Question on Export/Processing

Commentaires

18 commentaires

  • Ian Wilson
    No, it's still the same - it can't over-write.

    Ian
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Jens_A
    This is so ....

    I cannot even think of one sensible use case for the actual behavior of creating new files when doing the same export again and again. Why is that so? And Am I the only one confused by that? There must be many support requests because of that.

    I like C1 quite a lot above other photo cataloging products but this one thing kills it's usefulness for me. Such a shame ☹️
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Ian Wilson
    [quote="Jens_A" wrote:
    This is so ....

    I cannot even think of one sensible use case for the actual behavior of creating new files when doing the same export again and again. Why is that so? And Am I the only one confused by that? There must be many support requests because of that.

    I like C1 quite a lot above other photo cataloging products but this one thing kills it's usefulness for me. Such a shame ☹️

    Yet there are many of us users who feel strongly the other way - we don’t want previous output to be over-written. A solution sometimes suggested in discusssons here is that it would be good if in Preferences we could opt to allow or disallow over-writing.

    Ian
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Jens_A
    Yea, an option! Support response:
    There's no such an option in Capture One and I’ve added your case to the note for R&D to consider future implementation.

    This will be years, if at all I'm afraid.

    [quote="Ian3" wrote:

    Yet there are many of us users who feel strongly the other way - we don’t want previous output to be over-written.

    I'm totally open to new Ideas and really wonder: could you explain a use case where keeping previous exports (of the same file/settings) would be useful?

    regards
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Ian Wilson
    Not necessarily the same settings. But if I have (say) created a JPG file to put on a website, I may want to keep hold of the version I used there. I may also think better of the editing of the raw, and perhaps want to create a different crop, or a different colour balance, etc and produce another JPG output.

    Ian

    Edited to add: I fully appreciate that some users would prefer to over-write previous output. But believe me, there have been a lot of discussions on here about this in the past, and opinion is certainly divided. So an option to be able to over-write, OK, but a change of the default behaviour, no.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    I share the same view as Ian3.

    There are times when I may wish to offer 2 or more versions of the same file in the same folder set.

    Or I can separate them very easily into different folders (using the same output file name) and compare them before choosing which is preferred.

    If one has not changed anything there is no need for a new output so no need to process it. Should something be re-processed accidentally then it is relatively easy to identify the duplicate and delete.

    If, perhaps for reasons of automated numbering, and entire batch of output needs to be replaced then simply out put to a new folder and delete the contents of the old one. Or delete the old folder and re-run the process creating a new folder.

    A little more work but potentially safer on those few occasions when the need arises, than going for a direct overwrite setting?

    Some examples of why the default behaviour should be retained in the event that an option is provided.

    I could see the benefit of an immediate choice should one be re-processing from the recent batch history list for some reason.


    Grant
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Ian Leslie
    I'm with Jens_A on this - just so it's two against two 😊

    Kidding aside I really do wish that there was a way to replace. For me if I actually want two versions I likely do *not* want them in the same folder because they are for two different purposes. If in the rare even I do want a couple of versions in the same project then *I* will rename them to indicate the b&w or square corp etc. In my past I have never needed to have the program preserve my previous version and create a unique file name. All my historic experience shows that in those cases I am trying to fix a mistake. Therefore I *want* files replaced.

    When fixing a mistake the process of deleting the old one and manually renaming the new file back to what it should be (the original file name I took pains to setup that way) is far too cumbersum. So, what I end up having to do is go out and delete the contents of the folder and process again. I'm still not used to this "feature" in C1. A typical scenario where I make a mistake for me looks like this: process a bunch of images (with carefully chosen names into a purposefully named folder) realize my mistake; fix it and process again only to realize that I forgot that C1 is not helping me fix my mistake; go out to the file system delete all the files and process everything again. Wonder how someone thought this was a good idea 😊
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    IanL,

    I don't think you need to go out of C1. You can get to the output folder in use for a Recipe directly from the Output Location and delete it from there .... or individual files from the folder.

    I will grant you that if you are using a required naming/numbering sequence that needs to be set up "manually" for the process setting up for re-processing could be a little fiddly but if you are not doing anything specifically related to the position of the image in the process list then it should be easy enough to delete the first one and re-run the replacement.

    If I decide I need to re-run most of a batch I may re-run all of it to a new folder and the simply delete the original folder and rename the new one that has been run for the complete batch. But if only changing 2 or 3 out of 1000 I'll deal with them individually.

