First Impressions of the 'Plus'

[Kirk Baker]

Thanks Kirk for the quick response. Just finding the software overly complicated in its UI. There are too many tabs and procedures to add images... I need to read more on it, but I dont have the time really. So my point is that this whole UI really needs simplifying. Perhaps make this an option if possible in the preferences.  I dont really get the distinction between 'catalogue', 'contact', 'collection'.

Did you read the ReadMe?

The data has to be stored somewhere.  That is the Catalog.  It is a fully-relational SQL database.
A Collection is a virtual folder that you can use to organize your photos in any layout that you find useful without having to physically move files around on disk.
Every tab that shows photos is a Contact Sheet.  This is what we have called our "grid view" since version 1.0 of Photo Mechanic.

We know we can't make software that equally appeals to everyone but it seems that most users are able to give the beta a go and succeed without a full manual or video tutorials.

Our software may not be for you.

-Kirk

[syncrasy]

Kirk,

Unfortunately for Camera Bits the timing of the PM+ release after Media Pro's demise has set up a lot of (no doubt unreasonable) expectations from (iView) Media Pro refugees looking for a comparable product. (Media Pro was the gold standard for standalone single user DAMs.) I realize Camera Bits didn't design PM+ as an iView Media Pro replacement, but rather as an enhanced product for existing PM users, but it likely will become one of the few DAM/catalog options that could meet most of the needs of Media Pro refugees better than other DAMs on the market (and PM+'s solid, proper database infrastructure already gives it a big advantage over Capture One). Perhaps Camera Bits could be a little more proactive in "courting" Media Pro refugees (much as other DAM developers did when they learned Media Pro was discontinued; it was part of their marketing and development strategies, even taking the extra step to add features/functionality/scripts specifically to help Media Pro users make the transition). I realize it might not be appropriate for a beta release, but consider this as a gentle suggestion when PM+ is formally released (and as you continue development).

So in considering this comment...

I don't really get the distinction between 'catalogue', 'contact', 'collection'.

While it does appear that the commenter didn't dig deep enough into the Read Me file to learn about these concepts (especially Collections, which has a straightforward analog in Media Pro), it's also possible that the concepts (especially Catalog and Contact Sheet) are difficult to comprehend in PM+ because of the way they are implemented (i.e., confusing either for someone used to a conventional DAM or from a pure usability standpoint). Below are my thoughts with some "translation" for Media Pro users and further analysis of PM+ (based on my initial testing of PM and PM+).

Note: These comments address only the three concepts specifically mentioned by user timesnaps in the quote above. I haven't fully tested the PM+ features (Navigator, Organizer) or search functionality, so my comments here are not my complete "review" of PM+. I expect that I'll have more to say about usability of these features and functions in the future.

"Catalogs"

In Media Pro, the app window = a single catalog = a separate file on your computer (e.g., you might have two catalogs/files: Professional Photos.mpcatalog and Family Photos.mpcatalog).

In PM+, the app window is a unified workspace. You create and manage (one or more) catalogs within that space. Catalogs are saved as a set of database folders and files on your computer but you don't actually touch those database folders/files. Using the example above, in the PM+ UI you would have Catalogs: Professional Photos and Family Photos. The catalog creation process requires several extra steps compared to Media Pro but theoretically the main advantage is that you don't have to open multiple catalogs to search across them (Media Pro allows cross-searching multiple catalogs, but they all have to be open). One disadvantage is that you have to remember to tell PM+ which catalog you want to work in by checking/unchecking Catalog check boxes, otherwise your family photos and professional photos will be mixed together (using our example above) if both catalogs are checked. If you rarely had the need to search across catalogs in Media Pro, the task of having to verify/check/uncheck catalog boxes in PM+ might be tedious. Another disadvantage (as reported in another post) is that, once you have added an image to a catalog, the UI does not visually indicate to which catalog the image belongs. (This is a design flaw in my opinion, but perhaps it can be addressed in a future release.)

[5/10/2019: Edited to correct my flawed description of how PM+ catalogs are saved.]

"Contact Sheet" (and Catalog browsing)

A Contact Sheet in PM and PM+ is analogous (but not equivalent) to Thumbnail view in Media Pro. Both display the images in a particular folder, but Contact Sheets behave differently and you can have multiple Contact Sheets, indicated by tabs across the top.

But... The problem (in my opinion) is that PM+ (as currently designed) inappropriately, or awkwardly, repurposes the original PM Contact Sheet concept for basic catalog browsing. This results in the bizarre behavior (from the perspective of a Media Pro or other DAM user) in which new "Search" Contact Sheet tabs are spawned with each click of the image folder in the Organizer/Browse tool. This is confusing. Browsing is not the same as search. But even if the spawned tabs were renamed "Browse" instead of "Search," that wouldn't meet the Media Pro user's expectation for browsing. Media Pro users will have to adapt to catalog views that have an ephemeral, task-centric, or "on-the-fly" quality, rather than the omnipresent view window of a Media Pro catalog in which a catalog's core collection is revisited regularly, e.g., to generate new print versions, add/replace stock images, update metadata, export XML, etc. (The fact that closing the Contact Sheet tabs in PM+ makes the entire UI disappear adds to the sense that one's catalog views are ephemeral. This is also a design flaw, in my opinion. It might be appropriate for on-the-fly tasks or one-off client jobs, but it's disorienting for an archival tool like a DAM/catalog.) To create an experience more similar to a traditional DAM like Media Pro, PM+ would have to present the contents of a catalog in the UI as a stable window, perhaps distinct from Contact Sheets (or alternately as a "permanent" Contact Sheet so that the UI doesn't disappear). It might not be necessary to entirely revamp the PM+ design, but it would be worth reconsidering how Contact Sheets should be implemented in the context of a cataloguing program from a usability perspective, and making tweaks as needed.

