What software do you use to organize your photos?

What software do you guys use?

I am not a photographer, but I would like to organize all my scanned pictures when I am done with them.

I know on Windows you can download Windows Photo Gallery. There is also Picasa. I am not familiar with these programs.

I know for Mac they have iPhoto which comes with your Mac when you purchase it. There is also a program called Aperture but I am not sure if it's actually for organizing photos. To me it looks like more basic version of Photoshop.

Thanks

I use iPhoto. I know that I should move up to more advanced, "professional" software, especially for editing. But iPhoto is so darn good at organization that I hesitate to give it up. It allows you so many ways of sorting, organizing, exporting, and viewing your photos. Yet it is "idiot-proof", with very easy-to-find commands and options, which are located right in the toolbars at the top of the window where you'd expect them to be.

And the editing abilities of iPhoto are, in my opinion, extremely underestimated. Few realize it works as a RAW converter & editor, for those shooting RAW images.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16217447
I use iPhoto. I know that I should move up to more advanced, "professional" software, especially for editing. But iPhoto is so darn good at organization that I hesitate to give it up. It allows you so many ways of sorting, organizing, exporting, and viewing your photos. Yet it is "idiot-proof", with very easy-to-find commands and options, which are located right in the toolbars at the top of the window where you'd expect them to be.

And the editing abilities of iPhoto are, in my opinion, extremely underestimated. Few realize it works as a RAW converter & editor, for those shooting RAW images.

Shouldn't editing be done in something like Photoshop or GIMP though?

I thought iPhoto and these others were mainly just for storing, organizing, and tagging your photos?

You know, it all depends on what you want and need when you say "organize".

I spent a lot of years happily using "whatever", in other words whatever was free or at least cheap and easy to use.

As my photo library grew, though, it began to dawn on me that those tools might not be the best tools, and that my approach may not have been so effective.

It was during that period that a book came out, "The DAM Book", addressing Digital Asset Management (DAM) and that got my attention, since the book took DAM seriously, addressing several aspects and proposing a "comprehensive" solution!

Well, it was also during that time that some software developers were actually discussing comprehensive solutions. One proposed solution that "popped to the surface" was that Adobe was working on a product which they dubbed Lightroom, one which would combine the essentials of photo processing with extensive DAM functions as well as good output functions.

Apple at the same time was working in a similar direction with their Aperture app.

And so, Lightroom and Aperture were "birthed".

Since I'm not a Mac user Aperture was not an option (and neither is iPhoto), but Lightroom soon became my "go to" app for all my DAM work, most of my photo processing, and most of my output.

But I'm not saying that those "serious" apps are for everyone...you need to take your time and check out your options!

happy mac wrote in post #16217459
Shouldn't editing be done in something like Photoshop or GIMP though?

I thought iPhoto and these others were mainly just for storing, organizing, and tagging your photos?

I use iPhoto for all of my editing, and have had no trouble with the results.

Lightroom for database management AND 90% of my editing needs. Photoshop for the remaining 10%. I'm up to about 23,000 photos and Lightroom handles them fine.

I don't use any special software. Windows Explorer is all I need. I simply create appropriately named folders in the appropriate place and put the image files in them.

I too like Lightroom, it has great tools for organising your files. The only caveat in that regards is that it uses a database to store ALL of the information about the file. Because of this you do have to tell LR where the images are stored to be able to see them. Also if you move the images outside of LR you then have to tell it where you put them. You can keep them anywhere you like though.

I also find that LR's development tools, which are identical to those found in Adobe Camera Raw a sufficient for about 90% of my image processing needs. For the other 10% or so of images they get additional processing in Photoshop. The PS edited images though are also managed in LR, and may even be further processed in LR. For example I like to use LR for Monochrome conversions, so in instances where I have to process an image in PS, say to clone out a complex item that is beyond the abilities of LR. I will bring the .PSD file back into LR, create a virtual copy and perform the B&W conversion on that.

LR also has some very good tools for producing "Output" files. I find the print module is much better than the printing tools in PS, both for printing to a local printer, or for producing files for sending off to a print lab. Using LR I am able to produce a file suitable for the need in hand very quickly, such that I now produce the file when needed, use the file then just delete it. If I need it again it is as quick to have LR generate a new file as to find the "correct" version. Also this ensures that if any file is further edited later that the latest version is used.

Alan

SkipD wrote in post #16218033
I don't use any special software. Windows Explorer is all I need. I simply create appropriately named folders in the appropriate place and put the image files in them.

Ditto. I will say I then use Bridge to access and view the pictures in those folders and in the end PS CS6 to do the editing.

dhornick wrote in post #16218221
Ditto. I will say I then use Bridge to access and view the pictures in those folders and in the end PS CS6 to do the editing.

This..

For me, I like Picassa. It's simple to use and free. I've got other organizers but still prefer Picassa for its simplicity.

If you don't anticipate professional processing needs, Picasa is as good as anything. It is a good processor, it organizes your photos, and it's free.

I use Aperture 3, which is Apple's "professional" software, however I don't recommend it. Mine is buggy and regularly crashes, but that may be due to the size of my libraries.

Ok mixed responses so that's interesting.

I have never heard of Lightroom before.

I myself just use Windows explorer. However I really want to keep things more organized and tagged, so I want a good option.

I have to some editing to remove dust specks on pictures, cracks, orange dots, some weird marks, etc. I did not think iPhoto or Picasa could do stuff like that? I thought they could do simple things only like convert to gray scale, invert colours, etc.

happy mac wrote in post #16219091
I have to some editing to remove dust specks on pictures, cracks, orange dots, some weird marks, etc. I did not think iPhoto or Picasa could do stuff like that? I thought they could do simple things only like convert to gray scale, invert colours, etc.

No, iPhoto is able to do all of the tasks you mentioned. I told you it was underestimated! It is interesting to me how many people have opinions about iPhoto, who have never even attempted to use it for editing purposes. It's got a bad rap that may not be deserved.

Below is an image that I edited in iPhoto. I am also posting the unedited version so that you can see what iPhoto was able to do. Lots and lots of stray vegetation was cloned out and healed over. That is basically the same thing as removing dust specks, weird marks, etc. If anything, removing blades of grass, branches, and leaves may be even more difficult.

happy mac wrote in post #16219091
Ok mixed responses so that's interesting.

I have never heard of Lightroom before.

I myself just use Windows explorer. However I really want to keep things more organized and tagged, so I want a good option.

I have to some editing to remove dust specks on pictures, cracks, orange dots, some weird marks, etc. I did not think iPhoto or Picasa could do stuff like that? I thought they could do simple things only like convert to gray scale, invert colours, etc.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16219272
No, iPhoto is able to do all of the tasks you mentioned. I told you it was underestimated! It is interesting to me how many people have opinions about iPhoto, who have never even attempted to use it for editing purposes. It's got a bad rap that may not be deserved.

Below is an image that I edited in iPhoto. I am also posting the unedited version so that you can see what iPhoto was able to do. Lots and lots of stray vegetation was cloned out and healed over. That is basically the same thing as removing dust specks, weird marks, etc. If anything, removing blades of grass, branches, and leaves may be even more difficult.

OK, hang on, let's get something clear, the OP says they use "Windows Explorer", meaning they are not using a Mac, meaning that iPhoto is not an option unless they buy a Mac, and that to me should not be "advice" for how to organize one's photos!