    HTH.


    Grant
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • IanS
    [quote="Jens_A" wrote:
    This is so ....

    I cannot even think of one sensible use case for the actual behavior of creating new files when doing the same export again and again. Why is that so? And Am I the only one confused by that? There must be many support requests because of that.

    I like C1 quite a lot above other photo cataloging products but this one thing kills it's usefulness for me. Such a shame ☹️


    I put in a formal request with a use case a year ago. 😊

    A simple solution is to follow DXO-Photolab. It just pops up a dialogue box during export and says "Over right or use unique file name".

    I don't know of any other photo editing software that does not allow over righting, or any other software such as Word, Excel etc.

    The solution is easy and quick so I assume it is someone at Phaseone's "bee in their bonnet". Shame customers should be the priority.

    Ian
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • JT Pennington
    [quote="IanL" wrote:
    I'm with Jens_A on this - just so it's two against two 😊

    Kidding aside I really do wish that there was a way to replace. For me if I actually want two versions I likely do *not* want them in the same folder because they are for two different purposes. If in the rare even I do want a couple of versions in the same project then *I* will rename them to indicate the b&w or square corp etc. In my past I have never needed to have the program preserve my previous version and create a unique file name. All my historic experience shows that in those cases I am trying to fix a mistake. Therefore I *want* files replaced.

    When fixing a mistake the process of deleting the old one and manually renaming the new file back to what it should be (the original file name I took pains to setup that way) is far too cumbersum. So, what I end up having to do is go out and delete the contents of the folder and process again. I'm still not used to this "feature" in C1. A typical scenario where I make a mistake for me looks like this: process a bunch of images (with carefully chosen names into a purposefully named folder) realize my mistake; fix it and process again only to realize that I forgot that C1 is not helping me fix my mistake; go out to the file system delete all the files and process everything again. Wonder how someone thought this was a good idea 😊


    Well I'm going to tip the scales back the other direction because I prefer it to make a new file.
    I would rather have to make the effort to remove a prior processed file than have the system do that for me (which is the result of overwriting).

    I've had it happen before that when I go back into an album I accidentally edit something on another file that I don't intended to. I use an Arturia Beatstep as a control deck and I've had the situation where I set papers or something on it, and as the papers settle they turn a couple knobs slightly without me realizing it. I only discovered this when I went to my export dir and found that even though I only intentionally edited one file... I had two new files. When I eventually get back to editing I go to the picture i want to tweak not realizing I accidentally edited whatever image was active.
    Yes... I know the solution is a bigger desk. But I don't want to spend money on a bigger desk right now. 😂

    However all that being said, I think the proper course of action for C1 is to allow this to be a user defined setting. They can keep the default the way it currently is if they want, but allowing the option wouldn't hurt anyone. If they're that worried about it they can give the user a popup warning them that it may result in unintentional data loss.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Ian Leslie
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    I don't think you need to go out of C1. You can get to the output folder in use for a Recipe directly from the Output Location and delete it from there .... or individual files from the folder.


    Thanks for the thought but I am using catalogs (I know said I start with sessions and I do but most of not all of my output is done from the catalog) and do not re-import the output folders into said catalog.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Ian Leslie
    [quote="IanS" wrote:

    A simple solution is to follow DXO-Photolab. It just pops up a dialogue box during export and says "Over right or use unique file name".


    I know it is often done in this manor but this is a poor solution. Putting it as an option in the processing recipe or in the preferences is the way to go. Those dialogs that ask you one more question are referred to as "stopping the proceedings with idiocy" because they add an extra unnecessary step that interrupts the user when what they want to do is move on to their next task.

    I thought I put in a case requesting this too but checked my history and realize I did not... heading there now...
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Ian Wilson
    I know it is often done in this manor but this is a poor solution. Putting it as an option in the processing recipe or in the preferences is the way to go. Those dialogs that ask you one more question are referred to as "stopping the proceedings with idiocy" because they add an extra unnecessary step that interrupts the user when what they want to do is move on to their next task.

    Also, it is all too easy if you are in a hurry to click on the wrong choice. Better to have it as a behaviour that you have to go to the preferences to set, than as something that you can wreck by clicking the wrong button in the heat of the moment.

