How is import duplicates still a thing?
Since I switched to C1 from Lightroom I've been baffled that Capture One has no regard for duplicates when importing.
It also exports duplicates with no option to overwrite... but one thing at a time I guess.
With the ever increasing storage capacity of SD cards it is easier to fit multiple sessions onto one card.
I've been on a job and I have done a quick backup and forgot that there was a previous session my card. So I've had to manually delete HUNDREDS of duplicate files.
There are countless forum posts with users complaining about how C1 handles duplicates every new update I go to look to see if it's been implemented. 10.2.1... Is it there? Nope.
I've done "feature requests" twice now and they don't reply.
This is a *fundamental* feature for an image cataloging program.
It is a simple enough feature that would take a developer an afternoon to implement.
How is it possible that you can still import duplicate files in Capture One?
It also exports duplicates with no option to overwrite... but one thing at a time I guess.
With the ever increasing storage capacity of SD cards it is easier to fit multiple sessions onto one card.
I've been on a job and I have done a quick backup and forgot that there was a previous session my card. So I've had to manually delete HUNDREDS of duplicate files.
There are countless forum posts with users complaining about how C1 handles duplicates every new update I go to look to see if it's been implemented. 10.2.1... Is it there? Nope.
I've done "feature requests" twice now and they don't reply.
This is a *fundamental* feature for an image cataloging program.
It is a simple enough feature that would take a developer an afternoon to implement.
How is it possible that you can still import duplicate files in Capture One?
0
-
This is the users forum; no Capture One SW designers here.
You will get better results if you raise a ticket and make a feature request.0 -
I've done that... Twice. 0 -
It's not like it's really difficult to avoid duplicates using the filtering options on import.
But hey, if you have problems with it and enough others suffer the same way and have raised Enhancement Requests then I guess something may come of it at some point.
My guess is that whatever it is and no matter how good it may be hundreds of people will jump into the forum suggesting what they believe to be better approaches.
Grant0 -
For the sake of discussion...
Why would anyone want to import duplicates of the same RAW files into a session?
If I already imported 1,000 images from a project, why would I then want to import them all again with a 1 at the end?
Logically I would want a default way disregard suspected duplicates (because it would be a huge headache if I accidentally imported 1,000 duplicate files into a session or catalog).
Imagine if windows or Mac OS just added a 1 at the end of any file you copied to another source without asking.
I'd love to hear a use for importing duplicate RAW files into a session.0 -
[quote="detroitechno" wrote:
For the sake of discussion...
Why would anyone want to import duplicates of the same RAW files into a session?
If I already imported 1,000 images from a project, why would I then want to import them all again with a 1 at the end?
Logically I would want a default way disregard suspected duplicates (because it would be a huge headache if I accidentally imported 1,000 duplicate files into a session or catalog).
Imagine if windows or Mac OS just added a 1 at the end of any file you copied to another source without asking.
I'd love to hear a use for importing duplicate RAW files into a session.
I don't know about Mac but Windows certainly adds a suffix to a file name rather than risking an accidental overwrite when copying files depending on the circumstances. It expects users to make a decision about "Save" or "Save as" options when editing.
But given that you have renaming options on import and that there is no absolute guarantee that you won't get duplicate names (if not files) being presented to the same session - or more particularly the same catalogue where used - the checks have to be undertaken based on far more than just name it the developers wish to make a complete solution that would keep all users happy in all circumstances.
That is probably quite a lot of development effort and continuing support and I would not be surprised if it had to be written at least twice - once for each OS. And of course be portable for those who copy sessions and catalogues between systems.
The costs of development and maintenance have to be borne somewhere.
As things are, with no changes, its the work of moments to select the images you want to import using filters. In fact potentially it is a better solution in my opinion since it suggests an opportunity to double check that what you have at the source location does indeed need to be imported completely for the session you are working with. For many people that may not be the case.
Yes importing duplicate original files does seem like a strange thing to do to me too. But there are people who seem to at least consider doing that, perhaps more so in catalogues, because they prefer to use folder structures that are physically structured rather than virtually described.
What should a selective system do if you are creating a new session which is currently empty?
You put your card in the card reader and it has several different shoots available. The session doesn't know about any of them. What should happen next?
Grant0 -
https://chrisogrady.com/stuff/dupe.jpg 0 -
[quote="detroitechno" wrote:
https://chrisogrady.com/stuff/dupe.jpg
A tick box - but what does it do under the hood?
And is that for a session or a catalogue?
Potentially it makes more sense in a catalogue type situation where one might anticipate that users to have everything in one catalogue or, if not, are willing to undertake some form of self administration.