"Collection"

A Collection in PM+ is theoretically equivalent to a Catalog Set in Media Pro. But in practice, at least in Beta 3, when first opening the Collections tab, there's no indication of how to create a collection (you have to know or be told about the "secret" of right clicking to bring up a contextual menu, which is currently not working for everyone). This uncertainty could easily be remedied by the addition of a "+" (create new Collection) button at the top of the panel. Also, by happenstance I double clicked the empty Collections area and noticed that doing so spawns a Contact Sheet tab called "Collection" each time, similar to how the current Browse functionality spawns "Search" tabs. Whether intended or not, spawning Collection tabs from nowhere is confusing.

Summary of my initial impressions

Currently Photo Mechanic Plus is exactly that: regular PM + cataloguing features. Regular PM is a time-saving task-oriented tool (an excellent one—by all accounts, the best in the business). Its core UI element, the Contact Sheet, is ephemeral by nature, especially appropriate for the tasks of an assignment photographer — quickly culling, tagging and uploading photos for a project. But a catalog (in concept and usage) is an archival tool, which is expressly not ephemeral. It is understandably a difficult challenge to add the functionality of an archiving tool to the existing architecture of an ephemeral task-oriented tool. (Phase One tried but couldn’t quite do it with Capture One.) And so it shouldn't be surprising that PM+ (as currently designed) doesn't perform cataloguing tasks as seamlessly or intuitively as a program like Media Pro that was designed to be a DAM from the start.

Of course it's possible that my impression is typical for any user learning a new program (i.e., the "Who moved my cheese?" phenomenon), but I think my analysis is sufficiently objective based on my experience using and testing different types of DAMs (e.g., Media Pro, Photo Supreme, Lightroom, Aperture, NeoFinder). In my opinion finding a better balance between the ephemeral UI elements and the archival/catalog UI elements will be essential for PM+ to really meet the DAM needs of the widest variety of photographers and photo archivists.

[carlseibert]

Interesting thread. Some thoughts:

The Photo Mechanic interface doesn't look like most of the other interfaces out there. It's designed to be usable in rough circumstances - like the back of an old truck on a rutted road in a third world country, a helicopter, a press trailer, a battlefield, or (good lord!) the middle seat in coach. Most of its core users have been using the program for nearly twenty years now, or since they were in school if they're relative youngsters. So, it doesn't look the slightest bit odd or unusual to us. We just know that it works. I would be loathe to suggest any sort of philosophical re-examination of the interface. If it didn't "just work", it wouldn't have virtual 100% penetration in that core sector. It's the classic running engine.

PM+ doesn't "look like" a new and shiny object. For reals, the whole darned thing is operated from that little search box. That just doesn't look like much. But the fact is, we're getting 90% of the functionality of a $600,000 DAM in a desktop product that will probably cost a fair bit less than $540,000, and a much better shot at actually being able to find our assets than with any desktop product I know of. (And I've tested most of them.) That's some serious bang-for-buck, but it presents a marketing problem. How does Camera Bits communicate their value proposition to a wide spectrum of photographers in today's changing marketplace? That hard core of $6,000 camera body/ $12,000 lens buyers is shrinking. Sad, but a fact.

A lot of PM+'s value is under the hood. There is no data trapped in a proprietary and likely vulnerable database. You're not going to lose your data when something crashes or you move on to another tool. Worst case, you have to rebuild an index. Your data is 100% portable, and as such, 100% compatible with any standards-compliant DAM or other system.

PM+ will effectively decouple desktop DAM functionality from RAW converter software. (Which was never a match made in heaven, IMHO) That will mean photographers can change editing programs as need or whim dictates without a painful and probably lossy asset migration At least as far as metadata is concerned. And it's metatadata that makes the difference between finding - and therefore having - an asset and not finding it - and therefore effectively losing it.

Those are the kind of places where the real value lies. It's enormously compelling, but it's likely invisible to an enthusiast photographer looking at a 30 day trial.

And I do have to add that the ability to search across (or not) multiple catalogs is huge. Anybody who has suffered through the hell that is Lightroom will appreciate that. Just yesterday, I saw a video wherein the wonderful Jullianne Kost was teaching users how to avoid the horror of dealing with multiple lrcats by consolidating all their Lightroom catalogs into one gigantic one. (Which, given Lightroom's architecture, strikes me as less than a great idea.)

Finally, we do need to keep in mind that this is a beta. Some/many features either don't work or aren't even written yet.