Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

bring back editing in trash

Permanently deleted user
A few version ago, C1 made editing of raws in trash unable. Would be great to get a preference to reactivate it.
For example: you find a picture in trash that might be useful but you cant tagg it or check if it is worth to rescue. You have to put it back to capture-folder and then find it, tagg it, check it. Much too complicate. I also made a feature request, but there seems not "to be a demand for it". ☹️
0

Comments

9 comments

Date Votes
  • Permanently deleted user
    When you crumple a letter and put it to the trash, you consider it was appropriate to do it. And if you think it would be worth to read it again, you take it out of the trash.....
    0
  • Grant Hodgeon
    [quote="tenmangu81" wrote:
    When you crumple a letter and put it to the trash, you consider it was appropriate to do it. And if you think it would be worth to read it again, you take it out of the trash.....


    Some of us use 'Trash' as 'Rejects'.

    Just because it doesn't fit your use case.

    I for one would like this feature back. Or at least an option.
    0
  • SFA
    It's illogical to bin something and then wanting to edit it without first taking it out of the bin.

    More logical, it you want rejects, is to set up a rejects folder and use that.

    Or invert the process and use the "Selects folder" and treat what you don't select as a currently undeleted reject.

    How many ways do people need to do the same thing?

    I suspect that, in terms of the way "bins" are set up in various OS's, the idea of editing it would be anomalous anyway thus confusing a lot of people.


    Grant
    0
  • Grant Hodgeon
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    It's illogical to bin something and then wanting to edit it without first taking it out of the bin.

    More logical, it you want rejects, is to set up a rejects folder and use that.

    Or invert the process and use the "Selects folder" and treat what you don't select as a currently undeleted reject.

    How many ways do people need to do the same thing?

    I suspect that, in terms of the way "bins" are set up in various OS's, the idea of editing it would be anomalous anyway thus confusing a lot of people.


    Grant


    I like having my selects folder as the selects folder. People do many different things in many different ways due to many different variables. Because it doesn't fit your idea of a logical workflow -- it is wrong?

    Grant.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="photoGrant" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    It's illogical to bin something and then wanting to edit it without first taking it out of the bin.

    More logical, it you want rejects, is to set up a rejects folder and use that.

    Or invert the process and use the "Selects folder" and treat what you don't select as a currently undeleted reject.

    How many ways do people need to do the same thing?

    I suspect that, in terms of the way "bins" are set up in various OS's, the idea of editing it would be anomalous anyway thus confusing a lot of people.


    Grant


    I like having my selects folder as the selects folder. People do many different things in many different ways due to many different variables. Because it doesn't fit your idea of a logical workflow -- it is wrong?

    Grant.


    Not wrong but I get the impression we are discussing semantics about names of default folders when there are so many other options available to bespoke the workflow.

    Grant
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    I'd suggest employing one of the following workflows:

    - Color tag while culling/reviewing images: use Red for "reject", Green for "keeper", and if needed, Orange or Yellow or another color for "not sure". After your initial pass, re-evaluate the "not sures" again. Before trashing, review your Reds. C1's extremely fast for finding color labeled items. Also, if you're using a numeric keypad, the default R/G/Y shortcuts are the */-/+ keys on the numeric pad. On my keyboards, these happen to be in the rightmost column.

    - Instead of trashing files, create a new folder and call it something like "Temporary Trash" or "Trash Holding" or whatever makes sense to you. Then instead of moving unwanted files to the trash, move them to that folder. I did this in C1's previous incarnation because at that time, when C1 "emptied the Trash", it first copied the Trash files to your User\Trash folder on the system drive (at least on Macs) and then deleted it from there. I didn't like that because of all the extra time and SSD access it generated. C1 never did figure out how to move Trashed files to the trash folder on whichever drive the image file was initially located on, which I thought was unfortunate. Every other Mac app I've used seems to understand volume trashes files...
    0
  • dredlew
    [quote="photoGrant" wrote:
    Because it doesn't fit your idea of a logical workflow -- it is wrong?

    Grant.


    Yes, your workflow is in fact wrong because it is not his idea on how a trash is supposed to work. Ever tried to edit files in your OS trash? You can't even open a file without taking it out of the trash.

    The idea and function of a trash in software has been the same since the invention of the graphical user interface, making the trash an essential part of the whole desktop metaphor. The trash is a place to discard files you don't want anymore. Consider them deleted/gone. They only remain there as a last resort to be restored in case something was mistakingly discarded. It is not a place to store or edit files. Whether in software nor in real life, after which the software idea was modeled.

    That it was possible at some point to edit files in the trash in C1, either means that P1 wasn't following standard User Interface Guidelines or it was a bug. Now they apparently fixed it and you need to adjust your workflow accordingly. It was never meant to be possible in the first place.
    0
  • Grant Hodgeon
    [quote="dredlew" wrote:
    [quote="photoGrant" wrote:
    Because it doesn't fit your idea of a logical workflow -- it is wrong?

    Grant.


    Yes, your workflow is in fact wrong


    The template naming conventions are editable. I work within the constraints of the software and rename the Trash as Rejects. Nothing officially is 'deleted' otherwise it would be in the System Trash. The very fact the images are moved into a folder locked and referenced as 'Trash' doesn't mean I have to only treat it as such. SFA is right, this is semantics.


    That it was possible at some point to edit files in the trash in C1, either means that P1 wasn't following standard User Interface Guidelines or it was a bug. Now they apparently fixed it and you need to adjust your workflow accordingly. It was never meant to be possible in the first place.


    Fair. Bug fixed. But they treated it as a feature request and not a fixed bug when conversing with the OP.

    Thanks for teaching me what trash in software means.
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter
    I tend to think that being able to edit files in the trash is a bad idea. What if I edited one and then emptied the trash? Being unable to edit them is a good reminder to move them back out of the trash again first.

    Ian
    0

Post is closed for comments.