Or if the group of images is important enough it could have a named keyword, like Jones_wed_kiss.
Personally I try to keep transitory keywords in their own grouping, as opposed to global forever keywords like "flower," "dog," "family," "wed," "bride," etc.
Note that keywords apply globally across all images in the Library that they have been applied to.
You obviously shoot a few weddings!
I am not a professional photographer, although I've shot a few in the past, thus "Wed" is probably adequate fort my purposes.
I get that the keywords apply globally. I'm ambivalent about over-categorization too. Photography is not exactly Library Science. (or Rocketry).
I'm stumbling whether it makes sense to categorize & indent keywords redundantly like:
Alternately, putting the unique identifiers up front doesn't organize it for me either, because it becomes more involved mental juggling, to remember that Fritz & TopCat are CATS, if its cat pictures I'm looking for & there are more than 2 cats.
Very generic labels, or keywords (are labels & keywords the same in Aperture?) like "wed" doesn't wash if you shoot a lot of them because its not a substantive differentiation of your data.
Message was edited by: CroMagnum