Clarification on versions?

Post Reply
rNeil
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Dec 09 9:16
Location: Monmouth, Oregon, USA

Clarification on versions?

Post by rNeil » 25 Sep 12 23:06

Just wanting to be completely clear on the way PhSup treats an image in multiple formats ...

From reading through tons of messages, it would seem that PhSup ONLY "sees" an identically named combo of RAW/JEPG as "the same image". What in IdI-5 would have been called versions. I understand that PhoSup only shows those images where EVERY character in front of the 'dot' is EXACTLY the same, and ONLY compares that bit with RAW and JPEG extensions on the other side of the 'dot'. Is that correct?

As a professional portrait photog, my archives are positively STUFFED with "combos" of TIFF, PSD, and JPEG variants of many of the "original" RAW files. The variants (or "derivatives" in DAM -speak) are some of the most valuable files we have, as they have the image with all that additional post-processing work completed. For simple on-disk file-storage purposes, it is often NOT the best idea withing good DAM practice for "originals" and "derivatives" to be even in the same folder tree let alone the same folder.

However, when we search for an image from our archives, we DO need to know what versions of that particular image ARE in the archives and therefore available for use right NOW. Idi-5 was marvelous at this, at finding and showing all variants of an image. But ... my understanding is that PhSup does not now have any way to "connect" the image variants other than RAW/JPEG at this time, so therefore any TIFF or PSD image is not going to be found when searching for a specific image name unless one includes the extension? In other words, PhSup will return a search with the RAW and any JPEG file shown, but will not show nor can be "taught" the other derivative "copies" of the image?

If that is the case ... then any time we look for an image, we'd have to search for the RAW file, AND search manually and separately for each and every possible variant of that image file?

And ... is that expected to change at any point in the forseeable future?

Sincerely,
R. Neil Haugen
R Neil Haugen
rNeilPhotog.com
MyPhotoMentor.com
Haugensgalleri.com

Mike Buckley
Posts: 1194
Joined: 10 Jul 08 14:18

Re: Clarification on versions?

Post by Mike Buckley » 26 Sep 12 0:11

MikeP reported in another thread earlier today that Supreme's automatic versioning process used by the Import module will version all file names that are identical to the left of the dot, including TIFF, PSD, JPG and RAW files. Hert humorously responded that this is actually a bug, as the Import module is designed only to version files shot in the camera as RAW+JPEG. We did not discuss whether it will version those files not stored in the same folder and I see that there is no way to configure anything about that in the Import module.

Once your catalog has versioned files in it, regardless of how they came to be versioned, I assume Supreme will keep track of the various versions regardless of where they are moved to even if the Main Version and each subversion is stored in separate folders. If so, this capability is so important that it should be added to the Help information.

mphillips
Posts: 236
Joined: 31 May 07 12:02
Location: Parkwood,Johannesburg,South Africa

Re: Clarification on versions?

Post by mphillips » 26 Sep 12 7:02

And just to add that you can, at any time, create more version sets by dragging and dropping the image to be versioned onto the main image.


You are not limited to using the Import module to create the versions, it just that the import module is the only way to"Auto create" versions for a number of different images in one fell swoop

Okay - apart from using the batch module to create a copy of an image and store it as a version :-)
Mike Phillips
http://www.mikeandmorag.co.za
D800, CNX2, Supreme

rNeil
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Dec 09 9:16
Location: Monmouth, Oregon, USA

Re: Clarification on versions?

Post by rNeil » 26 Sep 12 19:45

Ahh ... if "identically named to the left of the dot ... " ... um ... that would rule out nearly ALL our derivative files, as the "base" name, such as "Wolfington_037" of the "original" file will be addended to in the derivatives, partly of course as LR want to ... but mainly as we need to so that we can clearly tell what we've got from just looking at the name. Such as "Wolfington_037_layered.tiff", which if the file is to be worked on some more, would be the file one would open in Photoshop, without having to open say three different ones to find the "right" stage of workflow file. At the end of the workflow, several of the saved "step" level and named files are deleted, but still ... all derivatives left will have additional characters to the right of the "base" name but prior to the dot-extension.

And ... manually sorting this out, as we bring in twenty or fifty clients at a time to the archives ... um, that's days of work. The wonderful VDW that Hert put in IDI-5 was a joy.

Neil
R Neil Haugen
rNeilPhotog.com
MyPhotoMentor.com
Haugensgalleri.com

rNeil
Posts: 25
Joined: 11 Dec 09 9:16
Location: Monmouth, Oregon, USA

Re: Clarification on versions?

Post by rNeil » 26 Sep 12 22:13

Still not sure ... if the file names are NOT identical to the left of the dot, does PhoSup "see" that they are "versions" of the same image when using the manual OR batch process?

As again, nearly all our originals and derivatives would be name thusly:

Woolsey_137.nef
Woolsey_137_layered.tif
Woolsey_137_20x28flat.tif

Neil
R Neil Haugen
rNeilPhotog.com
MyPhotoMentor.com
Haugensgalleri.com

mphillips
Posts: 236
Joined: 31 May 07 12:02
Location: Parkwood,Johannesburg,South Africa

Re: Clarification on versions?

Post by mphillips » 27 Sep 12 8:49

Hi Neil

when using manual the names are irrelevant as you drag and drop any thumbnail to any thumbnail.

I ASSUME that the batcher would be the same in that you could specify any destination name and tell the batcher to save it as a version.

Regards

MikeP
Mike Phillips
http://www.mikeandmorag.co.za
D800, CNX2, Supreme

Post Reply