Optimal image database workflow

[Tylkum]

Hi,

I'm struggling a bit to find the optimal workflow for my image database.

The setup is as follows:

Two Mac laptops with limited storage capacity
NAS with RAID and extra external USB backup HD and plenty of space.

Now my current workflow is as follow:
1) Load pictures from camera to MacBook
2) Rename files according to my serial number system (Better Finder Renamer)
3) Manually copy RAW files to NAS in simple folder structure based on serial number
4) Create 100-200kb JPG in Image Processor script in PhotoShop
5) Load low-res JPG into iPhoto database
6) Organize and tag photos

This is all good and fine. It allows me to carry thousands of photos on my MacBooks and iPhoto is only used as a sorting and catalog tool. By naming all pictures by serial number I can easily find the original RAW on my NAS when I wish to edit in PhotoShop.

BUT... This does not allow me to share my iPhoto databases between my two Macs. iPhoto libraries cannot be opened across networks, which means that the photos I got on one machine is not available on the other and vice versa.

So basically all I need is some way to either share iPhoto databases between the two Macs or some other similar photo organiser tool with that capability. I'm not willing to pay two times 80 buck for Aperture just to be able to access iPhoto databases from both Macs, since I use PhotoShop to edit my pictures, and iPhoto's sorting and cataloging tools are sufficient for my use.

Any good ideas?


Best
Ben

 

[SnappingShark]

Copy your iPhoto library to your NAS.
Then, make an automator script.

1) Grab latest iphoto library from your NAS
1A) If not available, continue using existing
2) Open iPhoto
3) When application exits, copy iphoto library back to NAS.

Use on both macs, and you'll just be syncing them back and forth - which with low res, shouldn't take too long?

 

[Tylkum]

I see what you mean, and it could work. Only even with low-res the iPhoto libraries are like 30-34gb. So it would take a long time to copy back and forth. But with a smaller library it's definitely a good idea. Thanks for your input.

Best,
Ben