DagoImaging wrote in post #18198074
As I browse folders in onOne Raw from years ago, it does read the metadata that I applied in LR. I use color coding on images in LR and I can quickly filter those in onOne Raw and get the expected results.
I haven't tried keywords yet, but I'm guessing there is a way to do that as well.
It's one thing browsing folders, and seeing the EXIF data associated with the files in the current folder, and a completely different thing when trying to do the same when searching across multiple drives/folders. When you view a folder the program has to read the EXIF data from each file, but it can prioritise reading the files that are currently visible on the screen, and usually there are a relatively small number of files in any folder, most people will usually try to avoid having tens of thousands of images in the same folder. I use the LR smart collections system to build virtual folder structures that allow one to browse content based on multiple criteria, other than filenames. This is just as easy to do as navigate the actual file system, thanks to the database system that LR uses. Adobe Bridge, their file manager program, with an emphasis on managing visual and multimedia content, now also offers similar smart collection functionality, without the need for the database, and I did a test to see how it performed. I tried pulling all of my Aviation image files into a smart collection, which required scanning some 39500 odd image files, and including about 28000 of them. LR can do this in about ten seconds, while in Bridge it takes a couple of hours to completely scan the directory tree to read the EXIF data from each file and select or discard the file. Even if my smart collection is going to end up displaying a dozen image files, it will still have to wait while it scans all of those tens of thousands of files. This is going to be an issue for any program that has to rely on reading data individually from within each file. Just think how slow it is to run a search for a filename across a complete filesystem, and usually the filename is easily accessible without having to actually open each file and read from it.
Personally I don't think that any system that is not using a database to do the image management is going to be very effective once you start to get into the tens of thousands of images range. It just takes the file system too long to read the required data from each file.