Data organisation and workflow

Question

I am currently trialling Lightroom 4 after using DPP for about  6 months. When reading about how to use Lightroom  I am  left with some queries about data organisation. I would certainly appreciate some advice on this, taking into account that I am basically shooting for friends and family (and myself) rather than for clients.
When exporting JPEGs, the lightroom choices are web or print. But the other main purpose of my export, which I never see mentioned anywhere,  is  to add to the folder structure on my hard drive containing JPEGs only. These are the folders I use to view my photo albums locally using “normal” software such as Windows Photo Gallery rather than Lightroom.
As I see it, I am likely to end up with two folder structures:
– one for the JPEGs (basically my photo albums)
This structure would be used for local viewing purposes and probably also as the source for uploading to Facebook or some other website for sharing photographs
-  one for  the RAW files available to Lightroom (plus virtual collections)
I think I would mainly use Lightroom for:
* editing new photographs and exporting them to my JPEGs photo album folder structure
* later exporting selected photos as JPEGs specifically for printing, initially externally  although I am hoping to get a better printer in the near future to which I could also print directly
* re-editing and re-exporting selected photographs when required.
Up to now (with DPP) the double folder issue has not arisen because I generally deleted my  RAW files once the JPEGs had been created. But, with my move to Lightroom, I am trying  to become slightly more “professional” and to make a point of keeping the RAW files and associated Lightroom adjustments for possible future use, although  the  JPEG folders would still be my main photo albums for local viewing purposes..
Does this make sense or are there some better suggestions for workflow/data organisation?

Answer 1

johnip21 wrote:
However, I feel that this type of organisation, with no JPEGs,  is probably best geared to the more professional photographer who does work for clients.
I am no professional photographer either, but still do no want the hassle to manage even more files than strictly necessary. Depending on jpg-size and quality you have considerable more storage space needed.
I find myself more in sympathy with the attitude of  PhotoGAP, particularly in terms of what my wife  and children would make of the photo albums if I fell under a bus and they  had to use  Lightroom to access them.  Even if I manage to avoid the bus there is still the point that my wife still likes to look through the photos relatively frequently on our shared computer, not necessarily with me around.
Why is it that you think your wife & children will not benefit from LR's file management, or rather metadata management?
On the contrary, it is my belief that images will be valuable ONLY WITH METADATA, some decades from now. As in the past - inherited albums make sense due to their annotations, or collections of printed images in shoe boxes because there may be something written on the back.
In our household I am also the only real LR user, but I talk with my husband how he would search for images, especially some years from now. So I know what I have to do in terms of keywording, filling titles and captions, which fixed or smart collections to create. Then I show this to him, and tell him how filtering and text searches in library module works. I have prepared export presets for him to generate any jpgs on the fly he might need. Because I am not always available.
If you could not "avoid the bus", your relatives will watch a few Adobe TV tutorials about Basic Image Organization and maybe read page 175-244 about the Library module from Victoria Bamptons "The missing Frequently asked Questions" ( http://www.lightroomqueen.com/books/adobe-lightroom-4-missing-faq/): then they will be fully capable to make use of your heritage of images, by using LR as digital asset management tool.
It is not rocket science - millions of users world-wide have learned how to use Lightroom for that, of all ages and genders.
The best preparation to conserve your LR work for your heirs is to add any metadata they might wish for.
Not an exported bunch of jpgs, where possibly the only metadata available are in the folder names where you store them.
Should you be afraid that they might damage your catalog, give them a second catalog just for viewing, maybe on your second allowed LR installation. This catalog must not write to xmp if it references the same raw files as your main working catalog.
If you prefer, the 2nd catalog might point to exported jpgs. Just make sure to include these organisational metadata before exporting by writing to xmp.
I also have some underlying worries about what would happen if I lost the catalogue or it became unusable for some reason. I know I would still have the RAW files but  the idea of having to re-develop from scratch an entire photo history sounds horrific. I know that I am probably worrying unnecessarily here since catalogues can be backed up just as securely as image files  but I can’t quite get the worry to go away
Yes, absolutely: do take the same painstaking care to backup your LR catalog as you do with your raw images.
You can save a lot of work inside xmp of your files, but not everything. So your LR catalog is precious.
Cornelia