner “burn folder”. Almost as easy as iPhoto for making a DVD.
3) Multiple “referenced” drives is a scary notion, but not if you think of it this way. You have 1 main referenced drive which you refer to as your “Master drive”. Then, all backup copies are “clones”. I use a program called Carbon Copy Cloner and run that often. It compares my Master drive to all of my cloned drives, and it copies any “changes” that have occurred to the Master that hasn’t been reflected on any/all of my clones. You can run this software manually, or have it scheduled so it runs every so often in the background. It’s basically the same concept as the “Vault” backup features in managed collections in Aperture, but this works on Referenced collections. You just have to know to use software like CCC and make SURE you use it! 🙂 (There is another app called SuperDuper that does the same thing as CCC. I just couldn’t bring myself to use a program named SuperDuper.)
Also know, most changes you do, like adding a keyword to an image, isn’t immediately saved/written to the master image. Even in Aperture, most if not all changes like this is only added to your databases in the (Aperture) photo library file. You have to actually select images, events, folders etc, and then tell it to manually write any new information to the master images. I assume this could be due to speed. Apple and other developers don’t want to slow down the software by constantly writing info to master images every second.
4) I actually do some of the naming before I import into, but not all. I put in all of the scanner info (part 3 of my naming tutorial here), but I don’t add info like keywords etc until later. I want to keep scanning to a purely technical phase. I don’t like to switch mental gears and try and figure out people’s names in a picture etc. Then, once I add that info to the image in Aperture, I can have Aperture replace the master image’s filename with the extra info I added in later.
YES! That’s the main reason it took me 8 years to figure this out. I was delaying making the decision on “future proofing”! I was so sure whatever decision I made would render my entire collection useless down the line that I was afraid to make one. So I put it off for 8 years.
By that point, Aperture had evolved so far (Lightroom too), that I knew I could rely on all of its features to make up for my lack of knowledge. Features like being able to update master image files with updated metadata and filename info is a Godsend!
So I understand your need to have what feels like “lots” of questions answered. 🙂
Thanks Curtis, these are great tips. I know your website is about scanning, but I’m wondering if the same should be applied when labelling photos in iPhoto. Should the Title (which I believe becomes the file name) be written according to your tips on file names?
Cheers
Carol
Your point about identifying everyone in each photo is excellent. I acquired a batch of slides from a friend who has since passed away, as has his wife. I’ve lost contact with their children. One of the slides has two young boys standing on the front of a diesel locomotive. I know his sons are Jon and Mark but, presumably because he was so familiar with them, he did not indicate which is which. Since I met them only a few times, and they were adults then, I have no way of positively identifying them in the photo. They are both younger than I am and could possibly identify themselves if they could see the slide but since I have no way to contact them, that’s not likely to happen. I can only identify them as so-and-so’s sons, Jon and Mark, making it clear I don’t know which is which, for whoever ends up with my collection and wonders who these guys are and what, if any, connection they are/were to me.
I like your description technique as described in this post.
Being a PC-user, I don’t know Aperture but Adobe’s Lightroom lets the user export the EXIF and IPTC data, including captions and descriptions, be embedded into TIFF files so that this info stays with the image. For other file formats, the data is embedded into a ‘side-car’ file with the same filename as the original image but a different file extension.
It’s important to note that backing up a Lightroom catalog, or its equivalent in other programs, probably including Aperture, one is backing up ONLY the thumbnail images and the database text information, NOT the original images. The originals need to be backed up separately.
If you haven’t tried it, you might look into Ed Hamrick’s VueScan software, available only from his web site, http://www.hamrick.com. It’s available for literally hundreds of makes and models of scanners, including the Epson V600, and can be downloaded for either Mac OS-X or various versions of Windows. The Pro version, about $90.00 US, includes free lifetime upgrades. It also lets one do one scan per image, and save a .jpg version, a .tif version, AND a DNG (Adobe’s open source Digital NeGative format) file which can later be edited in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), Lightroom, Photoshop CSx, Photoshop Elements, and other programs which can edit RAW and/or DNG files. With DNG, one scan can be post-processed at any time, for both highlight and shadow details, converted from full color to black and white, have its color temperature and balance adjusted, etc. The lower-cost version of Vuescan provides many of the features of the Pro version but does not recognize the RAW format. Both versions work with Digital-ICE, if it is available in the scanner hardware; work for reflective copy such as prints, and with both transparencies/slides and negatives.
