Multiple placeholders differnt images

[Desinnz]

Hi
Could someone please tell me why I have some folders containing older collections of photos that have images with up to 7 placeholder tabs.. and each tab shows a different image - please see attached.. top screenshot shows same tab selected on 11 photos and showing the same image.. second screenshot shows the same images with a different tab selected and differrent images showing.

Ive tried removing the whole folder from the catalogue database, cleaning the thumbs and restarting PS before importing the images again - I get the same result
it appears to be restricted to a few folders from 2008 2009 2010 when these images would have been catalogued with ID5.

screenshot1.jpg (267.76 KiB) Viewed 10160 times

Screenshot2.jpg (325.24 KiB) Viewed 10160 times

any thoughts appreciated
Cheers
Des
Melbourne

[tstoddard]

I would guess that it has something to do with the way you've named your files. Version detection in PSU or IDImager may have assumed that they are different versions of the same image based on the file names and grouped them together in versions. The files in the first screen shot are just named with the month and year (Nov07) with no suffix (_000). The files in the second screen shot have a month year and then a sequence after them (April07_001). If the main version (the one with the asterisk on the tab) is named with just the month year (April07) then I think that PSU and IDI would assume that any file with that name and an underscore and digits following it would be versions of the file with only the month year in its name. As long as you put the suffix on every file with that month year combination, I don't think you would have this problem.

I could be mistaken. Hopefully someone with a little more knowledge of how version detection works can confirm this.

[jstartin]

I would guess that it has something to do with the way you've named your files. ............................. I could be mistaken. Hopefully someone with a little more knowledge of how version detection works can confirm this.

I don't think the file names shown in the top post would cause a problem. As far as I know PSU's automatic versioning looks for the complete file name of one file to be contained within other file names. That doesn't seem to be the case here, unless there is a "Petone_Pier.JPG" lurking somewhere out of view.

[tstoddard]

But if there is a file named Petone_Pier_July07.JPG and another file named Petone_Pier_July07_001.JPG, wouldn't PSU think that the 001 file would be a version of the file with no number appended to it?

[tstoddard]

I decided to test and I was right. I copied a file twice into a new folder and named one Petone_Pier_July07.jpg and the other Petone_Pier_July07_001.jpg. When I verified the parent folder it prompted me to add the new test folder and when that folder got imported, I ended up with a version set.

I'm still not sure why PSU made the 001 file the main file and the file without the suffix the first version. That just seem counter intuitive to me.

[gcoupe]

It seems to me as though the Version Detection engine of PSU gets confused at times. I've recently been reorganizing my photo archives, and importing them afresh into a new hierarchy of (Windows) folders organized by date, i.e.
YYYY
YYYY-MM
YYYY-MM-DD

As part of the import process, I use the built-in file rename rule of PSU to name each file with the date/timestamp of the date taken, i.e. each filename is of the form YYYYMMDD-HHMM-SS.

For the most part, this works as expected, but occasionally, PSU seems to assemble a Version Set from a series of photos taken within the same minute. Not always, but just sometimes. Here, for example is a Version Set that PSU created from a series of seven photos taken within the same minute:

[ external image ]

In that shoot, there are plenty of other sequences of photos taken within a particular minute where PSU did NOT create a Version Set. So something odd is going on, I think.

[Desinnz]

Thank you all for your thoughts and answers - I will rename the files and try not to confuse PS

[jstartin]

But if there is a file named Petone_Pier_July07.JPG and another file named Petone_Pier_July07_001.JPG, wouldn't PSU think that the 001 file would be a version of the file with no number appended to it?

Yes, it would. But that doesn't explain why Petone_Pier_Nov07.jpg has multiple [Petone_P]ier_Jul07_nnn.jpg files as versions.

[tstoddard]

Post by jstartin » 30 Apr 13 8:21

wrote:But if there is a file named Petone_Pier_July07.JPG and another file named Petone_Pier_July07_001.JPG, wouldn't PSU think that the 001 file would be a version of the file with no number appended to it?

Yes, it would. But that doesn't explain why Petone_Pier_Nov07.jpg has multiple [Petone_P]ier_Jul07_nnn.jpg files as versions.

Sure it does!

