Zum Hauptinhalt gehen

Allow Option to Overwrite/Skip Files when Exporting Originals

Kommentare

11 Kommentare

  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    +1

    If the original image raw file is skipped, do you want to xmp file to be skipped too or update the xmp file with the current metadata?

    As far as adjustments (cos and comask) files are concerned I want them to be updated (and xmp too)

    0
  • Jon Rauschenberger

    If I select Skip, I would expect it to behave the same way it does with a normal Export. When I select Skip there, the exported file is not updated even if I have made further edits, so I'd expect the same with Export Original (I.e. don't update sidecar/COS files).

    One other/unrelated request - adding an option to generate XMP files when doing Export Originals would be great. Currently I only get XMPs if I've already generated them in the source folder (e.g. have Image - Sync Metadata). Would be great to basically have the option to do the metadata sync with the original export.

    0
  • FirstName LastName

    +1 - really need this as my company's workflow includes making multiple revisions and overwriting conflicting assets

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    Export Originals is, surely, just that.

     

    A copy of the original, unmodified, file is created somewhere else and to avoid accidentally overwriting a previous file with the same name - which may or may not be the exact same file - another copy with a suffix appended is saved.

    Is this not the best way to ensure that valuable assets are not accidentally lost?

    I could understand, possibly, a skip option. 

     

    But, personally, when undertaking such exports, I would either wish to save to a new folder (or whatever) and then compare the new and old folder contents, or clear the old folder first. However, if exporting an "original" that has previously been worked on and so has edit content associated with it for which the edit content needs to be connected to the new export file, then some care may be required.

    That said, if the "original" is an already modified and edited file (i.e. not an original RAW file of some sort) requirements may be different but can it be certain that any further changes made to a previous version of the file are still valid? 

     

    As a further complication there is always the question of whether the "original" files, whatever they may be, are solely ralted to Capture One processing activities or may also be used by other applications that may lose their links to a file if it is overwritten. This may be especially true in a multi-user studio environment.

    0
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    Hi SFA,

    "Overwriting" originals is, in the context of this thread, meant as an option or workaround to update write, or overwrite new or changed xmp files (or cos files in the respective subfolder). It is mentioned in the replies and can alternatively be implemented by a xmp and cos/comask file sync.

    EDIT: My remark about the xmp and cos/comask file sync is nonsense, it was driven by my deep desire to have that.
    If you have an original image in your original location then an overwrite with newer a new .cos file can simulate a cos file sync, though I would not want to really overwrite the original file in its original location. For a backup or second location though it could make sense but an xmp/cos file sync would not be appropriate. It is late already...

     

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    BeO,

    As "things", including the world at large, become ever more complex, even things that once seemed quite simple and understandable become impossible to understand with any previously understood form of logic.

    This simple phenomenon is widely experienced but little understood. It is almost never consistent.

    AI will fix all of it. And then be closed followed by its alter ego,  AS, and the confusion that will result from it.

     

    The older I get, the more experiences I can call on, the less I seem to understand. 

    Was it ever any different through the ages?

    1
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    Was it ever any different through the ages?

    I don't know, please ask the AI.

    :-)

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    :-)

    But is it AI or A Lie?

    0
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    That's the issue with AI, the result often appears to be convincing though it might be totally wrong (ChatGPT etc.). AI for masking and denoise maybe an exception.

    0
  • SFA
    Top Commenter

    A few months ago a WIndows Edge update started pushing their AI Chat stuff. 

    Played with it and realised it did not persist and there seemed to be no way to save a chat.

    Then I found something that seemed to be a way to save a chat thread but it didn't seem to work.

    Then I discovered something that suggested one could only save some sort of record if one had subscribed to an account of some sort.

    Around that time I asked a series of questions in a thread, each question a little more focussed than the next, and the bot replied, much to my surprise, that, yes, the potential problems of replacing oil-derived clothing with natural-materials-based alternatives for a population of several billion people on the planet was most likely to result in failure. Or words to that effect.

    What really surprised me is that that particular response, as I recall it, read as if it had been written by a human. A human who had read the previous questions and answers in the thread. 

    I may have imagined that. As it was lost I had no way to revisit it and find out if my memory was correct.

     

    I went to make a cup of coffee, quite surprised by the answer.

    When I returned Windows had re-booted, the thread was gone.

    Two days later the AI functionality became restricted to 5 questions in a thread and a limit to the number of threads per day/week/,month or whatever. Unless one has a subscription and abides by whatever the rules of the day for the subscription might be.

    I am ever less convinced that the stated benefit of making sound knowledge and information available to the masses is a provable benefit of such systems. Perhaps quite the opposite. Does that really matter in the long term? I don't know.

    At least with AI in art (and even photography! ;) ) we could simply ask ChatGTP to create an image of mountains and a sunset, with some blue sky and clouds that will print at a size large enough to print and hang impressively on a wall. It would probably succeed. Would be a real place? Would I know? Would I care? 

    The saving in cost, time, energy and potential failure when a trip to possibly suitable exotic location results in a week of constant rain, would be compensation enough so long as the artificial image was impressive enough.

    Or would it?

    All of that said, the new masking options do indeed seem to be very impressive and truly useful. Very probably worth the cost of entry to the club even as a Windows user.

     

    ETA: Apologies, this reply has drifted a long way from the point of the original poster's request. Although I suppose AI might have a genuine place in any routine that might be trying to ensure that a process like "overwrite/skip" does indeed offer enough "safety" in internal decision-making to overcome any inadvertent errors and losses that might otherwise creep in from time to time.

    1
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    If you don't have cost, time, energy and risk of failure, where is the delight when you succeed? If I just want to have an impressive image on my wall I can just buy a print from a better than me photographer (who hopefully did not use AI). :-)

    0

Bitte melden Sie sich an, um einen Kommentar zu hinterlassen.