Renaming virtual copy
I want to do something in C1 that I used to do in lightroom.
in lr if you create a virtual copy you can then drag that copy to a new location away from the parent in a stack of images.
with p1 the virtual copy appears to me to be permanently linked to its parent in name and location, until you save the images at which point it becomes a seperate image but with a _ 1 name .
Is there a way round this that I am missing?
in lr if you create a virtual copy you can then drag that copy to a new location away from the parent in a stack of images.
with p1 the virtual copy appears to me to be permanently linked to its parent in name and location, until you save the images at which point it becomes a seperate image but with a _ 1 name .
Is there a way round this that I am missing?
0
-
[quote="adwb" wrote:
I want to do something in C1 that I used to do in lightroom.
in lr if you create a virtual copy you can then drag that copy to a new location away from the parent in a stack of images.
with p1 the virtual copy appears to me to be permanently linked to its parent in name and location, until you save the images at which point it becomes a seperate image but with a _ 1 name .
Is there a way round this that I am missing?
By Virtual Copy I will assume you mean Variant in C1 tech speak. (If not the comments may not apply!)
In which case no, you can't name the variants individually. The edit information for each original file is all co-located.
If you Process the images to some form of output file and include all of the variants then yes, the naming will typically use the "_1", "_2" suffix. However you do have some flexibility with output naming using the Token system and that might give you a way to differentiate the output files.
You can also record different meta data for different variants which would then allow you to create grouping of images by Album or Smart album quite easily and should be close to what you have become used to using LR if you feel a real need to continue with that approach as you become familiar with C1.
HTH.
Grant0 -
thank you, i think they only way round it is to duplicate and rename the originals before opening a session that way i have my movable two copies
thanks anyway for confirming i was not missing something.0 -
Are you using a catalogue or sessions?
Grant0 -
I normally use sessions Grant, 0 -
[quote="adwb" wrote:
I normally use sessions Grant,
OK, we can have a think around the way sessions work.
Next question.
What is the specific purpose of the separation as you use it in LR?
What are you setting out to achieve and what is the intention behind it?
Grant0 -
This is on my wish-list as well.
I may have a couple of variations of a single picture. E.g., one cropped differently than another (square vs 5x4, ...), or one in B/W and one in color, or one instagramified and one not. Or simply, one variation tuned for a particular printer/paper.
The reasons for wanting to rename the variants are the following.
- I can 'encode' the intent of that variation. In case I output them, I can still recognise the variations because their file names contain that same intent description, rather than a meaningless number that has no correlation with the intent.
- I can easily search for a variation, rather than selecting them by 'variant index', which guarantees absolutely nothing unless you're using a very strict system for creating variations of all images in the album or whatever. (I have not really found a really good use case for that although I have used it once or twice.)
Alternatives and why they don't work as well
- Use keywords. Yes, I can make keywords to 'tag' intents and I actually do. But you can't use a keyword as a token in the file name of a recipe. And adding keywords is a bit more involved than simply editing the variant name.
- Add it to the description. Possible, but you can't use it as a token, either. And besides, the description field is not meant for that. The caption should be describing what the picture is about, not about how it's processed.
- Keep them in different (sub)albums. That would be good to keep them apart, but it wouldn't solve the file name problem. Note that I say "would" because you can't do that. Variants always stick together; drag one variant in an album and all of its brothers and sisters come along. Amazing decision.
Maybe I'm missing the obvious here, and maybe Aperture, Lightroom and all the others that do it are wrong. But then please tell me a better approach. I am more than willing to improve my workflow!
Cheers,
Peter.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="adwb" wrote:
I normally use sessions Grant,
OK, we can have a think around the way sessions work.
Next question.
What is the specific purpose of the separation as you use it in LR?
What are you setting out to achieve and what is the intention behind it?
Grant
My apologies I never saw your question, in LR I will create a virtual copy then move it to another folder as part of a different set,
So zoo images in a folder all renamed and reordered, then I make a virtual copy of a elephant image and move that copy to an other folder which contains other elephant images only.0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
7 Kommentare