[BrianR]

I'm finding the need to tie together photos of the same individual creature so I can bring them up together, with the photos possibly taken months apart. Right now, I sort everything into folders by date on import, and keyword wildlife down to species (where possible).

I see two main options:

1) Make a collection for each individual specimen I'd like to track
2) Probably a better method - make a unique keyword ID for each specimen, tucked under its lowest level keyword (e.g. Lepidoptera > Sphingidae > Ceratoma undulosa > 145623 or maybe give them names like Lepidoptera > Sphingidae > Ceratoma undulosa > Tim The Fast)

Stacking is currently not an option as it requires all the photos in the same stack to be in the same directory. Are there any other approaches I'm missing? What's your preferred method?

[jatrax]

Do your specimens have tag numbers or some other ID? If so making that a keyword under something like "Tag ID number<######" might work. Or putting that ID under the lowest level keyword as you suggest.

I think collections would quickly get unwieldy. You need something simple, easily maintained and easy to tie back to the actual specimen.

[BrianR]

No built-in tag numbers, they're live crawling things found outside. I've been collecting and raising random caterpillars I come across. I end up with photos of the caterpillar at a few growth stages, the pupa, and finally the adult (this process can take up to a year). I'm starting to have a real need for something systematic as my library is growing, especially as I end up with the life cycles of multiple individuals of the same species, and there's also random "wild" ones thrown into the mix under the species keyword.

I was also thinking collections would quickly become unworkable. Making up ID numbers to use as keywords will probably be the way to go.

I appreciate your input

[southlander]

I personally would use a hierarchial keywording strategy like you suggest coupled either with collections or just using filters as and when you need to find something. That's the beauty of LR - you can separate your photo grouping structures from the flat one dimenisional view you can achieve at the operating system file directory level and create multi-dimensional views. If you are systematic with applying keywords it can be very powerful. Lots of people bag LR because of its need to import photos before you can edit them but if you bring a database mindset to LR you realise the potential power of the LR library offering.


Collections if used could potentially be smart collections so that photos are automatically added to collections upon keywords being assigned but you would still need to initially define each collection manually.


I like you taxonomic approach to general classification but when it comes to individual specimens the challenge I see is how to apply a logical approach that holds up over time.


If you create a collection for every specimen you are cataloging I suspect that could soon get somewhat out of control and the collection names end up either very long or become rather meaningless over time if their label is merely the specimen identifier (a collection set of hundreds of 145623 type descriptions would soon loose meaning).


I don't have LR with me right now to test my thoughts but I would lean towards using LR's filters being applied against your keywords to group photos by specimen - filter initially by the species you are interested in and then see if you can sort that subset of photos somehow by the keyword that represents your individual specimen. That would group all photos of an individual specimen together within a filtered set of the particular species it belongs to. If you can achive this then all the work of creating collections by specimen can be avoided (as well as the annoying absences of some specimens from your collection list because human error will mean you probably will occasionally forget to create a collection for a new specimen). In any systems approach I like to avoid as many manual steps as I can because manual steps invariably introduces unreliabilty of outcome no matter how good the operator.

[stevebrot]

Treat your photos like a museum collection with each individual caterpillar having a unique "accession number". This can be a simple serial id or can be a particular pattern including simple metadata. Include the "accession number" as a keyword and you are set. Define additional keywords for life phase, species, etc. Resist setting up the file system folders for your "collection" as phylogenetic hierarchy, at least not below phylum or family. There is too much volatility in biosystematics. Instead, if you want different "views" into your collection, use Lightroom's collection feature to create a hierarchy of related photos.


Steve

[jbinpg]

The only problem with taxonomic hierarchies is that they are not inviolate, instead they are a snapshot of current understanding. Taxonomy is always changing and there will be inevitable lumps and splits. Any system should be flexible enough to accommodate such changes.

[BrianR]

Thanks for all the input so far, lots of handy stuff to think about.

I personally would use a hierarchial keywording strategy like you suggest coupled either with collections or just using filters as and when you need to find something. That's the beauty of LR - you can separate your photo grouping structures from the flat one dimenisional view you can achieve at the operating system file directory level and create multi-dimensional views. If you are systematic with applying keywords it can be very powerful. Lots of people bag LR because of its need to import photos before you can edit them but if you bring a database mindset to LR you realise the potential power of the LR library offering.

Lots of great stuff...LR is definitely filled with powerful sorting tools, but I think a bit of forethought is required to take full advantage of it.

Treat your photos like a museum collection with each individual caterpillar having a unique "accession number". This can be a simple serial id or can be a particular pattern including simple metadata.

Any ideas on metadata that would be handy to work in? I've been trying to come up with something clever to code a bit of handy info into the ID but most is quickly made redundant by being readily available elsewhere in lightroom. Serial id will probably end up being simplest.

On the other hand, one thing I haven't made much use of is smart collections. I could work the life stage I found the critter at into the id - e.g. if I found it as an egg start with something like "ID Tag 0#####" as a caterpillar, "ID Tag 1####", as a pupa "ID Tag 2####", etc. Then I could have smart collections that can sort by what stage I began the photo series at (it can search for partial keywords).

The only problem with taxonomic hierarchies is that they are not inviolate, instead they are a snapshot of current understanding. Taxonomy is always changing and there will be inevitable lumps and splits. Any system should be flexible enough to accommodate such changes.

True enough...Lightroom keywords have the facility for synonyms, which makes them fairly adaptable to taxonomy changes.

[Oakland Rob]

Thanks for all the input so far, lots of handy stuff to think about.



Lots of great stuff...LR is definitely filled with powerful sorting tools, but I think a bit of forethought is required to take full advantage of it.



Any ideas on metadata that would be handy to work in? I've been trying to come up with something clever to code a bit of handy info into the ID but most is quickly made redundant by being readily available elsewhere in lightroom. Serial id will probably end up being simplest.

On the other hand, one thing I haven't made much use of is smart collections. I could work the life stage I found the critter at into the id - e.g. if I found it as an egg start with something like "ID Tag 0#####" as a caterpillar, "ID Tag 1####", as a pupa "ID Tag 2####", etc. Then I could have smart collections that can sort by what stage I began the photo series at (it can search for partial keywords).



True enough...Lightroom keywords have the facility for synonyms, which makes them fairly adaptable to taxonomy changes.

It's always helpful to think of the other end—filtering, sorting, finding—before committing to things like keywording or collections.

I like keyword hierarchies for their flexibility and universal availability. Generally they are subject descriptors. Taxonomy lends itself to keywording (and you can always change it later; the Lr catalogs of those studying ancient pre-human species must be a mess).

The individual critters though are a bit different. Those are names. I'd use the special people tags for them. I've done that with pets, since those are names too. That means they become keywords, maybe under a special child of "people" like "critters." Use the names you already have for them. Stages of life are more like subjects though, so "pupa" and "infant" might belong under "lifecycle" or something. You'd maybe wanna find all "toddler" or "pupa" stages for example.

Another place to put the ID tag besides name might be in one of the IPTC namespaces. There are lots, and they're designed for stuff like this. Maybe title, or even "person shown." They also have "source" keywords used by say museums for cataloging; maybe that would work. See http://www.photometadata.org/meta-resources-field-guide-to-metadata#Description

The beauty of metadata is that it is permanent if written into the photo, like the depiction in the photo. Filenames, folders, collections and such are more ephemeral; useful, but not a permanent record. The whole exif IPTC framework was invented just to handle situations like this.