Originally posted by jatrax Thanks for posting this. I have been stuck with LR because I need the catalog and search functions, I was not aware there were alternatives. At $110 the price is quite reasonable and then any RAW developer can be used. Not sure I am ready to abandon Lightroom yet, but if they keep making it slower I may have no choice.
Can you comment on the display speed of browsing and searching for files in Imatch?
Originally posted by stevebrot Yes, though the same is true for side-car files and writing XMP directly into the EXIF of the RAW file. LR continues to meet my needs and it I need to migrate to a DAM sometime in the future, I would expect the DAM to provide a migration utility to interpret keyword and other pertinent non-processing metadata (my RAW files are already stored by year and date and easily accessed without LR).
Steve
For the first quote, the software is quicker that LR. I like it a lot, and it is flexible. While I could just plug it, I'll note there are alternatives that may be easier to use or have different features that may benefit different types of users. But, below I'll mention some benefits of it, especially for those coming from LR or even in using it with LR (which is what I did).
IMatch is mostly metadata driven for cataloging. It works predominantly off of XMP data (embedded or side-car). It has mapping features, supports hierarchical keywords, and has what is called "data-driven" categorization. The beauty is, if you have used keywords or mapping in LR, your images will come into IMatch with that data being usable (assuming you save your LR data to the XMP records for your images). Imatch does have a catalog file, but it is mostly there for user interface. Its philosophy is to keep as much image specific information as you need within the XMP record. So, it doesn't have a migration utility, but selecting all your images in LR and making sure the data is saved to the XMP record guarantees most of your LR info will be in the new software. That's probably about as good as software will be for cataloging.
I'll admit it isn't the most user friendly software, but that is only because it has a ton of features, most of which I won't use. You can customize the user interface and control keyword use and other items pretty easily. With regard to side-cars it has a feature called buddy files, which will keep everything related to the parent image together if you manage your image files completely through the software. It takes a bit of setup, but I'm able to use it with each RAW software I use. It also has versioning, which helps when using derivative files (e.g. a jpeg output from DxO) or a black and white from Silver Efex. The feature can be made automatic (or not), but it does take work to figure out.
With LR and Pentax DNGs, I liked that I could update the DNG preview in LR and IMatch would show my LR edits. That's a LR only benefit, but it was nice. Now with DxO, I don't really get that benefit, but I do create categories so that I tag images into so I know which software I've used (some of the categories are automatic in that if the software sees the DxO specific sidecar file, it'll put the image into the category automatically). Keywords were nice in that I could easily use them in LR and vice-a-versa.
The newest version of the program has improved its mapping feature so that I can use GPS tracks and data (a big deal for my older dSLR images) to sync up and geotag my images.
The categories, especially automatic ones, are fantastic. Once you learn to use them, the sky's the limit. I use them to track edit status, and they essentially replace the Smart Collection feature in LR.
The close it all, I will say again, that it isn't going to be for everyone, but they have a trial version. The developer is easy to work with too, so if the trial isn't long enough, I wouldn't be afraid to email him. It can be overwhelming, even if it is ultimately the right software. It wasn't $110 when I started using it 12 years ago (probably 1/3 of that cost), so I wasn't afraid to drop some money on it. I'd probably be a bit more cautious now, but I would regret it if I hadn't found the software. The challenges of setting things up pay off now as most cataloging is automatic. I take care of keywords, and it takes care of the rest.
The beauty is that if the developer ever stops developing, I can leave without much worry. All my catalog efforts are stored in XMP data, so I won't lose any sleep. And, if I decide to go with a better software, I should be able to do so easily.
Of course there are likely to be simpler programs, but it ultimately depends on the features the user needs. Other software for DAM and cataloging includes ACDSee and Photomechanic, but the feature sets are going to be different.