The software defaults to adding sequential file names during each scanning session, including the year, month, day, time, and sequence number for each sequential image. There is also the option of creating a ‘contact sheet’ of all the images scanned in any session. This can subsequently printed and added to a three ring binder as a hardcopy catalog of the images that have been scanned so far. At the end of each session, or at any convenient time, the files can be renamed, using a system such as you describe.
In one of your posts, you’ve found that your scanning time per slide is about 3 minutes, using the EpsonScan software. That’s about what I’ve experienced, using my Epson 2480 and scanning slides at 2400 spi, (its maximum optical resolution) and 48-bit color. Since I’ve been using VueScan Pro, I’ve found little difference in scanning time except when I spend a little more time adjusting levels/curves and color balance pre-scan. Until I actually tried VueScan (there’s a free trial version available on the web site, identical features as the full versions but adds a watermark to each scanned image), I was pleased with the EpsonScan software’s pre-scan adjustment capabilities but I’ve found VueScan to be far superior in this area.
I agree with your philosophy of scanning everything and if one is to take the time to scan everything, it should be scanned once, at the highest available quality permitted by the available hardware and software, with the intention of being able to be used for any desired purpose now and in the future, including traditional printing, inkjet printing, and use on the web. A large file size, with high resolution, and high color bit depth, makes a good archival master file, from which copies for specific uses can be resized, resampled, and reduced in color bit depth as needed for a particular application. The high quality master file preserves the maximum possible information for subsequent editing adjustments in editing software, now as well as in newer, improved, software to become available in the future. Of course, a larger file size, especially in RAW or DNG formats, will require more space for originals and backups storage but with storage costs being as low as they are these days, this is a small price to pay for retaining maximum quality and image editing capability.
Art Taylor
railwriter@gmail.com
Aperture has 2 different ways in which it allows you to store your photos. You can either store them inside the Library file, OR you can have them referenced in any location that you choose. If, you have referenced photos, then as you pointed out with Lightroom, then YES you are responsible to back those up on your own. If however, if you have opted to have your photos and videos stored within the Library file, then it’s a lot easier to back up your collection. In fact, Aperture has a nice “vaulting” feature that lets you make backups really easily – even with multiple drives. It knows what’s backed up already and just adds to it when you attach that particular “vault” drive. Very slick!
Thanks Art for another informative and knowledgable post. I’m sure others are enjoying the time you have put into your comments as well!
Thanks, Curtis for the info about Aperture. I’m sure it’ll be helpful to other Mac users. I’ll keep it in mind when I’m talking to other Mac fans about backing up their images with data.
I have a friend, into (digital) photography for a little over two years now, who has been shooting RAW with his Nikon and cataloging in Photoshop Elements for Windows. Since he was concerned about consuming all his hard disk space on a 1TB external hard disk attached to his laptop (about an 80GB system disk), he cataloged all his images in PS Elements, backed up his catalog (only), and deleted his original RAW files from his memory card. He had done this before I could warn him to back up his original RAW files, using a copy-and-paste system, then burn them from hard disk to DVD. What’s even more frustrating to me, thinking as an archivist, is that he seems to favor the least expensive CD media he can buy, even though his laptop has an internal DVD burner. The only redeeming factor I see going for him is that he mainly uses his images only on his nature photography blog so cropped,edited JPGs from his RAW files have met his current needs satisfactorily. He makes no claim to wanting to ever sell any of his shots or make prints larger than 8 x 10″, printing the full, perhaps cropped, image file. I just hope he never wants to go back to any of his original RAW files for any reason. Hopefully, others can learn from his mistakes without repeating them.
