«

Hokay! Here goes!

I post this with the knowledge it will probably appear in magazines in one
form or another so: if you resource the details from here or use it as a
basis to disseminate or promote good practise please be kind enough and
coureous enough to add something along the lines of "original ideas
attributed to Aerticus on rec.photo.digital news group.

1 - when you upload image from camera to computer open image editor and add
keywords, IPTC straight away (don't procrastinate - just do!)

2 - create a copy folder based on the image name. Copy an image into it (at
this stage, one folder, one image). This will be your work in progress
image

3 - batch resample (resize if you wish) from the ORIGINAL image and store
these on computer hard drive JPEG level 5 seems q good This will work with
PSCS or your alternative image editor (huh! is there one?) so to retain
EXIF, IPTC and keyword identifiers

4 - copy ORIGINAL images to removable hard drive possibly CD - it's up to
you and your resources. Verify that the transfer has been good and 1005

5 - Remove ORIGINAL IMAGES from fixed hard drive and store the saved
originals in a safe place on safe media

6 - work top your heart's content on the WIP folders pulling any other image
you may later require from the copy of original images

7 - if you need to search on keywords or by visual criteria base that on the
smaller sized copies retaining EXIF IPTC and keywords

The idea here is to minimise possible harm to original images, use JPEGed
level 5 or so as the basis for image directory & EXIF, IPTC, keyword data,
work in progress folders provide -erm- folders for -innocent whistle- image
work -shuffle- in progress.

8 - when WIP no longer is WIP and becomes historic work (work that once was
work in progress?) save it to safe removable media possibly after taking
lo-res JPEG 5 copies with EXIF IPTC and keyword (possibly revised) data.

The idea is to take no longer active images off the fixed hard drive(s)
after storing smaller files of the same thing while retaining usefulness of
EXIF IPTC and keywords

Aerticus

--
Yesterday I thought I was indecisive but today I am not so sure

"Aerticus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dC6ld.888$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hokay! Here goes!
>
> I post this with the knowledge it will probably appear in magazines in one
> form or another


So you think you have the monopoly on common sense and good practice?

He he he

Yes - do you have a problem with that?

Aerticus

"Fi Nishing" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Aerticus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:dC6ld.888$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hokay! Here goes!
>>
>> I post this with the knowledge it will probably appear in magazines in
>> one
>> form or another
>
>
> So you think you have the monopoly on common sense and good practice?
>
>

"Aerticus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:45ald.1298$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Yes - do you have a problem with that?

I have a problem with your smug holier than thou attitude - "the knowledge
it will probably appear in magazines". You must think you are very very
wonderful and extraordinarily clever and perspicacious.


> >> I post this with the knowledge it will probably appear in magazines in
> >> one
> >> form or another
> >
> >
> > So you think you have the monopoly on common sense and good practice?
> >
> >
>
>

In Scott Kelby's books on Photoshop, etc. The first thing he mentions is to
make a copy of originals on cd ASAP
It makes sense, although I don't always do so ;-(
Marcel
____________________

"Aerticus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dC6ld.888$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hokay! Here goes!
>
> I post this with the knowledge it will probably appear in magazines in one
> form or another so: if you resource the details from here or use it as a
> basis to disseminate or promote good practise please be kind enough and
> coureous enough to add something along the lines of "original ideas
> attributed to Aerticus on rec.photo.digital news group.
>
> 1 - when you upload image from camera to computer open image editor and
add
> keywords, IPTC straight away (don't procrastinate - just do!)
>
> 2 - create a copy folder based on the image name. Copy an image into it
(at
> this stage, one folder, one image). This will be your work in progress
> image
>
> 3 - batch resample (resize if you wish) from the ORIGINAL image and store
> these on computer hard drive JPEG level 5 seems q good This will work
with
> PSCS or your alternative image editor (huh! is there one?) so to retain
> EXIF, IPTC and keyword identifiers
>
> 4 - copy ORIGINAL images to removable hard drive possibly CD - it's up to
> you and your resources. Verify that the transfer has been good and 1005
>
> 5 - Remove ORIGINAL IMAGES from fixed hard drive and store the saved
> originals in a safe place on safe media
>
> 6 - work top your heart's content on the WIP folders pulling any other
image
> you may later require from the copy of original images
>
> 7 - if you need to search on keywords or by visual criteria base that on
the
> smaller sized copies retaining EXIF IPTC and keywords
>
> The idea here is to minimise possible harm to original images, use JPEGed
> level 5 or so as the basis for image directory & EXIF, IPTC, keyword data,
> work in progress folders provide -erm- folders for -innocent whistle-
image
> work -shuffle- in progress.
>
> 8 - when WIP no longer is WIP and becomes historic work (work that once
was
> work in progress?) save it to safe removable media possibly after taking
> lo-res JPEG 5 copies with EXIF IPTC and keyword (possibly revised) data.
>
> The idea is to take no longer active images off the fixed hard drive(s)
> after storing smaller files of the same thing while retaining usefulness
of
> EXIF IPTC and keywords
>
> Aerticus
>
> --
> Yesterday I thought I was indecisive but today I am not so sure
>
>

Aerticus wrote:

> 5 - Remove ORIGINAL IMAGES from fixed hard drive and store the
> saved originals in a safe place on safe media

> 8 - when WIP no longer is WIP and becomes historic work (work that
> once was work in progress?) save it to safe removable media
> possibly after taking lo-res JPEG 5 copies with EXIF IPTC and
> keyword (possibly revised) data.

