iView vs Lightroom (for cataloging )

[chet79]

I'm trying to argue with a friend that iView is better for organising / cataloging images, but I'm no good with debates. Can anyone help me say why iView is better out of the two for this purpose? (if you think it is)

[Familiaphoto]

Never used iView, sorry.

[B3SEO]

Ditto. Lightroom does an awesome job of cataloging though. Sorry if that doesn't work for you!

[transcend]

Iview was a fantastic application just a few months ago, when it was the only one that did what it does, as well as it does. I was a true devotee. This season i have switched to lightroom 100%, and am not regretting it.

LR does exactly what iview does, as quickly. It is true drag and drop like iview, also has collections and protects your images better (you cannot delete for example outside of folder view). The IPTC functions are better, the import/renaming is better and the galleries are MUCH better.

Iview just got bought by MS, which doesn't really bode well for it in my opinion. I will be sticking to LR. As a bonus, i can skip jumping to c1 pro, and can sort process and output a gallery and or production shot all in one application, in half the time. The only thing I output to PS for now is large production images that need special sharpening, color control etc.

I think your buddy has you here.

[JohnJ80]

Iview was a fantastic application just a few months ago, when it was the only one that did what it does, as well as it does. I was a true devotee. This season i have switched to lightroom 100%, and am not regretting it.

LR does exactly what iview does, as quickly. It is true drag and drop like iview, also has collections and protects your images better (you cannot delete for example outside of folder view). The IPTC functions are better, the import/renaming is better and the galleries are MUCH better.

Iview just got bought by MS, which doesn't really bode well for it in my opinion. I will be sticking to LR. As a bonus, i can skip jumping to c1 pro, and can sort process and output a gallery and or production shot all in one application, in half the time. The only thing I output to PS for now is large production images that need special sharpening, color control etc.

I think your buddy has you here.

+1 for this. This is exactly right.

I have both and LR is better. It does what iView does plus has tons better editing tools.

MS buying iView is going to be a problem.

J

[mantra]

Iview was a fantastic application just a few months ago, when it was the only one that did what it does, as well as it does. I was a true devotee. This season i have switched to lightroom 100%, and am not regretting it.

LR does exactly what iview does, as quickly. It is true drag and drop like iview, also has collections and protects your images better (you cannot delete for example outside of folder view). The IPTC functions are better, the import/renaming is better and the galleries are MUCH better.

Iview just got bought by MS, which doesn't really bode well for it in my opinion. I will be sticking to LR. As a bonus, i can skip jumping to c1 pro, and can sort process and output a gallery and or production shot all in one application, in half the time. The only thing I output to PS for now is large production images that need special sharpening, color control etc.

I think your buddy has you here.

iview haven't an exif organize panel
and can't "find" exif data
and this is a crap

[chet79]

I think I may have to re-visit Lightroom!

[primoz]

I know this won't be really helpful but still... I will go for "none of them but" option :) I admit I tried both iView and Lightroom just for very very short test and nothing more, so I can easily be wrong. I just didn't like idea of any of those two, so on the end we stayed with our own proprietary application (it was still cheaper then spending 10.000eur for Cumulus at that time when it was made). But nowadays for cataloging on desktop, I would go with Extensis Portfolio or Mediadex (single user version of Canto Cumulus). Of course these are just cataloging software (you would still need another piece of software for editing IPTC), but personally I prefer application which does one thing great, then application which does 100 things but it average.
But on the end, it's still your decision :)

[mantra]

I know this won't be really helpful but still... I will go for "none of them but" option :) I admit I tried both iView and Lightroom just for very very short test and nothing more, so I can easily be wrong. I just didn't like idea of any of those two, so on the end we stayed with our own proprietary application (it was still cheaper then spending 10.000eur for Cumulus at that time when it was made). But nowadays for cataloging on desktop, I would go with Extensis Portfolio or Mediadex (single user version of Canto Cumulus). Of course these are just cataloging software (you would still need another piece of software for editing IPTC), but personally I prefer application which does one thing great, then application which does 100 things but it average.
But on the end, it's still your decision :)

which software do u use?
can Extensis Portfolio Mediadex browse by exif (like iso , metering , shutter speed)

[René Damkot]

Still using iView.
Giving the trial of LR a workout now, but mainly to see if I think the Raw conversion is good enough.
If it is, I'll but it, and then have a look at the differences between iView and LR.

