JasonSTL739 wrote in post #4208084
I know what you are saying - however what is it that you are doing with downloader pro that lightroom can't do in regards to metadata and naming? Curious here what I'm missing.
My workflow depends on files with a sequence as shown.
071003-MRVCOMM-V7543.CR2
07 is the year, 10 month, 03 day. MRVCOMM is the job name, and V7543 is the cameras sequence number. I have a reason for having all this data in the job/file names, and in the order its there, and my workflow revolves around it being constant. The date part is significant since I use that as the job number. The job number is also the main part of any estimate, quote, bid, or invoice number that I create. All my apps can handle 2 digit year dates with the exception of Lightroom. My system works, and I want to stick with it. So DownloaderPro is my scape goat until Lightroom catches up.
My workflow with DownloaderPro(DL) is very simple and easy. I insert a card and a dialog box pops up and I just enter the job name MRVCOMM. From this DL will create a directory with the date code, add the job name, then extract the camera sequence from the original file name. This keeps the file name as short as possible, but has all the identifying info I need in my workflow.
Further, on every job I have a directory structure that I use. On each import, it will automatically create that directory structure for me, so I don't have to do that within LR or externally in Explorer. I have 5 directories that need setup to hold the original raw files, edited high and low resolution JPEGs, Photoshop PSD files, and a directory I use for the web galleries. DL will take care of all this for me as well. Not a big deal to create 5 directories by hand, but when you do it for 100 jobs a year... Why create 500 directories by hand if you can have the computer do it for you automatically? That's why I buy them 
The coding I use is used on everything related to that job. Quotes, invoices, job folders, memos, image files, web galleries, proofs, etc. Thus I can easily correlate any item, being a image file or a piece of paperwork, to all others instantly. It is a very streamlined workflow, and it works well for me.
In Lightroom I can use custom names, but it is far more limited. I would have to import it with a dated sequence as suggested earlier, but then go back and rename the files twice in order to get the same format I am using for my workflow. If I use the backup folder option, I would need to reorder them twice as well, or delete the backup and re-copy the newly named images to the backup drive. Far too time consuming. So its just easier to use Downloader or Image Ingester to do this, both of which handle this perfectly, and all performed as a single operation rather than one operation followed by 4 renaming options.
The main reason I still use DL over LR for import is because of this flexibility. DL uses tokens that can be used in the filename to create any sort of file naming pattern using them. The tokens are replaced with the actual data during the import operation. Here is a list of some of them to give you a feel for how flexible it is. I hope its readable.
| HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR |
For people that use a simple date-sequence format, DL doesn't buy then all that much. But for anyone that uses something even slightly custom, DL will give them what they need to match their workflow. Where as LR will require them to overhaul their workflow, archive naming structure, etc, to accommodate using LR.
I can get to the same result in LR, but with far more effort and time. With DL, I just enter the job name MRVCOMM and click import and everything is done automatically for me on import. With LR I would need to edit the custom text string for date and add the MRVCOMM, import the files, then rename the directory to fix the date codes, then rename the files twice (once for date correction, and once for the original camera sequencing number). If I used the backup option, I would need to repeat it again.
To me it makes no sense to do something which takes so much longer, just so I can do it all in one program. And even worse to change a workflow that works so well just to accommodate a program that will eventually do what I want anyway.
There are other features that DL offers that LR doesn't, such as auto rotation, conversions to upper or lower case, generating text files with EXIF shooting data, automation, camera mapping, directory structure creation, and so on.
Anyway, thats why Downloader works for me while Lightroom doesn't. Everyones mileage will vary.
JasonSTL739 wrote in post #4208084A single rename of the dated folder on import in lightroom is hardly time-consuming. I use the "2007" folder currently as stuff to be worked on, once processed/rated/etc I rename the 2007-xx-xxx folder and move it to one of my main header folders. (client/job/type/etc) Takes like two seconds and the move them.
LR will move the items in the library, as well as move the files on the disk. Unless its only a few files, it takes more than a couple seconds. I'm generally moving a few hundred 16MP images at a time, and it takes significantly more than 2 seconds 
JasonSTL739 wrote in post #4208084Regarding harddrive fragmentation - that is hardly a reason to change your workflow...
I agree, I would never change my workflow to reduce any defrag issues any more than I would change my workflow just so I can use LR instead of DL, even more so when it would increase fragmentation issues as well.
Whether or not fragmentation is an issue depends on how much and how often. I would be moving the results of an entire shoot for each import. That's usually a few hundred to a few thousand images. I shoot a Canon 1DsMkII at 16MP, so the files are pretty big as well. I shoot about 100 jobs a year. So even moving the files once on each shoot means I am moving around 100,000 files of approximately 12-16MP each. Defragging would be something I would need to stay on top of, and takes significant time on nearly full 300Gb disks. Its time that I don't need to spend with DL, but I would with LR. That was the only reason I brought it up. Its just another inefficiency that I would be adding to the workflow jsut to use LR for importing.
?
USB 2 is a bit faster than FireWire FW400, pity Canon doesn't go to FW800, at least for its pro cameras.
