Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
March 28, 2024, 01:01:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Professional Photo Printing Software for Windows
Print with
Qimage and see what you've been missing!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
  Print  
Author Topic: Flash Pipe Feature Requests  (Read 170394 times)
Anthony
Full Member
***
Posts: 101


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2009, 03:06:51 PM »

I'm talking about the path you enter in the "To Folder" section of Operations. There's no facility to enter that path manually; it has to be browsed to. In my case, browsing takes *much* longer than manually altering the text that defines the path
Logged
Seth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 322



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2009, 04:25:23 PM »

Could you please clarify the question; perhaps an example of paths/profiles that are being copied?

Fred-

DL a trial copy of Downloader Pro and look around.  It uses "tokens" to set paths--even by file type.  Each setup you create can then be given a name and saved as a profile.  I believe this token thing has been suggested before.
Logged

Seth
<CWO4 (FMF) USN, Ret.>
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5644



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #32 on: October 03, 2009, 04:26:33 PM »

Quote
I'm talking about the path you enter in the "To Folder" section of Operations.

Anthony, I have a similar situation where I want the images from the card copied to two different operating systems, plus an external drive and a networked wife's computer.

Simply make a row for each "path", and leave it there. Then you just turn them on or off to be copied to or not as you see fit.
See screen snap
Fred
Logged
Anthony
Full Member
***
Posts: 101


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: October 03, 2009, 05:35:33 PM »

Ah, that is *very* cool. Many thanks!
Logged
hedwards
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2009, 04:14:01 AM »

Simply make a row for each "path", and leave it there. Then you just turn them on or off to be copied to or not as you see fit.
See screen snap
Fred
This works, you can also map the share to a drive letter as well. I'm not sure whether one way or the other has any particular advantage, but I suppose it depends on the environment. I would recommend though that anybody doing such things make an extra copy to the local computer or use a specialized utility to do the transfer aspect, since this type of file sharing isn't terribly reliable or efficient.
Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3247



View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2009, 07:59:15 AM »

Quote
since this type of file sharing isn't terribly reliable or efficient.
I would not have called FlashPipe a "File Sharing" program, but wrt:
Quote
make an extra copy to the local computer or use a specialized utility to do the transfer aspect,
FlashPipe surely is that specialised utility, specifically for image, video and their associated files.
I think is Fred copying to his local computer (it has more than one drive I believe) as well as to another computer.
I do something similar with local computer and network hard drive when I download from a card but also use FP to update the network HD with all the Qimage qrs, flt, tiff and jpeg files that may have been created from raw files.
This last week, while away from home, I've used FP to simultaneously copy from a card to a laptop and a USB stick.
Just for information, I use Cisco's Network Magic program to manage file sharing on my little network at home; it made Vista-XP sharing so much easier.
Terry.
Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5644



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2009, 09:46:28 AM »

Quote
since this type of file sharing isn't terribly reliable or efficient.

Sir, I will have to add a touch more to Terry's comments.
Flashpipe is, above all, more efficient and reliable than the OS itself.
Flashpipe not only transfers the files but in the case of "File already exists" which would be the response from Windows explorer, Flashpipe checks the two files, byte for byte and if identical, will not transfer or overwrite.
In the case of Flashpipe finding that the two files are "almost" identical, that's a non sequitur. Flashpipe will copy that file, but never overwrite the old one. Instead it renames
the incoming copy so you have both!

As for efficient, Flashpipe is transferring files from one source to 4 destinations at one time (in my case). Using XP or Vista, I would have to COPY once and paste 4 times.
The very single fact that Flashpipe sees and decides whether the file transfers are the same files or not, is efficiency to a high degree when compared to XP or even Vista asking what you want to do: I found a duplicate file?

