Daniel Holt , Feb 05, 2012; 04:18 p.m.
I have a growing photo library that I would like to share with multiple computers on my home network. I have been using Nikon ViewNX and it allows me to access photo folders on any computer on my network. It's slower than I would like but it does work. I wish ViewNX had a little more to offer for editing. I have tried IPhoto and like it less than ViewNX. I have been going to move over to Aperature about a dozen times but you can't share photo's with other computers. same with lightroom. Both Lightroom and Aperature are great, just wish one of them supported networked libraries. How is everyone working around sharing libraries on different computers? Is anyone using something that works better?
Thanks for the advice.
Cheers
Danny
John Williamson 
, Feb 05, 2012; 05:59 p.m.
What does Aperture or Lightroom do, if you share the folder the photos are in ? I wouldn't think it would know or care if that was a share point.
Howard M , Feb 05, 2012; 06:23 p.m.
You can share the images if you want to but since the Lightroom catalog must be on a local drive, that's an issue. Also, the file changes would have to be written to xmp file (vs. the catalog (for the same reason)).
Some Dropbox-y sort of thing may work since it pretends to be a local folder but I'm sure it'd be dreadfully slow unless there is a copy/copyback mechanism
Martin S. , Feb 05, 2012; 06:37 p.m.
ralph oshiro 
, Feb 05, 2012; 07:32 p.m.
I use PhotoMechanic for OS X as a browser. It's $150, includes two licenses, and is wicked-fast. I run my two licenses on two, gigabit-networked iMacs. Since it's just a browser, there are no multiple-user issues. Note that you would only be able to use PhotoMechanic on referenced masters. I wasn't aware that both Aperture and Lightroom lacked any kind of record-locking features (preventing other users from altering a file being changed by another user, which is what multiple-user databases must enforce to maintain the integrity of their records). Although I'm not surprised, since neither program has been promoted as a "network" application. If and when either provides a network version of their software, I would expect it to be quite a bit more money than the single-user version.
John Deerfield , Feb 05, 2012; 08:04 p.m.
I have a growing photo library that I would like to share with multiple computers on my home network.
How is your network set up? We have a MacPro as our primary workstation with drive towers connected via eSata. Aperture libraries are one the drives connected to the MacPro. The iMac (upstairs), connects to the MacPro via a gigabit network and we access the Aperture libraries via sharing and we don't have any issues. Of course we never access the same library at the same time. And Ram is really important. We started with the stock 4GB in the iMac and it was useable. We went to 12GB and the difference is night and day.
ralph oshiro , Feb 05, 2012; 09:29 p.m.
By the way, browsing images across a hard-wired, gigabit-ethernet network is very fast. Images on remote drives are accessed quickly, and thumbnails scroll by as if they're on a local drive.
Frank Skomial , Feb 06, 2012; 02:25 a.m.
I used NAS (Network Attached Stotage) device with wireless access from all computers, and centralized storage for all photo/video. It could be used as a backup storage if the speed is too slow for on-line access/editing/viewing. Also there were a number of external USB/iSATA/USB3 hard drives, mostly for backup storage.
For about 300,000 pictures, there is no fast enough solution, except a dedicated storage server. Indexing, updating copying, etc. takes long time on huge volumes.
Furthermore, many NAS use internally propriatory file systems on the internal drives. So good when the device works OK, but when it fails? Removing disc from failed NAS device and trying to see what is on it is a headache, no computer disc interface will read those files, except the original NAS hardware.
Recently, I discovered that latest model of Wireless Range Extender from Linksys, allows to add an external wired device and make it a wirelessly accessed device on the newtork. This could be another option, if one needs larger wireless network span.
If your networked devices work, you do not need a special software, as you can inspect any remote drive contents with a Windows Explorer or similar simple application. As Ralph says, Simple is faster, if you know what you have, and where it is.
Recent trend to help people by all means, by providing media center type software, usually creates own index and catalog of thousands of files, even if you want to access just one. Frequent and automated schedules, or on-demand updates, hogs the computer resources. E.g. software from Sony, Corel, etc. work fast on small indexes, but when it grows ? your computer is slow.
Michael Elenko , Feb 06, 2012; 03:23 p.m.
That's what online hosting sites like Smugmug and Zenfolio are for. For Lightroom (maybe Aperture too, don't know) there is a free plug-in that makes synching galleries between the application and the hosting site very easy.
An alternative is to convert new batches of your finished photos to a PDF slideshow so that others on the network can quickly access it.
ME
John Crowe 
, Feb 07, 2012; 11:28 a.m.
With my PC's I can map a drive on another computer, which allows Bridge and Lightroom to treat them like a local drive. I am not too familiar with Mac's but I found something online that says you can map drives and have them appear on your desktop. With Windows its an option in Explorer when you right click on the drive on another computer on the network. Sharing must be enabled on the drive and the folders it contains.
