I’ve read a few articles comparing these two popular programs, but I’d like to get a second opinion before I jump in.
First, II have several websites focusing on a wide variety of topics. The site focusing on biology will be a special challenge illustrating, ultimately requiring images of thousands of species of plants and animals.
The logical starting place (I think) is to create a library of images organized taxonomically. For example, I might have a section reserved for mammals subdivided into orders and families. I could then navigate down to a species, like the aardvark. Let’s say I find thirteen images of aardvarks that interest me. Some are color, others black-and-white. Some are in the public domain, while others are copyrighted. I already have permission to use a couple of them.
I’m looking for a software program that would allow me to create such an organization, with sublevels or subcategories. I also need the ability to add a variety of key words and incidental information (e.g. source, copyright status, etc.).
I work on a Mac, but I also have Adobe’s Creative Suite, so I have access to both Aperture and Lightroom. I think I read somewhere that Bridge might also do what I described above.
I’d love to hear from someone who has experience with the above programs (or others) and can steer me in the right direction.
One more question: If I download 10,000 images of animals and import them into a software program, the file size is going to be outrageous. It seems the obvious solution would be to create thumbnails of these images and import them into Aperture or Lightroom instead. I would then record the path to the original image, if I need to use it.
not sure if they are the same but MS’s live gallery, for example, doesn’t add a second set of images when you ‘import’ it simply maps where they are on your computer/network. So you can leave them all in the correct folders/subfolders. The thumbnails are created automatically by the program. I would think Adode would do the same.
Edit… ah i may have misinterpreted what you meant… did you mean to point to the original on a remote source? this has disadvantages that if its on a 3rd party site it could be removed at any point.
Are you wanting these on the web though as if you do i’d build your own database to match the online version.
Wow, good questions; gives me more to think about.
My original goal was to just create a “static” library of images that I could visit whenever I need a picture of a particular thing. It would be really cool if it also somehow keep track of where images are being used on my websites. That would be awfully tough, though, as I’m constantly renaming folders and reorganizing my images in search of the perfect scheme.
Interesting tip about Live Gallery mapping image locations, then importing thumbnails of those images. That sounds like a killer feature. Again, it’s going to be hard for me, because my sites seem to change on a weekly basis. I’ll look into that, though.