Best of luck with all.
Fred
Logged
Jeff
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 763



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #37 on: October 05, 2009, 07:43:35 AM »

Terry

Which Cisco's Network Magic do you use? I have xp and vista

Sounds interesting, I gave up trying to network with windows - just too much trouble and unreliable, or so I found.

jeff
Logged

Grumpy
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3247



View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: October 05, 2009, 07:56:43 AM »

Quote
Which Cisco's Network Magic do you use? I have xp and vista
Jeff,
I use Network Magic Pro. There are the cheaper "Essentials" and free "Basic" versions too.
Web site here http://www.purenetworks.com/
NB. You need to check if your router is supported, look under one of the products and System Requirements for the list.
There is a free trial too.
Terry.
Logged
hedwards
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2009, 12:58:12 PM »

Quote
since this type of file sharing isn't terribly reliable or efficient.
I would not have called FlashPipe a "File Sharing" program, but wrt:
And neither did I, but the term is file sharing when you do that. I don't make up the terminology, there's a reason why MS and pretty much everybody else refers to those at "Network Shares."

Quote
This last week, while away from home, I've used FP to simultaneously copy from a card to a laptop and a USB stick.
Just for information, I use Cisco's Network Magic program to manage file sharing on my little network at home; it made Vista-XP sharing so much easier.
Terry.
And clearly you're not comprehending what I'm saying. SMB is terribly unreliable and while it will probably work most of the time in a home environment, you do run into these weird errors from time to time which I doubt that Flash Pipe is probably not really designed to handle. Sure it can and will double check that the files are the same, but that doesn't really address the other aspects like efficiency of transfer or proper handling of various delays and other weird glitches that the code has in it.

You want to be really sure that the local files get successfully saved and that things finished up properly, which involves operator interaction. Which obviously isn't FP's responsibility, but with something like this you pretty much have to assume that something can and will go wrong when you're supposed to have things more or less on auto pilot.
Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3247



View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2009, 01:30:34 PM »

Quote
which I doubt that Flash Pipe is probably not really designed to handle.
I would not underestimate Mike's ability to foresee problems related to the use of FlashPipe and program accordingly.  Roll Eyes
And - you know from experience he will rapidly correct any "glitches"  Smiley
Terry.
Logged
Seth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 322



View Profile
« Reply #41 on: October 05, 2009, 09:03:00 PM »

I have xp and vista

Sounds interesting, I gave up trying to network with windows - just too much trouble and unreliable, or so I found.

Networking under Vista is almost a giveaway, depending on the version you use.  If you are on one of the "Basic" versions, you are right though.


Hedwards-

You are right. Network shares goes back to the early Novell days and IBM baseband.
Logged

Seth
<CWO4 (FMF) USN, Ret.>
lwiley
Newbie
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: October 07, 2009, 07:15:36 AM »

BTW, just wanted to say I do appreciate the feedback and I'm not blind to what you guys are trying to accomplish.  I just want to find a better/safer way of doing it that satisfies a larger group of people, so this conversation could lead to something even better than just a "folder per day" option.  Obviously I find the topic interesting and am willing to take on the challenge as this is my third post in a row.  Wink  It's a good thread though because it brings out the ways that everyone is using folders and/or other imaging programs and that gives me a clearer picture of what is needed for the majority of people rather than just focusing on what one person is doing.

So this is just to encourage the dialog to keep going.  I still think I can find a clever alternative that does something similar while addressing my concerns.

Anyway, thanks to those who are throwing their thoughts in here.  I think there is a happy medium.

Point 1.  I think you're missing something significant here Mike.  Several times you've called the FlashPipe way the "better" way.  Some/many people will agree that the FP way is the better way.  Many other people will not.  We just don't all think along the same lines.  Your brain is organized differently than mine.  Since I know my brain better than you know my brain, I know what layout will work best for my images.

To my brain, the FP way is definitely not the "better" way.  Like many of us, I use a DAM product and with that I can find those difficult to find images.  However 99% of the time when I'm looking for an image I remember the camera I took the image with and that automatically gives me a date range.  Usually, I can remember roughly how old that camera was when I took the image which further narrows the search.  Or maybe I can remember that was my second outing with a certain lens and I remember exactly when I bought the lens.  In no time, I'm onto the right image.  I only mention this to show that we all think in different ways.  Please don't assume your way will be a good match for my way of thinking. Wink

Point 2.  I'm comfortable with my way.  It works.  In fact it works very well, for me.  To work some other way would be very uncomfortable, at least for a time, and it's likely I would never get comfortable with something different.  I didn't arrive at my way by accident - I experimented until I found something that worked for me.

Point 3.  It would take a lot of work to redo my structure to fit the FP method.  And I'm just anal enough to where I would have to do that - re-structure everything if I adopted the FP way.  Who needs all that work?

