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⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived.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. ⚠️

Overwrite existing JPGs with Process Recipe?

PhaseZero
I am creating JPGs from DNGs with CaptureOne (C1) for usage in 3rd party presentation software. For this I need absolute constant filenames and like just to overwrite or replace the existing (previously generated) JPG files. The 3rd party software just needs to update all used files (one mouse-click or F5 command) and no manual correction of filenames is required. The import in this 3rd party SW is done from MediaPro (MP) via Drag&Drop. To repeat all these steps for updated JPG pictures would be quite time consuming.

When a file is already existing, e.g. [Image Name]_mod.jpg, C1 is always creating new numbered versions like [Image Name]_mod1.jpg, _mod2.jpg, _mod3.jpg ... I am missing a selectable option with output naming like "overwrite" versus "numbering".

How can I disable this behavior of C1? Is there any workaround? In case I really need additional JPG versions I will create another recipe with different output naming.

Another very useful recipe option would be the skipping of process, when a target file is already existing. For multiple selected photos it would be possible to generate only files which do not yet exist. This is required for example to generate and continuosly update a complete collection of 1920x1080 JPGs to be watched on a HDTV-set from a NAS media directory.

Best Regards from PhaseZero
0

Comments

6 comments

Date Votes
  • Paul Steunebrink
    [quote="PhaseZero" wrote:
    ...
    When a file is already existing, e.g. [Image Name]_mod.jpg, C1 is always creating new numbered versions like [Image Name]_mod1.jpg, _mod2.jpg, _mod3.jpg ... I am missing a selectable option with output naming like "overwrite" versus "numbering".

    How can I disable this behavior of C1? Is there any workaround? In case I really need additional JPG versions I will create another recipe with different output naming.

    This is currently how CO6 handles existing file names in the same folder. A workaround would be to process to a different folder and move the files afterwards to their final destination.
    [quote="PhaseZero" wrote:
    ...
    Another very useful recipe option would be the skipping of process, when a target file is already existing. For multiple selected photos it would be possible to generate only files which do not yet exist. This is required for example to generate and continuosly update a complete collection of 1920x1080 JPGs to be watched on a HDTV-set from a NAS media directory.

    I think both issues make useful feature requests. Open a support case and submit your request for proper logging.
    0
  • FStgt
    we had exactly same issue and fixed it with small php script doing it.
    if you are interested, let me know. it would need you to install php client mode (which then accept php files as batch files) and then shortcut to php file on your taskbar to start it (we start it with one key on programmable keyboard). It takes newest files, not necessarily with latest number, but modification might be easy.
    0
  • PhaseZero
    [quote="Paul_E" wrote:
    This is currently how CO6 handles existing file names in the same folder. A workaround would be to process to a different folder and move the files afterwards to their final destination.

    Thank you Paul,

    my photo files are distributed in a large subfolder structure \yyyy\yyyy-mm-dd_loc_event\...
    Wouldn't your workaround with different folder only make sense, when the subfolder structure is regenerated? To my understanding there is no generation of subfolder structure, when processing to a different folder. All files are then just in one target directory B. I can imagine a process which compares one target directory B with the complete source sub-folder structure A. Then all duplicate files from A are overwritten with newer files from B. But such process is certainly complicated and time consuming.

    I like MSDOS batch files very much and can imagine a batch file with FIND, XCOPY, ... to realize this task. My JPG files names always start with "YYYYMMDD-hhmm_...", so the folders where the FIND command has to search are at least not all folders of my photo collection.

    Thank you FStgt for idea/solution with PHP. I contacted you by e-mail.

    Best Regards from PhaseZero
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    How I solve this issue of unintentional renaming is that I always use a generic output folder. In the process recipe for both TIFF and JPEG respectively I assign a specific path for each. This generic output folder might or might not be session related (you can set this in the Advanced tab of the process recipe).

    If I perform postprocessing - if deemed necessary - I do it when the files are still in these generic folders because my Photoshop actions save to that folder as well.

    Next, after all is said and done, I move the files to their final destination with Explorer. When I still have second thoughts about the result after I moved the images, I walk through the same process without having files with a numbered suffix because they were already moved from the output folder. And with Finder it is easy to overwrite the newest result over the previous in the final destination folder.

    Maybe this will give you inspiration to implement your workflow that fits best.

    Edit: replaced Finder with Explorer; more suitable term for Windows 😉
    0
  • PhaseZero
    Thank you very much Paul for this method. I hope that I did understand it correctly.

    I usually process various files spread over multiple subdirectories "/yyyy-mm-dd_event/...", because I have to generate multimedia shows with photos from historical shots which cover decades. With Finder/Explorer I then would have to find all subdirectories manually. That is quite time-consuming and mistakes can easily happen, isn't it?

    Up to now I am processing to the original subfolder. After deleting the old recipe results manually in MediaPro, I rename the new generated files back. Seems to be no other way.

    Regards from PhaseZero
    0
  • Javier Sanchez
    7 years later, still no checkbox to override.

    [quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
    [quote="PhaseZero" wrote:


    I think both issues make useful feature requests. Open a support case and submit your request for proper logging.

    0

Post is closed for comments.