CO 9.2 Import Images issue
Hi,
Just updated to 9.2 version but the image imports do it in wrong order:
- last image in memory stick is imported to first one
- first image in memory stick is imported to last one
How this is even possible.. I can't understand why this happens.
Just updated to 9.2 version but the image imports do it in wrong order:
- last image in memory stick is imported to first one
- first image in memory stick is imported to last one
How this is even possible.. I can't understand why this happens.
0
-
[quote="NNN635393881947243607" wrote:
Hi,
Just updated to 9.2 version but the image imports do it in wrong order:
- last image in memory stick is imported to first one
- first image in memory stick is imported to last one
How this is even possible.. I can't understand why this happens.
I was just about to write about this, as I just noticed the same behavior today. I "solved" it by renaming my photos on import as "name-yyyy-mm-dd-hhmmss" to keep them in order.0 -
Ok, it's not solved it was a bubble gum fix only 😊 I name images (yyyy-mm-dd-4 digit) always and I like to use it from now on. Looks like it's a bug in 9.2? 0 -
[quote="NNN635393881947243607" wrote:
Hi,
Just updated to 9.2 version but the image imports do it in wrong order:
- last image in memory stick is imported to first one
- first image in memory stick is imported to last one
How this is even possible.. I can't understand why this happens.
Do you mean in the import window ? If yes, this has always been the case, as far as I know (I started with 8.2). And it is logical : it is better to have the last images on top if you want to select them for import. Especially when you have SD cards with about 1000 files capacities.... and you just want to import the last 20.0 -
[quote="NNN635393881947243607" wrote:
Ok, it's not solved it was a bubble gum fix only 😊
Yep. More of a workaround than a fix. But on second thought, I think I'll stick with the year/time suffix, as "hhmmss" is just as convenient and provides more useful information than the 4-digit counter I used previously.
And at least I won't see this bug anymore if it takes them years to fix. 😊I name images (yyyy-mm-dd-4 digit) always and I like to use it from now on. Looks like it's a bug in 9.2?
Looks like it is, indeed. Never noticed this behavior in previous versions.0 -
[quote="tenmangu81" wrote:
[quote="NNN635393881947243607" wrote:
Hi,
Just updated to 9.2 version but the image imports do it in wrong order:
- last image in memory stick is imported to first one
- first image in memory stick is imported to last one
How this is even possible.. I can't understand why this happens.
Do you mean in the import window ? If yes, this has always been the case, as far as I know (I started with 8.2). And it is logical : it is better to have the last images on top if you want to select them for import. Especially when you have SD cards with about 1000 files capacities.... and you just want to import the last 20.
The bug is that if you have pictures sorted from first to last in the import window, when you click "Import", CO will renumber them backwards, from last to first. I don't recall it did that in previous versions.0 -
[quote="John Doe" wrote:
The bug is that if you have pictures sorted from first to last in the import window, when you click "Import", CO will renumber them backwards, from last to first. I don't recall it did that in previous versions.
Exactly!0 -
And to think I thought it was me going crazy! Definitely a bug ...the import numbering is in the reverse order of capture. 0 -
I noticed this as well after the update to 9.2
It does not matter how the images are sorted in the import window.. they get imported in the reverse order.
Quite annoying when using the counter variants in the rename preset.
There are two ways to fix this.
After import sort by date and do a batch rename (be sure to set the counter). When using a counter this will result in duplicate image names so each image will have a digit one added to the name. Then set the counter again and rerun the batch rename. Now the names are in the correct counter order (oldest to newest image). Remember if you did a backup during import... you will need to rename the backup copy as well!
OK so that was painful!
The other approach is to import with the original image name. Select all the imported files. I made a smart album to do this.
Then sort by date and batch rename with your usual preset. The counter should be correct from the last import / rename.
Then rename the backup files, remembering to set the counter to the same initial value as the previous rename.0 -
Yes I noticed the same issue the other day. But of course you can easily sort them after import into date order. A bit of an annoyance, though.
Ian0 -
[quote="John Doe" wrote:
The bug is that if you have pictures sorted from first to last in the import window, when you click "Import", CO will renumber them backwards, from last to first. I don't recall it did that in previous versions.
OK, I understand. As I don't rename my files on importing, I was not aware of this bug. Sorry.0 -
I rename and number pictures on import.
I just sort the pictures by date in decending order (before import, in the dialog window). And then it works like expected: they get renamed and numbered in ascending order on import.
There is no need for batch renaming, at least for me
-peter0 -
[quote="Peter.Brockhausen" wrote:
I rename and number pictures on import.
I just sort the pictures by date in decending order (before import, in the dialog window). And then it works like expected: they get renamed and numbered in ascending order on import.
There is no need for batch renaming, at least for me
-peter
And you have a 9.2. version? Olders do it in right order but not 9.2.
YYYYMMDD-HHmmss naming is not a solution because an images with the same ss are named backwards!0 -
[quote="NNN635393881947243607" wrote:
[quote="Peter.Brockhausen" wrote:
...
I just sort the pictures by date in decending order (before import, in the dialog window). And then it works like expected: they get renamed and numbered in ascending order on import.
...
And you have a 9.2. version? Olders do it in right order but not 9.2.
YYYYMMDD-HHmmss naming is not a solution because an images with the same ss are named backwards!
Yes, I use 9.2.0.97 on Mac OS 10.11.5
But I don't have more than one picture per second.0 -
And if like some you import from multiple cards from one shoot everything is all over the place not just backward.
I suppose the suggested answer will be import frrom last card first0 -
[quote="Peter.Brockhausen" wrote:
But I don't have more than one picture per second.
Think about sport shooters, they shoot burst rate. Those images are totally in mess. Burst sets are backwards. And when the time changes middle in burst set, image import start beginning (last image) again.
Yep, that's true multiple cards make more hassle.0 -
OK, time to report the bug then I guess. :-/ 0 -
I read something on the "Capture One Collective" Facebook group that might be the key.
Someone claimed that when you import your images directly into a collection, the sort order of that collection (in the browser) determines the order of import:
Are you choosing an album ("Selected Album") or Recent Imports when importing? If "Selected Album", what is the sort order of the album? Just helping troubleshoot.
Bingo, it was into the default location: Catalog Collection - Recent Imports, so the most recent image was on top...if I move to another folder/collection, it imports in the correct order! Thanks!!!
I did not try this, but it seems like a serious bug if that is indeed the case.
But at least, there is a workaround.
Cheers,
Peter.0 -
I'm not convinced that this is the issue. I use sessions, not catalogues, and I'm seeing my shots importing in reverse order too.
Ian0 -
And the silence from Capture One staff is deafening 0 -
Same issue here, I import images the same way I always have, and they come in 'backwards' - newest first. Previously, they've always imported in the order they were shot. Yes, you can do various workarounds, but why should you suddenly have to?
Just updated to the latest version, seems to be fixed...0 -
It is fixed indeed in the latest version. See change log. 0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
21 comments