Why Versions without VDW etc.

[fbungarz]

Hi all,
I might be a bit dumb, but can anyone tell me what's the point of having the ability to have versions without a way to actually find and assign them using something like the Version Detection Wizard? What's the point?
If the ONLY way to assign versions is during import when files are named exactly identical but for their extensions then this completely defies the original purpose of versions: namely being able to manage derivatives of an original file, for example a print version, an email version, etc.
Yes I know with Lightroom non-destructive editing is all the rage now and having a set of "versions" for a particular purpose seems a bit redundant if one generates these versions on the fly. But if that was the reason for abandonning the VDW then one might as well abandon the whole concept altogether. After all following that kind of reasoning one might always argue that taking RAW+JPG combos in camera is not really necessary either...

Another question for comparison:
What about the "hidden" IDI Pro feature to be able to function as a server allowing users to remotely connect through the browser? Probably gone too? I thought that feature had fantastic promise to give access to a database without the danger anyone messing with the database itself...

Frank

PS: Reading through here it seems that one theme is being reiterated in Supreme over and over again: IDI is too complex, let's simplify it by taking out functionality that might confuse somebody. That is a fundamental shift in IDI's philosophy. Before Hert followed the logic to offer more and more functionality but try to make it accessible through an accessible interface. Granted, that interface was still not fully mature and completely intuitive, but it steadily improved with each version. What we are being offered now is as if Photoshop suddenly decided most users don't work with their highly complex imaging tools, that the learning cure is just too steep and so discontinue Photoshop but instead offer Photoshop Elements as the better solution. Yes, we all have heard Photo Supreme is a DIFFERENT product, but how about Microsoft selling us WordPad in the future as an Winword replacement?

[weidmic]

Frank,

I guess main reason for having still versions is to keep some sort of compatibility...
But I do agree, it's like having a Vienna schnitzel without the breading...

Cheers,
Michael

[Hert]

Daman is right. PSU will continue to grow; first with its own feature set and of course... as more and more input comes from the community and sales continue to be as good as they are, then I know for sure which feature are going to be implemented or further deepened. Right now we're at the start of a new path and I have learned from the past and will be more focused on different aspects of growing a product and community.

Most importantly right now is the demand for a VDW. If implemented, it won't be the same like in IDimager though but the essential features for version matching will be in there.

Hert

[tstoddard]

If the ONLY way to assign versions is during import when files are named exactly identical but for their extensions then this completely defies the original purpose of versions: namely being able to manage derivatives of an original file, for example a print version, an email version, etc.

Frank,

I'm not real familiar with the version capabilities of IDI because I only had a couple of weeks to work with IDI before it was discontinued. I was still on the trial version at the time and was not even able to purchase a license so I stopped experimenting with it.

I have experimented with the use of versions in Supreme and don't know what you mean when you say that the ONLY way to assign versions is during import. You can do it when processing batch commands and you can drag and drop one image onto another to make one a version of the other. You can also assign placeholders to the versions you create, even when doing it as a batch. I admit that I still find viewing and working with the individual versions a little confusing in Supreme but I'm sure I'll get used to it and it will be improved over time.

[rNeil]

Tom,

For a business like mine, a portrait studio ... EVERY one of our clients has both "origianl" RAW files, and further ... at least one if not many 'worked' files derived FROM the originals that are of course in TIFF or PSD format, or ... in the case of enlarged files, probably a JPEG format. We've decided to keep enlarged JPEG's because even though we COULD 'recreate' them, they do take a bit of time, and ... they are cropped and "grained" and other things during the process of up-sizing, and to us the time to do that is far more expensive than a few megs of disk space. We don't keep "small" jpeg versions ... normally.

Second, many of our derivatives (following Dstandard" DAM practices for archiving) are NOT in the same folder-tree on the disk as the "originals" in their folder.

Take the above two comments, and try and manually connect all the versions as say, fifty client's works are are archived. You're talking a couple days of work, if not more. That's IF PhSup actually can correlate all the different file types, with different naming on the right-end of the pre-dot area, and in different folders, as versions of the same image even when "shown" this manually as you describe. I'm not quite sure of the answer to that question yet.

This ability of IDI-5 Pro was really the deciding factor in the purchase of that program. Period. For many users ( a high percentage of the non-pro market I'm quite sure, though certainly not all ... ) such versioning is not really something they'll even think about. It's crucial for me, though ... and considering we've been thinking of moving the wife to a D600, which ... I don't think is supported fully under IDI-5 (though we haven't got one yet to test it out with) ... we could very soon be to a point where the camera that produces the most images of our collection ... is not supported by IDI, at which point, no matter that the program still "functions", technically, for us it would be dead old and useless software.

I'm SO hoping that PhSup learns to version better!



R. Neil Haugen

[fbungarz]

Daman is right. PSU will continue to grow; first with its own feature set and of course... as more and more input comes from the community and sales continue to be as good as they are, then I know for sure which feature are going to be implemented or further deepened.

Ah - putting some oil on troubled water to calm the waves. Sadly, I too have learned: specifically not to trust promises any more...
If I just had an alternative...
Just don't know what to do. Supreme simply doesn't cut it, IDI was perfect but buggy and has no future. Yes, for now I will continue using it for sheer lack of any other option, yet simply hoping that one bright day some of the lost feature sets might possibly come back. I don't think so...

Frank

[Mike Buckley]

Most importantly right now is the demand for a VDW. If implemented, it won't be the same like in IDimager though but the essential features for version matching will be in there.

I have not yet determined whether Supreme's current versioning capabilities will meet my needs. However, if I do determine that they don't, that alone will be a deal breaker for me. So, I sure do hope Supreme's versioning capabilities will soon become comparable to IDimager's capabilities, regardless of the methods used.

