🚀 go-pugleaf

Thanks very much for the pointer to Cumulus, Art.  Looks very 
interesting, especially the bit about managing off-line resources, 
which is a bloody essential feature of any practical solution!  

I'm copying this to aus.photo for information, and followups set there 
to avoid further contamination of a.c.f.  ;-)

In article <126e2l06v30uk$.1ojriftrk5nrh$.dlg@40tude.net>, 
Art Iculos Libres <articulos@loslibres.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 May 2004 14:09:30 GMT, Phred wrote:
>
>> In article <10be62287e6r080@corp.supernews.com>, 
>> John Corliss <jcorliss@secrewspam.to#> wrote:
>>>Keith Gardner wrote:
>>>> Someone asked me today to work on a database to search, sort and manage a 
>>>> 5000+ picture photo collection. They need to be able to search quickly by 
>>>> description, date, etc., then display thumbnails of the matching pictures, 
>>>> and allow the users to click on a thumbnail to display the high resolution 
>>>> photo. Any suggestions? Thanks.
>>>
>>>Keith, I recently finished a photo scanning project that was over 2000
>>>images. The way I arranged the thing was to create folders that were
>>>appropriately named by year, month and day (in that order) and then to
>>>name the images by subject. When I named the images, I kept in mind
>>>the character length limitations of the media I planned to distribute
>>>and store the collection on. Then I simply used Irfanview to display
>>>thumbnails for clicking on to view the high resolution photos.
>>>Worked for me. Irfanview is here:   http://irfanview.tuwien.ac.at/
>> 
>> John, I don't see that as working very well if you consider that any 
>> one photo may need to be indexed under two or more "topics" other than 
>> date and main subject (e.g. location, content, people) as well as 
>> technical data such as at least the basics of film type and camera.
>> 
>> I suspect one needs a full database solution if one is serious.
>> 
>> P.S.  I'm interested in the same for about 40*20*36 ~ 29000 images as 
>> a rough minimum approximation.  (I wish I hadn't worked that out. 8-)
>
>Phred,
>
>I have been tempted (rarely) in the past to recommend non-freeware here,
>but never have (maybe I answered "No" once to a post asking if there was a
>true freeware Photoshop replacement). However, in this case, I feel
>strongly enough about:
>
>-  the distinct absence of a truly good freeware solution; and
>-  that sometimes this forum should be about helping others beyond sticking 
>   to strictly freeware recommendations, especially in light of the above;
>
>that I will defy Mr. Corliss and recommend a non-freeware alternative.
>
>You pointed out one failing of the system JC employs. Also, most software
>solutions, free or otherwise, do not allow for browsing thumbnail catalogs
>that have been stored offline (i.e. stored on removeable media) without
>connecting the media to the computer. The solution I suggest allows this
>and many other powerful features relatively inexpensively. Consider trying
>to re-invent the wheel (albeit, a multi-flat-sided-one) using other
>suggestions made here (such as OOo) and all the time it would take to still
>end up with a poor outcome, or using options like Irfanview which are
>pre-packaged, but nevertheless fall short if you are serious about media
>management (Irfanview is great as a simple viewer). My recommendation:
>
>Canto Cumulus 
>
>http://www.canto.com/
>
>At 69.95 US for a single-user license, you can't go wrong. I have v5, but
>v6 was released in Dec. 03. The software has one competitor of note
>(Extensis Portfolio), but I preferred Cumulus. Both are used by
>corporations, news organizations, media management concerns and
>professional photographers.
>
>BTW, Canto released a "lite" version called myCumulus for $19.95, and based
>on the website, it appears to have the restriction of 2000 images per
>catalog, with a max. of 2 catalogs open at the same time. I haven't used
>this, so I can't say anything more.
>
>Cumulus is also available in enterprise / network editions if necessary.
>
>Also, BTW, despite the low cost, Cumulus is a professional product and
>requires reading the manual and some forethought in setting up your
>catalogs.
>
>Now...back to the regularly scheduled freeware.


Cheers, Phred.

-- 
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID