メインコンテンツへスキップ

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived.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

Move different variants to different albums

Permanently deleted user
Hi,

I already searched the forum for a solution to my issue, but I did only find fellow sufferer:
-
-

It'd be great if someone could help me with the following problem:

I created a variant of a photo and converted it into a black/white image.
Then, I tried to to move only that b/w variant into an album called "Black/White Images".
Unfortunately, both (the b/w variant and the original image) are moved into that album.
When I remove the original (colored) photo from the album, it gets removed from any other album as well.

My questions are:
- How can I move only a specific variant into an album (while the original photo and other variants remain where they are)?
- How can I remove only a specific variant from an album (while other variants remain in that album)?

Cheers
Andy
0

コメント

6件のコメント

日付 投票
  • John Doe
    I don't think it's possible, unfortunately.
    0
  • Hassleman
    Interesting, never tried that before.
    The only solution I found so far, give the Black and White image a keyword (BandW) and create a Smart Album that contains that keyword.

    Jan
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Hi Jan, thanks for your reply.
    Keywords + smart albums are a possible workaround, I might go that way (as long as there is no smarter solution)..

    Btw, I did also contact the support team and they replied that "a single variant can't be moved as the image is always moved as one package".
    They noted it as a feature request (not the first of its kind).
    So maybe an upcoming version of CO will handle variants and albums better than v9.3 does.
    0
  • SFA
    Andy,

    The Edit information for all of the different versions of an image that you create are held in the same file - or Files if you have used features like masks where the masks are not in the main edit file but otherwise are recorded in much the same way.

    There are also several ways to make an image Monochrome so without actually applying a tag of some sort (like a Keyword) there is nothing that I am aware of that would guarantee to always identify every image that we might think of as be B&W unless we tell the system that we thing it is B&W. Or perhaps Monochrome.

    The exception would be where a dedicated Monochrome camera has been used and the camera could be the identifier ... but then you would not need to separate variants as they would all be monochrome.

    Maybe the simplest answer would be to duplicate the original file into a B&W folder and then only work in B&W in that folder? (If the Keyword Idea is not far enough separated to appeal to you.)

    HTH.


    Grant
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Hi Grant, thanks for your reply regarding the storage of edit information. I was expecting this information in the database.
    However, duplicating an original image is no option because it would waste disk space.
    I mean that's the idea behind variants, right?! To have several disk space saving variants of one big original file.
    I will use keywords and smart albums for my purpose until PhaseOne provides a better possibilty.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="ApoFenomeno" wrote:
    Hi Grant, thanks for your reply regarding the storage of edit information. I was expecting this information in the database.
    However, duplicating an original image is no option because it would waste disk space.
    I mean that's the idea behind variants, right?! To have several disk space saving variants of one big original file.
    I will use keywords and smart albums for my purpose until PhaseOne provides a better possibilty.


    Andy,

    If you have a lot of large files and and create a B&W version of most of them then yes, potentially there is a large storage capacity requirement and that might be considered excessive but storage is not expensive these days and if it is operationally convenient it may be a practical and cost effective approach for some people.

    It is certainly an available option and so at least worth considering.

    Alternatively the ability to select a variant definition in isolation, no matter how it might be identified, could work.

    Whether it would be portable within other applications is unclear. Keywords are portable. Other Exif fields, should any be consistent and precise for identifying an image considered to be B&W, may not be used by all applications. (Including C1 of course!)

    Either way I guess the end result will likely be the same effect as a keyword even if it uses a different field in the Exif set for identification. I doubt a new dedicated field would be especially useful if it was not shared and understood by other applications that people like to use alongside C1.

    However all of that is to be decided by the designers once they see enough Support Requests to justify considering the change request for development.

    My thoughts, for what they are worth.


    Grant
    0

投稿コメントは受け付けていません。