The question of ‘which brand of CD/DVD blank media to use’ is a good one. There seems to be some difference of opinion on various web sites I’ve visited but there is generally agreement that ‘house brands’ generally are the least reliable, as well as often the least expensive. My personal experience with using Staples house brand, some Fujifilm (Fuji), CD and DVD disks, has shown that they have lost some data in 5 years or less. So far I haven’t noticed any problems with Sony, Kodak, or Verbatim disks. Most of the professional archivist sites I’ve seen recommend “Gold Archival” media, from any of several manufacturers. Apparently, the gold layers retain data for the longest time, without corruption. There’s been some debate about whether DVD+R or DVD-R is the better choice. Generally, the DVD-R is considered to be compatible with a greater variety of playback DVD players, both stand-alone and computer dedicated. I’ve tried to hedge my bets by making one copy on each format but, unwisely, I’ve not been storing the two copies in separate locations. To date, I have not noticed any problems with either format, and since the last few times I’ve gone to buy blank disks, the DVD+Rs have not been in stock, I’ve just burned two copies to DVD-R. The general recommendation is to burn any disk at the slowest speed available to ensure the best possible quality. What’s the significance of gaining 10 or 15 minutes in burning a full 4.7GB disk if it doesn’t properly preserve your files that you’ve spent hours scanning, retouching, captioning, and describing and need to re-do? Take a little longer at the burning stage and avoid needing to re-do all that time and effort. Incidentally, after burning one copy, I visually check the entire disk in ACDSee/Zoner Photo Studio Pro/Lightroom to be sure it burned successfully, before burning the second copy. The second copy is similarly visually checked before it gets filed. If I notice any problems after either burn, I’ll re-do that batch of files on a new disk before feeling the project has been completed.
Although some current burners are labeled as being able to burn DVD+R DL (Dual Layer) and DVD-R DL, very few, if any retailers, at least in Ontario, carry DVD-R DL blank media, although Staples and others do stock DVD+R DL. My research so far has lead me to believe that’s not a big deal in terms of archiving data or images, since any DL media is not yet considered to be reliable enough for serious back ups and archives.
With the possible exception of making a TEMPORARY, incremental back up, the use of either DVD+RW or DVD-RW (Re-Writable) media is completely frowned on by professional archivists. The very fact that they can be re-written means that archived originals can be accidentally or otherwise destroyed completely. It may be possible, in some cases, to recover at least some of the data if the mistake is noticed in time, but each time a re-writable disk is to be re-used, it must be formatted before it can be re-written. ALL existing data is destroyed in the format process, so unless file recovery software is used immediately after the format is completed, any data on the disk will be gone forever. With the cost of blank CDs and DVDs being as low as they are, even for leading brand names like Verbatim, the possible permanent loss of data far outweighs any possible financial saving gained by re-using media.
So far as labeling disks is concerned, the general recommendations seem to be, in no particular order; felt-tipped marker, designed specifically for labeling CDs/DVDs, LightScribe media, which require special LightScribe-compatible burners to add the label using a laser light source; or inkjet-printable media, which require a compatible inkjet printer, such as the Epson R380. The commonly available, self-adhesive paper labels; sticky tapes; self-adhesive address labels; and any other labels that are stuck to all or part of a disk are definitely frowned upon by the pros. Unless they are applied very precisely, they may not adhere properly and might start to come off, gumming up the sensitive reader. Any labels that do not cover the entire disk surface may also throw the balance off as the disk spins at 5400 RPM or more in the reader, thus leading to inaccurate reading of data.
If purpose-designed markers are used, it is still recommended to confine any writing to the clear area immediately around the central hole in the disk, rather than on the main surface area.
When successfully burned, all media should be kept in their original crystal cases or archivally-safe plastic pages in binders. They should NOT be stored flat, as they need to be in many commercially available disk storage shelving units and disk storage racks. They should be stored vertically, like books standing on a shelf. Areas of extreme heat and/or humidity and direct sunlight should be avoided. DON’T store them in a car glove box, on the rear window deck of a car, or fastened to a sunvisor with an elastic band. Ideally, one archive copy will be stored within convenient reach of your workstation/computer and one or more copies will be stored off-site, perhaps at a friend’s or relative’s home and in a bank safety deposit box. The idea here being to greatly reduce the chance of simultaneous loss due to fire, flood, theft, or other disaster. ‘Cloud’ storage may be convenient, but tends to quickly become expensive for large collections. There’s also the possibility of the company hosting the storage space suddenly going out of business for some reason, with the subsequent loss of all your data files. Even reputable companies may experience fatal equipment failures from time to time or they might simply need to temporarily need to take the server with your files off-line temporarily, but that happens to be when you most need your back ups and you can’t access them. Just some factors to consider if thinking about relying on ‘cloud’ storage as an option.
Glad to be able to share some experiences and knowledge with your readers. Hopefully, they’ll pick up tips to help them with their own scanning projects and encourage them to continue.
Art
Wow Art, that’s a lot of good information about CD/DVD backup there. Makes me think maybe you think my website is a little lacking in the area of CD/DVD backup! 😉
I’m just kidding with you. I have so many areas I would like to tackle and this is one of them for those that prefer this method. And maybe you are one to help me with it since you are so knowledgable about it from experience. 🙂
Thanks for the comment!