Here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3257712#post3257712) is a thread about both. Seems I need to get into it further...

[mantra]

Still using iView.
Giving the trial of LR a workout now, but mainly to see if I think the Raw conversion is good enough.
If it is, I'll but it, and then have a look at the differences between iView and LR.

Here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3257712#post3257712) is a thread about both. Seems I need to get into it further...


Renè are able to browse in iview by exif?
browse by iso , metering exposure?

if yes , could u tell me how please?

[René Damkot]

Not that I'm aware of.
Never felt the need, but I'ld like to know in case I might find a need ;)
Anyone?

[primoz]

As I wrote, we use proprietary software and not Portfolio or Mediadex. As far as your question about exif goes. I have no idea. I never needed to know iso or shutter speed of photo when searching, so when I was checking those two, I didn't pay attention to such things. But if I remember right, they have this option. Both of them have trial version, so you can try and see yourself if any of them fit. And with price range under $200 they are not all that expensive either.

[MikeCaine]

I still prefer iView at the moment, especially if the files are on unmounted media such as external drives or DVDs

iVeiw seemed to be the DAM software of choice over at http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php although some users are now trying to migrate over to Lightroom. There's a Lightroom section on that forum, you might find some ammunition to use in arguments over there

[frankgindc]

I've been ping ponging between iView/EM and LR for six months now and here's my quick take on it:

- iView has better file management options for moving stuff around, correcting problems with file locations, etc. so it might be good for setting up an initial library;
- longtime iView users tend to characterize iView's capabilities as "more robust" than LR and I wouldn't argue with that.
- however, iView/EM has still not corrected basic problems that they acknowledged 2 and 3 years ago, before MS acquired them (stuff like the limit on catalog size which forces you to use small thumbnails, no heirarchal keywords, etc.);
- LR is faster, less buggy, more intuitive with smarter controls, and has a FAR BETTER track record of development and improvement over the last year so I find myself more confident that what it lacks now will be taken care of before iView/EM cleans up their act;
- iView/EM seems to be better at opening 3rd party RAW converters (havent' tested this alot but LR won't do it with some);
- LR has some "versioning" capacity that iView lacks in that you can have virtual copies that are treated differently (B&W v. color etc.);
- by the same token, because LR is using 'recipes' applied to files, it seems that one could have a single library of keyworded RAW images, with different tweaks applied to them in LR, and then a separate library only for job outputs (to web, to client, etc.)...i.e., you wouldn't necessarily have to worry about keywords in the initial RAW file being correctly synced with keywords in future jpeg versions of the file, since the cataloging would be in one place;

But the biggest advantage of LR, to me, would be that if it works for you as a RAW converter, you can streamline down to it as managing your image catalog and doing MOST of your image work -- without roundtripping files through other programs -- it's less robust image management would be more than made up for in spending less time negotiating the space between multiple programs. The main thing holding me back from doing this now, is that I'm not yet happy with LR sharpening and noise reduction capabilities (still waiting on the plugins) so I find it necessary to go to an add'l program anyway so that streamlining advantage is not quite there for me yet...but I expect it will be soon.

[René Damkot]

Anyone?

iView forum has a workaround: Click (http://forum.iview-multimedia.com/viewtopic.php?t=6495)

[JohnJ80]

The think about LR and iView is that they nicely coexist. If you put your images into DNG format, then Lightroom reads and writes that format so that iView can read it and write it as well. You can keep both catalogs current with little trouble on one set of photos.

J.

[frankgindc]

JohnJ80,
I was thinking about that but my very limited dabbling with DNG suggests that the file sizes are much bigger than even the RAW files. is that just the way it is or am I missing an option?

Frank

[JohnJ80]

DNG is a raw format just not proprietary. You do have the option of having the DNG photo WITH the original RAW embedded. That done, they get huge (about 2X). I think that might be what you were seeing.

The great thing about DNG is that the spec allows for the metadata and EXIF to be embedded in the file instead of in those *%^*%#$ sidecar files. That way, a file stands along - you can look at its metadata and figure it out. With sidecars, if they get separated from the RAW file, you are screwed.

J.