I tried date folders but for how I work they just didn't suffice, especially when it came to returning to images months later if we needed to take something for stock.
My process is this:
1) Copy images manually onto external hard drive into a folder named with the magazine anacronym, the angler and the venue (so it would look like 'TCF - Bob Nudd (suffolk water park). The latter part in brackets help me because I shoot so many features with the same angler (Bob being one) that the venue is the distinguishing factor. However, the 'TCF' tag makes it easy for me to narrow down to browse through one magazine's back catalogue quite easily. These folders are in one master folder for the magazine and these master folder are in a 'work' master folder that sits alongside my 'personal' master folder.
2) Import fresh images into LR3 from their location on the hard drive. This is when I keyword; I do have some presets but because each feature might have things in it toally different to a previous feature, I just prefer to keyword manually to fit the shoot. So for example, the Nuddy feature at SWP would have keywords like: Bob Nudd, TCF, suffolk water park, roach, pole fishing, browning.... etc, etc. This is how I search my back catalogue if editorial ask me if I have a picture of a maggot or a guy fishing the margins etc. BTW, I am the only person who keywords within my company so my catalogue is unique - the other journalists/photographers don't realise the advantages it can bring if you're searching for a shot. This is the point when i also add copyright info etc....
3) Rotate any image that need it and then do a rating process, putting 5 stars for images with potential and then marking for deletion any images that just don't have what I want. I generally shoot 400-500 images per feature but a lot of that is machine-gunning, say when a guy is landing a fish, so I get rid of shots that have elements that don't work, such as no splash or the guy holding the rod or pole uncomfortably. Then I delete those to narrow down the whole shoot to a more manageable amount.
4) Copy the slimmed-down folder onto another HD so I have a back-up. These are organised exactly the same as my main HD in this filing structure: PICTURES GO HERE > WORK > MAGAZINE > JOB NAME (MAG/ANGLER/VENUE)
5) Now I go back into LR and look at the 5* images, doing alterations to levels or whatever else is needed. I generally start by doing a sharpen pre-set to all the images in the folder and then move onto individual alterations to the keepers. How I process is how I'm feeling on the day but I'm always mindful that in many cases, a contrast tweak is important to bring the image to life, so to speak. I tend to assess WB on an image-by-image basis if they're main images, or just batch tweak if it's a sequence.
6) Any images that really, really work are made into a virtual copy/copies. I keep the original, base tweak and then create a VC for every version where I want to do something major, such as adding a heavy vignette nor doing some kind of HDR-esque look. These are rated also as 5* but with a colour code as well, usually green for 'GO'.
7) Once all the tweaking is done I select all the images I want to output for perusal by the editorial staff and they go on a CD/DVD. These images are the 5* ones - if I feel an image isn't working I'll downgrade it to 4*, which means it has potential or Ill come back to it another time for my own personal satisfaction. By marking them as 4* it means they stand out from the pack
8) DVD/CD of images is either posted, dropped in personally, or picked up by the journalist off my porch and then it's out of my hands. The editor selects the images with help from the designer, repro do any retouching for dust spots (etc) and colour correcting to match the print process and it's away we go.
BTW, those virtual copies that will sit alongside the original, are renamed as 'main pic option 1/2/3...' so the editor can clearly see the options they have. Sometimes they like the processing and go with it (I also push them a little to do so) but some don't see the changes made, especially if they're subtle, and to be fair, some of them aren't actually the best image editors anyway so they just go with whatever looks pretty
So, that's pretty much how I work
