If you have a large photo library and are sharing it from a central server/hard drive among other creative team members (and why else would you be here, right?) then you already know what a hassle it is to continually and constantly have to reindex your images.
In our case we have a fairly simple folder hierarchy of (right now) 61 folders of images, each containing between 1-3k image files. But new metadata is added frequently to images and so not a week goes by when at least several folders have to be reindexed in order for each machine to be able to effectively and accurately search the entire library. But reindexing is time-consuming and is affected by the variety of workflows within the department. So, naturally this results is a fairly long process for some team members.
As a consequence, I'm always on the lookout for some workaround that might expedite the reindexing process and thought I had struck pay dirt with Smart Collections (SC).
Here's what happened:
Last week, for no particular reason, the question popped into my head that since SCs seemed smart enough to update itself automatically when an image with specific search criteria was added to the library, did it do this on its own without any further attention from my part? The short answer, for you spoiler fans, is no.
Anyway, my first thought (prayer really) when working with a SC the other day was, "Hey, maybe I can use this as a workaround for continually reindexing!" I ran a quick test by creating a new smart collection, then added an image to the library with the same search criteria and went back to the SC to see if it updated automatically.
No such luck.
I had to go in and reindex the folder where the test image resided and then sure it popped up just fine in the SC.
Two other rather unpleasant side notes: (1) They don't like lots of photos -- my SCs take several minutes to load each and every time I launch it. And (2) when going from one to another (with large number of files in each) and back again the SC selected always takes a long time to load, leading me to believe that the SCs are not indexed of course and wondering how/where Bridge stores these beasts.
Ciao for now
I am currently in the same dilemma. If I try to do a SC search in my main folder it hangs up before it finishes the search in all subfolders. I am currently trying to edit the SC options by selecting each subfolder in the main so that it indexes the images in each one. I am hoping it will help to not hang it up when the SC searches the main folder.
ReplyDeleteBut when that's done I have to copy the cache and share it with the others? What about when images get added. Do I need to re-index and copy paste the cache again? A bit confused as to how to go about this. Trying to share an ever evolving image collection that is split up in multiple subfolders over a network seems cahllenging.
Would a regular no smart-collection be better and ask staff to add their image there? Can this update be shared over a network? Need some help,
Thanks.
Bridge is first and last a machine-specific program. Sharing is not an option, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteSo, in light of your efforts, there are at least two things to bear in mind here: first off you cannot share collections smart or otherwise among copies of Bridge-- a serious limitation in my opinion.
Second, you cannot share the cache among machines. When I began testing Bridge in the summer of 2009 for our image library that was one of the first things I discovered -- cache sharing creates all sorts of random and disturbing problems.
In addition, the cache should be left untouched and alone -- Bridge gets finicky when you start tampering with its nerve center.
I know this isn't much help, so, if you need more more assistance in creating and maintaining a central library using Bridge please review some of my recent posts -- and don't hesitate to contact me: steve at freetransform dot com
Thanks for your help. If we cannot really in fact share collections or cache then this means that every staff would need to index their own collection on their own pc correct? If any updates are made then re-indexing would need to be done by everyone. Would choosing the "cache to individual folders" options in Brdige be beneficial in this case. Does this hidden cache file in those folders get re-written when an image is added. Thanks so much for your help.
ReplyDeleteYou're going to have forget cache sharing period. Each and every machine that accesses your central library must be reindexed manually every time metadata is updated or images added.
ReplyDeleteI did some test with SC last month as well. Yes they do seem to take a while to load and it is a bit frustrating.
ReplyDeleteAs it stands we have our image files saved in the folder alongside its Indesign or Quark document. This result is in a lot of subfolders. Do you think it would be wiser to save the original image file in big Image directory. I do remeber you indicating at some point in your posts that one folder with a lot of images wasn't the best way.
Could you please describe in point form the process that you are currently using? Thanks,