And of course many people will still use most of their storage cards for a shoot, import and backup(s) and then reformat, in which case the problem goes away .... unless you then attempt to further import from one of the backup places for some reason or and up with another set of images with the same file names when you next import - again potentially more significant when working with a catalogue based workflow since one might assume that a new shoot in most cases would imply a new session. (But not always ....)
Does the application from which that screen grab is taken have filtering available on import?0 -
[quote="detroitechno" wrote:
https://chrisogrady.com/stuff/dupe.jpg
That's clearly not Capture One; Capture One doesn't have "smart previews".
Which application, then?0 -
Lightroom. 0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="detroitechno" wrote:
https://chrisogrady.com/stuff/dupe.jpg
A tick box - but what does it do under the hood?
It runs a few filters.
It seems 99.9% of duplicates could be determined by checking file names again capture time. What are the odds two different cameras took a picture with the same file name at the same second of the same day? Of course some projects are using two cameras in stereo so this could happen from time to time. If you wanted to get to 100% have the filter check the camera/lens serial # as well.
How difficult would it be to implement a tick box that runs such a script, it seems everything is already in place within the program to do so?
Perhaps I am missing something?0 -
[quote="cdc" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="detroitechno" wrote:
https://chrisogrady.com/stuff/dupe.jpg
A tick box - but what does it do under the hood?
It runs a few filters.
It seems 99.9% of duplicates could be determined by checking file names again capture time. What are the odds two different cameras took a picture with the same file name at the same second of the same day? Of course some projects are using two cameras in stereo so this could happen from time to time. If you wanted to get to 100% have the filter check the camera/lens serial # as well.
How difficult would it be to implement a tick box that runs such a script, it seems everything is already in place within the program to do so?
Perhaps I am missing something?
I always change the filenames soon after import, or even before in PhtoMechanic, but if C1 would check on image date and time and camera serial number, the script would be pretty much foolproof.0 -
[quote="Emile1" wrote:
[quote="cdc" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
A tick box - but what does it do under the hood?
It runs a few filters.
It seems 99.9% of duplicates could be determined by checking file names again capture time. What are the odds two different cameras took a picture with the same file name at the same second of the same day? Of course some projects are using two cameras in stereo so this could happen from time to time. If you wanted to get to 100% have the filter check the camera/lens serial # as well.
How difficult would it be to implement a tick box that runs such a script, it seems everything is already in place within the program to do so?
Perhaps I am missing something?
I always change the filenames soon after import, or even before in PhtoMechanic, but if C1 would check on image date and time and camera serial number, the script would be pretty much foolproof.
Image date and time - maybe.
Camera serial? Not always reported by the camera in my experience.
It's often not too difficult to cover data assessment situations with better than 90% success rate - maybe even 98%. But the final 2% can throw up anomalies of use and one can be sure that people will make a fuss if their particular requirements have not been met 100%.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Image date and time - maybe.
Camera serial? Not always reported by the camera in my experience.
It's often not too difficult to cover data assessment situations with better than 90% success rate - maybe even 98%. But the final 2% can throw up anomalies of use and one can be sure that people will make a fuss if their particular requirements have not been met 100%.
Grant
I'd guess that is why Adobe included "Suspected" in their terminology.
If software had to cater to 100% of its users before it was released, nothing would be released.
side note: I think camera serial numbers are included in exif, it is just not reported by all exif readers, similar to total shutter count of the camera. I see lens serial numbers reported much more frequently.[quote="Emile1" wrote:
I always change the filenames soon after import, or even before in PhtoMechanic, but if C1 would check on image date and time and camera serial number, the script would be pretty much foolproof.
Once you change the filename it is no longer a duplicate 😁0 -
Coming from Lightroom to CO, I was amazed that I could import duplicates into CO. I would think by default the system would prevent it. 0 -
This is my frustrating scenario.
In the middle of a shoot I will sometimes stick my card into my laptop to do a "quick backup".
Or what's worse, asking a new assistant to do a quick backup.
I don't want to have to think about where the last backup ended and the new one began just to quickly backup new files during a shoot.
If I forget that I have done a previous backup or if an assistant has already done one, it's VERY easy to import duplicates while backing up during a shoot if you're not paying attention.
... and you have 500 duplicate files in your session that you need to manually delete.
It is very frustrating that there seems to be no effort to add this fundamental feature.0 -
If that was my habit I would copy the files to a system folder and let the OS deal with the questions of duplicates folder since it is for backup purposes.
Then, working with a session that is reading that folder, just carry on with the new files added. There may be more elegant ways to operate but it depends on more detailed needs analysis to suggest anything more.
I also appreciate that there may be things you are doing that use specific to C1 features as you copy the files - like import and renaming for example - but your description sounded more like a straight security copy to be safe so my suggestion addresses that specifically.
If enough people create Support Cases asking for the feature who knows what the result might be?
Grant0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
17 Kommentare