If I name a file "Best_Ever_Sunset.jpg", and then I make save three copies of it named "Best_Ever_Sunset_001.jpg", "Best_Ever_Sunset_002.jpg", and "Best_Ever_Sunset_003.jpg", I would expect all of them to be perceived by PSU as versions of "Best_Ever_Sunset.jpg". Wouldn't you? I would think that appending a "_nnn" to a file name would be a very common way to rename a new version of a file.

If PSU can't make that assumption then version detection would be pretty useless. I wouldn't expect PSU to look at the file contents and try to figure out whether the files are related or not. Even if "Best_Ever_Sunset.jpg", "Best_Ever_Sunset_001.jpg", "Best_Ever_Sunset_002.jpg", and "Best_Ever_Sunset_003.jpg" are completely different photos that won't stop PSU from thinking that they belong in a version set.

Perhaps I'm mistaken but from what I've experienced it seems that version detection is based solely on file names.

[gcoupe]

Perhaps I'm mistaken but from what I've experienced it seems that version detection is based solely on file names.

I beg to differ. As I wrote earlier in this thread, sometimes Version Detection will assemble a set from similar file names and sometimes it won't. There's no apparent rhyme or reason to it that I can see.

[Hert]

Geoff,

Dit that happen during import or by issuing the version detection? Reason i ask is because during import there is the raw-JPG detection which is not the same as what version detection does

[gcoupe]

Hert, I simply imported photos from a folder into the new folder hierarchy. The old folder had been removed from the PSU Catalog before I did this. All the photos involved were JPGs.

[jstartin]

Sure it does!

If I name a file "Best_Ever_Sunset.jpg", and then I make save three copies of it named "Best_Ever_Sunset_001.jpg", "Best_Ever_Sunset_002.jpg", and "Best_Ever_Sunset_003.jpg", I would expect all of them to be perceived by PSU as versions of "Best_Ever_Sunset.jpg". Wouldn't you? I would think that appending a "_nnn" to a file name would be a very common way to rename a new version of a file.

If PSU can't make that assumption then version detection would be pretty useless. I wouldn't expect PSU to look at the file contents and try to figure out whether the files are related or not. Even if "Best_Ever_Sunset.jpg", "Best_Ever_Sunset_001.jpg", "Best_Ever_Sunset_002.jpg", and "Best_Ever_Sunset_003.jpg" are completely different photos that won't stop PSU from thinking that they belong in a version set.

Perhaps I'm mistaken but from what I've experienced it seems that version detection is based solely on file names.

Tom
I agree with everything you say, as far as it goes. But it doesn't correspond to the situation shown in the OP's screen shots. What Desinnz showed has one file "Petone_Pier_Nov07.jpg" (note "Nov") with multiple "[Petone_P]ier_Apr07_nnn.jpg" files as versions (note "Apr"). PSU should not have done that, and if I create a similar set of names it certainly doesn't. So more investigation/another explanation seems to be needed.

[tstoddard]

Tom
I agree with everything you say, as far as it goes. But it doesn't correspond to the situation shown in the OP's screen shots. What Desinnz showed has one file "Petone_Pier_Nov07.jpg" (note "Nov") with multiple "[Petone_P]ier_Apr07_nnn.jpg" files as versions (note "Apr"). PSU should not have done that, and if I create a similar set of names it certainly doesn't. So more investigation/another explanation seems to be needed.

Jim,

You're correct, but, I was assuming that the first screen shot was of a different version set than the second screen shot. I assumed, in my original post, that since he named a picture Nov07 without the underscore and trailing digits that he also named a picture using April07 without the suffix. His second screen shot does not show the main image so I couldn't be sure what the name of the main image file was. Here's what I wrote in my original post:

The files in the first screen shot are just named with the month and year (Nov07) with no suffix (_000). The files in the second screen shot have a month year and then a sequence after them (April07_001). If the main version (the one with the asterisk on the tab) is named with just the month year (April07) then I think that PSU and IDI would assume that any file with that name and an underscore and digits following it would be versions of the file with only the month year in its name.

Sorry for confusing the issue.

[Hert]

Geoff, then you're not using version detection, at least not the detection that takes place based on file name matching. All the importer does is collect raw and JPG version together based on identical file names. That is not the same as what version detection does.