> The idea is to take no longer active images off the fixed hard
> drive(s) after storing smaller files of the same thing while
> retaining usefulness of EXIF IPTC and keywords

I have a simple question for all of the above: Why? What is the point
of deleting the original images from the fixed harddisk(s)?

Aerticus wrote:

> Well, on a standalone computer or laptop or tablet for that
> matter, historical images take up a lot of hard disk space.

Correct.

> This ultimately slows the computer down and in a sense has no
> positive contribution to workflow.

Why would it? Unless you're reaching the limit of your harddisk and it
begins to fragment files too much, more files won't make any difference
in computing speed, nor will it make any difference in the speed with
which files are accessed.

As for contribution to workflow, then it's obviout that readily
available files are easier to access than files that are stored on CDs
or other external storage.

> It (the method of operation I described above) arose as I hit a
> 30GB on a 40 GB hard disk in the laptop.

On laptops, I can understand the need to free space. For standalones,
harddiskspace is cheap.

You say you freed 10GB with your method. For a laptop that counts. For
a standalone, 10GB of harddisk space costs below $10 in Denmark (of
course you have to buy a bigger harddisk ond hope that you'll
eventually use the rest of the space). Hardly a reason to go through
the hassle.

I think this is one of those options in which everyone has their own
preference and as a result everyone is totally correct within their own
frame of reference.

The idea of seeking a one-stop solution really doesn't fit the scenarios
described.

Personally I'd rather download full images to external media and am mindful
of non-pro photographers that may be downloading the odd RAW or TIFF file
converting it to DNG for whatever reason thus possibly doubling or tripling
large file sizes.

Heck - if it aint a solution to someone it cannot possibly be a problem
(else same eventualities may have been solved in a different way)

I know how much disk space has been used in -say- 6 months of using a
digital camera. I anticipate people hitting similar buffers after some time
of using digitl cameras. As MPs continue to increase disk space will
continue to be in even shorter supply.

Now I really wonder if memory cards are the way to go. I wishe SPARQ
removable cartridges were still running - I am looking at my desktop with
its 1 Gig cartridge slots and regret not having more that the 2 cartridges I
bought at the time (2 Gig then seemed a whole lorra room)

Aerticus

"Toke Eskildsen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns95A0DB61110Atokeeskildsen@130.133.1.4...
> Aerticus wrote:
>
>> Well, on a standalone computer or laptop or tablet for that
>> matter, historical images take up a lot of hard disk space.
>
> Correct.
>
>> This ultimately slows the computer down and in a sense has no
>> positive contribution to workflow.
>
> Why would it? Unless you're reaching the limit of your harddisk and it
> begins to fragment files too much, more files won't make any difference
> in computing speed, nor will it make any difference in the speed with
> which files are accessed.
>
> As for contribution to workflow, then it's obviout that readily
> available files are easier to access than files that are stored on CDs
> or other external storage.
>
>> It (the method of operation I described above) arose as I hit a
>> 30GB on a 40 GB hard disk in the laptop.
>
> On laptops, I can understand the need to free space. For standalones,
> harddiskspace is cheap.
>
> You say you freed 10GB with your method. For a laptop that counts. For
> a standalone, 10GB of harddisk space costs below $10 in Denmark (of
> course you have to buy a bigger harddisk ond hope that you'll
> eventually use the rest of the space). Hardly a reason to go through
> the hassle.

Aerticus wrote:

> Heck - if it aint a solution to someone it cannot possibly be a
> problem (else same eventualities may have been solved in a
> different way)

Some people can probably use it.

> I know how much disk space has been used in -say- 6 months of
> using a digital camera. I anticipate people hitting similar
> buffers after some time of using digitl cameras. As MPs continue
> to increase disk space will continue to be in even shorter supply.

As MPs continue to increase, disk space will continue to increase.
There's no reason to assume that internal storage technology should
stagnate.

"Aerticus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsbtld.2442$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Does it matter to you what I think?
>
Since you saw fit to foist your unasked-for expertise upon us, yes, of
course it matters.


> Is it in your job description or are you officially Thought-Police?
>
I'm a professional photographer. As such I know how to guard against loss of
even a single byte. If I wanted your excellent advice I, and others here,
would have requested it. Or perhaps everybody else is just waiting until
all the magazines publish you?