[JimiV]

I've already started to migrate everything to LR. Nowhere near the power of my love IDI (heck on my last system refresh, I stayed on PC because IDI didn't exist on MAC), but PSU just isn't cutting in too many ways for me. I'll have to change workflows a bit and all. but I can't really wait for PSU to catch up to where IDI was.

Versions will be via virtual copies and their derivations will all go in the same folder when it is necessary that I store the derivations. Hey, this might lead to some storage gains as I rethink storing all derivations.

My machines are fast enough that with over 800,000 images in the LR db, I can find anything quickly though collections and filters.

[fbungarz]

Hi Jimi,
there is also a much improved new version of iMatch now finally on the horizon. Have a look at their "teaser". Many features that IDI offers and perhaps even more...
Even if the release date is not yet in sight it looks quite promising and the programmer is very responsive and open to suggestions how to make his product an attractive alternative for former IDI users...
Frank

[JimiV]

The new version of iMatch has been on the horizon a long time. I'm a licensed v3 owner. But found it way way weaker than idi. When v5 comes out I will look at it. But I'm now kind of gun shy about trusting any more small development projects. I put a LOT of time into idi, and sooner or later that effort will have been wasted.

There is a lot of support and addons for LR, and I'm not too worried about Adobe going out of business or pulling LR from the market.

I do understand the need for Hert to come out with a product that brings in more revenue. We all need to make a living. But I do feel like I've been asked to substitute a bicycle for a tank. PSU is pretty, no question about it. But all the things I really used a lot in idi are not here now and I need them now.

Thank you for suggesting iMatch. I appreciate that and will look at it.

[rNeil]

For me, I agree with Mike's comment above that a lack of good versioning is a deal-breaker. It's that important for what I need THIS program for. Why learn another program if it won't do any more in DAM for my work-needs than Lightroom, which I need to use for my main work-in-progress software.

At the same time, I've been awfully interested by the speed that some are seeing in PhoSup.

So ... what *I* want, is PhoSup's speed and most of IdI-5 Pro's feature-set. Not too much to ask, surely? (Something far safer to say a continent away from the poor human that's got to design the thing!)

And though I know at times I've sounded whiny ... well, this is huge in my making-a-living life. Huge.

R. Neil Haugen

[fbungarz]

Hi Jimi,
believe me I feel very much the same and in fact unlike you are probably even less understanding of it all. Yes, I too understand that Hert struggles to make a living but that does not justify what has happened here. For months we have been kept in the dark, intentionally so! Specific questions about the future of IDI Pro 5 were and where it was headed were shrugged off and responses when I asked if a small company like IDI would have resources to continue supporting two so different products like Supreme and IDI Pro were answered almost openly hostile.

Over the years I have contributed more than 2,000 times to this forum, hours and hours of work. Sure, not all of it was useful and constructive, but it was still a considerable investment of time on my side that certainly must have helped to keep IDI alive and thus Hert in business. My contribution probably was rather minimal, sometimes even counterproductive, yet there are countless other users, some who wrote entire books on IDI (Mike Buckley) and they also got the cold shoulder!

Currently the only thing that keeps me even considering trying out Photo Supreme is the dim hope that maybe, maybe it will serve my needs. But given the whole history of what has happened here in recent months I am much disinclined to actually even spend my money on this. So, naturally I am looking for alternatives. I have played a lot with Lightroom and yes, it is unlikely they go out of business, but their DAM is really not up to scratch. RAW editing is fantastic, everything else rudimentary. iMatch 3 is a nightmare, but the v5 teaser looks as if Mario checked out IDI quite a bit. Ah, well, but then: how sustainable his business is? I certainly have no clue...

Finally, about the economics: if Hert wanted to make big bucks he should not have started out the way he did. Silicon Valley, Google, Microsoft, Adobe and Co serve to the big, big crowds. Expression Media already failed to capture a large crowd of followers and was dropped pretty soon by Microsoft. Aperture is probably following. Lightroom is only successful because they offer essentially a light version of Photoshop+Bridge, just wrapped up into a nice new bundle - most people simply don´t care about good DAM software. They download Picasa and are happy...
Of course I am no expert, but I am surprised to learn that of all people Hert seems to believe he can risk putting off a dedicated community of IDI followers just for the dim promise that sales for simplified version will go up. Perhaps that marketing strategy works out and I wish him good luck.
And, in my own defense (because I will probably again be labeled a cynic): yes I would probably have been disappointed to watch my favorite software disappear no matter what, but if any of the reasons had been somewhat transparently communicated I would at least not have felt cheated and deceived.

Cheers,
Frank

[Mike Buckley]

there are countless other users, some who wrote entire books on IDI (Mike Buckley) and they also got the cold shoulder!

Frank,

I'm not inclined to participate in discussions such as this mostly because they're unproductive. Unfortunately, if I don't respond to your above statement I'm put in the position that far too many people will make unfounded inferences. So, I'll simply explain first that as far as I know, in the nine or so years that Hert spent developing IDI, I am the only person who has written a book about it and I have written only one; your exaggeration about that is misleading and unfair to Hert. Secondly, I don't remember ever thinking that Hert gave me the cold shoulder. Just the opposite, as I wrote publicly recently, I have always enjoyed a great relationship with him and his company.

[fbungarz]

Hi Mike,
OK, I am sorry - "books" (plural) is an exaggeration. And with the "cold shoulder" I am just referring to one of your recent post where you were seemed just as surprised as anyone that IDI is discontinued.
I should not jump to conclusions, I know. Frustration got me carried away. It still surprises me though that nobody here seems to mind much that IDI has no more future. Strange, but fair enough,
Frank