Another newbie question

Rhod
Posts: 25
Joined: 16 Dec 18 9:49
Contact:

Re: Another newbie question

Post by Rhod » 20 Dec 18 22:45

My filenames are unique - number-yyyymmdd, so shouldn't be an issue. I've been experimenting and if I take a RAW (RAF) photo and import it into PSu, then save as a TIF, I can then make the round trip to Affinity Photo without any problems. But having used PSu for basic editing, it may be sufficient for most jobs - I'm really only editing photos of artwork to make them look as close as possible to the original paintings (though I realise that that depends on the monitor, colour profile etc - but as close as I can make it). At the moment I've been cropping, then a bit of tweaking of levels, sharpening and that's about it. One problem I've encountered is, if I try to delete one version - a JPG say - it seems to delete the whole lot - RAF, TIF and all. I'm sure this is to do with me not yet getting to grips with the complexities of the software - but I know that the more I use it, the more I like it and realise that I'm only scratching the surface.

I also seem to be getting rather a lot of 'access violations' which is a bit concerning.

User avatar
G8DHE
Posts: 103
Joined: 21 Aug 17 13:58

Re: Another newbie question

Post by G8DHE » 20 Dec 18 23:02

Oh yes I do appreciate that situation, but conversely with every image having a separate unique file name then Versioning can never work automatically you will have to manually select versioning for every group! My own preference (listen up Hert) would be to use image capture date as well as an option for filename to create a version grouping, the chances of two images matching date/time to the millisecond even amongst a group of photographers would be minimal.
Geoff Mather (G8DHE)

jstartin
Posts: 447
Joined: 23 Aug 06 13:47
Location: UK

Re: Another newbie question

Post by jstartin » 21 Dec 18 14:51

G8DHE wrote:
20 Dec 18 23:02
but conversely with every image having a separate unique file name then Versioning can never work automatically you will have to manually select versioning for every group!
Actually that is not the case. The preference for "Version Set detection mask" determines how matching works. Note the wildcards in the default :!:
Capture.PNG
Capture.PNG (13.28 KiB) Viewed 272 times
Adding additional characters to a unique filename does not prevent automatic versioning, but can retain uniqueness.
Jim (Photo Supreme: AMD Quad-Core A8-5500 Accelerated Processor 3.2 GHz; internal AMD Radeon™ HD7560D; 4GB DDR3 SDRAM; Win10x64)

User avatar
G8DHE
Posts: 103
Joined: 21 Aug 17 13:58

Re: Another newbie question

Post by G8DHE » 21 Dec 18 16:17

Yes it depends on the workflow would agree, but no actual need functionally for a unique filename, but yes I can see it would depend on each set of folder structures depending on workflow(s).
Geoff Mather (G8DHE)

jstartin
Posts: 447
Joined: 23 Aug 06 13:47
Location: UK

Re: Another newbie question

Post by jstartin » 21 Dec 18 19:45

G8DHE wrote:
21 Dec 18 16:17
Yes it depends on the workflow would agree, but no actual need functionally for a unique filename, but yes I can see it would depend on each set of folder structures depending on workflow(s).
I apologise for being so insistent, but I want to make absolutely sure that other readers of the forum are not misled. If all of the functionality of PSu is to be used, or might be used in the future, then ensuring unique filenames is absolutely essential. Since PSu makes it very easy to apply metadata-based renaming rules, during import or after, I can see no reason not to rename files to ensure uniqueness.
Jim (Photo Supreme: AMD Quad-Core A8-5500 Accelerated Processor 3.2 GHz; internal AMD Radeon™ HD7560D; 4GB DDR3 SDRAM; Win10x64)

User avatar
G8DHE
Posts: 103
Joined: 21 Aug 17 13:58

Re: Another newbie question

Post by G8DHE » 21 Dec 18 22:22

I guess then all DAM's must insist on unique filenames then if its so essential ?
Geoff Mather (G8DHE)

Hert
Posts: 21503
Joined: 13 Sep 03 7:24

Re: Another newbie question

Post by Hert » 21 Dec 18 23:08

While unique file names do make sense in most workflows, for PSU that's not a requirement.

A file is considered unique in this combination:
1. The medium serial number (e.g. HD serial number)
2. The medium type (e.g internal drive or swapable drive or network share)
3. The medium name (e.g. the volume name)
4. The full path+file name (e.g. D:\My Photos\2018\04\2018-04-12\IMG_0001.JPG

Having said this; the file IMG_0001.JPG may exist in different folders.
Even the file D:\My Photos\2018\04\2018-04-12\IMG_0001.JPG may exist on a different (USB?) drive
This is a User-to-User forum which means that users post questions here for other users.
Feature requests, change suggestions, or bugs can be logged in the ticketing system

snowman1
Posts: 401
Joined: 01 Jan 07 3:13
Location: UK

Re: Another newbie question

Post by snowman1 » 22 Dec 18 0:17

Without in any way trying to dictate someting that is not essential and that another person might prefer a different way: I would very much recommend a unique name unless one's workflow precludes it. I can't think of any good reasons not to (but maybe your w/f has something) so why wouldn't you? It's so easy with PSU. Various methods that will do it, pick one to suit you. Date & timestamp (except maybe for burst mode shots), or date/time/original camera number for sure (assuming cam is set continue incrementing, which again I would always say is good practice).

e.g. One great benefit is making it very easy to search for a file if you know it's name (e.g. if you have moved it to a different drive and need to find it so as to re-map it in PSU.

Personal preference at the end of the day but I would regard unique names as best practice and recommend as a good default to start with.
Snowman1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/snowman-1/
--------------------------------------

Post Reply