    Ian
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    [quote="IanL" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    I don't think you need to go out of C1. You can get to the output folder in use for a Recipe directly from the Output Location and delete it from there .... or individual files from the folder.


    Thanks for the thought but I am using catalogs (I know said I start with sessions and I do but most of not all of my output is done from the catalog) and do not re-import the output folders into said catalog.


    So far as I can tell you don't have to re-import to make the output location "known" to the catalogue in order to be able to access and use the files. The output location of a Recipe is the output location no matter where it is. It does not have to have anything whatsoever to do with the catalogue function.

    It can be changed of course, but if you are processing to output the output can be anywhere you choose.

    All you need to be careful about is understanding where the recipe is pointing currently.

    So if you are in the middle of running some outputs, check the results, don't like, re-edit and re-process, nothing much is likely to have changed.

    On the other hand if you ran a batch (min qty 1) some time ago and have processed other stuff since, then you may want to double check where the output is going - you may have reset things for different location(s).

    All easily done and checked from the Output Location tool irrespective of using a session or a catalogue.

    I would think the only point of possible conflict MIGHT be if you WERE RE-IMPORTING the output to the catalogue. One might need to ensure that the replacement file was correctly associated with the catalogue after output. It's not something I have looked into - just a point that I would be checking if I needed to. But I don't use catalogues for anything other than discovery a little of what they offer, so I have not checked.


    Grant
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Ian Leslie
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    So far as I can tell you don't have to re-import to make the output location "known" to the catalogue. The output location of a Recipe is the output location no matter where it is. It does not have to have anything whatsoever to do with the catalogue fucntion.


    Good to know, makes sense. However I specifically do not want any output back in my catalogue. I view output as a deliverable that may or may not be archived but I don't want it back in the catalogue because it makes searching and navigation harder.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    [quote="IanL" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    So far as I can tell you don't have to re-import to make the output location "known" to the catalogue. The output location of a Recipe is the output location no matter where it is. It does not have to have anything whatsoever to do with the catalogue fucntion.


    Good to know, makes sense. However I specifically do not want any output back in my catalogue. I view output as a deliverable that may or may not be archived but I don't want it back in the catalogue because it makes searching and navigation harder.


    I may have missed something in my comment.

    The point I was trying to make was that there is NO NEED to have the output files associated with the catalogue in any way - which I think is exactly what you want.

    That said if you DO want you one or more fully finished images of a master original image to be available as part of the catalogue/DAM functionality it is perfectly possible to do that too!

    Thanks for highlighting my potentially confusing wording.


    Grant
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Jens_A
    Lots of interesting stuff in here, thank you all.
    I switched to using a catalog now, that simplifies things a lot for my work flow.
    Still, the idea of having to
    * locate the output folder
    * and in there locate the one file whose original I just modified in the catalog,
    * to delete it before reprocessing,
    * and finally hit the export button
    is rather … (not safe for work)

    thinking about setting up a process to send a daily feature request for an 'overwrite toggle' to P1 ...
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    [quote="Jens_A" wrote:
    Lots of interesting stuff in here, thank you all.
    I switched to using a catalog now, that simplifies things a lot for my work flow.
    Still, the idea of having to
    * locate the output folder
    * and in there locate the one file whose original I just modified in the catalog,
    * to delete it before reprocessing,
    * and finally hit the export button
    is rather … (not safe for work)

    thinking about setting up a process to send a daily feature request for an 'overwrite toggle' to P1 ...


    If you are still in the process of processing the images to output when you decide you want to replace one then it is very easy get to the one you want to replace and delete it.

    If you are viewing the image you should be able to access it for deletion quite easily. Then process the revised version.

    There is also a fast access to the output folder. In the Output Location tool next to the Destination field is an arrow that will open the Root folder for the process as it is currently defined. That may be the folder containing the image or the top lelevel folder if you have used sub-folders in your processing.

    The arrow next to the Root Folder field in the File tab of the Process Recipe does the same thing.

    On the other hand if you have the output file name you can just search for it using C1 (if it is imported/recognised) or the system search.

    I guess the question is how many times you really need to replace an image during a process activity.

    There are some other considerations depending on the use case for the output - for example protecting images that may already have been used or modified by other software or other processes. But at that point things may get rather complicated in terms of how to create processing rules to satisfy all user's needs and expectations.

    With 'No overwrite' at least things are clear for everyone, like it or not.


    Grant
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.