Reading through this thread, there seem to me to be a lot of possible
confusions and/or misunderstandings.
1. There are two models:
a. Leave all the files where they are and create a catalog of them, including thumbnails. Browsing is fairly quick;
viewing full size or editing loads the original from disk. Catalogs are relatively modest in size.
b. Suck up the original files and move them into a catalog/database. (Madness!!)
LR allows either model. My impression is that most other converter/editors use
model 1.a.
Model 1.a. has an inherent problem with keeping catalog and image files in sync. In LR, it's relatively easy. When any
photo had had metadata changes, there is a little arrow on the thumbnail. One may choose to import the metadata changes,
or overwrite them from LR.
If a file name is changed, one must delete the catalog entry and re-import under the new name. Not a personal problem,
as I don't change the file names that the camera assigned, nor do I move original files.
2. I'm not sure, but it seems as though there is some confusion about switching to a new/different DAM. LR stores its
image specific data, such as geocode, keywords, star ratings and ACR/Develop Module settings, in XMP "sidecar" files in
the same directory as the image file.
I can see all these things in an external EXIF viewer, so they are not hidden
away somewhere in LR.
As far as I can tell, LR does not store Collection data in the XMP files.
It would appear that I could try out a different DAM by simply using it to index/catalog my existing photos. Perhaps all
I would need to recreate would be its version of Sets/Collections?
Confuse A Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|