Point 4.  I've been downloading my images into my structure for quite a while and can't recall ever having lost an image(s).  I think you mentioned that as a worry you had - a kind of nightmare support problem, was your thinking.  I guess I just don't buy that a structure like mine hides images in any way.  I think if you have a client that loses images with my directory structure and drops a support request, they're just as likely to do the same with the FP structure.

Point 5.  The original image names work fine for me.  Longer file names are simply harder to work with in my workflow.  When I edit images I add abbreviations to the file name like BW or IR or V2, etc.  Something to give me a clue as to what I've done to the image or where I am in the editing process.  And those abbreviations might stack up.  I might have something like DSC_0010BWV2Sh or DSC_0010BWR900.  Consequently, it's already a battle to keep the names comfortably short.  To my way of working and thinking, starting out with a longer name like D700-2009-10-07 (or something even longer) is not workable at all.

Summary
Before I retired I was a programmer.  Many times I had a hard time understanding why the client couldn't see things the way I did.  I think I understand where you're coming from and how attached you might be to the FP way - how clean and elegant it seems.  But we all process problems differently and the FP way of processing the problem is not for everyone, IMO.

On the other hand, I don't know what you want your FP client to be.  What I mean is you might necessarily not want the largest possible client base.  If that's what you want, maybe for support reasons, then I wouldn't change a thing.  But I think there are many of us out here that could be FP customers if you made FP more flexible.

Leroy
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 07:45:37 AM by lwiley » Logged

Leroy
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 4109



View Profile Email
« Reply #43 on: October 07, 2009, 01:25:23 PM »


Point 1.  <snip>

Unfortunately none of your points do anything to address the major concerns I have with letting images dictate their own folders on the fly.  Just because you never move anything but images off your flash cards doesn't mean other people won't be moving images, audio files, video files, and miscellaneous files off individual cards.  When moving things like video files, audio clips, control files, and other files that have no camera listed in the files, where are you going to put those?  You have to start making assumptions like assuming that one card is only used by one camera at a time and those assumptions are what will get people into trouble.  If you were a programmer, certainly you realize the benefit of considering all cases and how certain cases can get people into trouble.

As I told you in my email, FlashPipe isn't meant to cover every one of an infinite variety of conditions.  It is meant to be easy to use without having a cluttered interface that is so complicated to use, only a programmer can figure it out.  If you want to know what I mean by that, just download any other image downloader program.  You said you wanted to store your photos in folders like Camera\Year\YearMonth\YearMonthDay\image.  I don't see FlashPipe ever having the capability to do things like replicate the year three times in a folder structure and the month twice.  I also find it hard to believe that you always remember which camera and lens you used to make a certain shot.  Most people know their shots by date.  I bet there are times when you look under a certain camera, select the year, then select the year and month, then finally select the year, month, and day folder, only to find it's the wrong camera.  Then you select another camera and again have to select the year, then select the year/month folder, then select the year/month/day folder and you still can't find it because you were three days off on your date.

All I'm saying is that when you use a new tool, you learn to use that tool to the best of its abilities and often you find that you can work quite well under a different setup.  Even better sometimes.  To me, this whole issue of some people wanting infinite flexibility and "dangerous" folder naming is more about people being set in their ways and refusing to learn to use a new tool than it is about debating which way is "better".

Mike
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 01:27:26 PM by Mike Chaney » Logged
gonzuller
Newbie
*
Posts: 18


View Profile Email
« Reply #44 on: October 07, 2009, 03:15:47 PM »

Leroy and Mike:

Thank you for your thoughtful exchange.  Like Leroy, I am currently set in my ways and I like downloading my files to date specific folders and it is not as complicated for some of us as you make it sound Mike.  I use Lightroom as my DAM (always Qimage for printing  Smiley) and I can import the files directly to a folder designated by month and Lightroom places the pictures in date-specific folders.  So, for example, my current directory structure looks like:

2009
   01-Jan
        2009-01-10
        2009-01-15
        etc.




However, Mike you raise an important point which, admittedly, I have not considered.  Given your clearly stated intentions for FlashPipe some files clearly cannot be moved or copied into date specific folders.  It sounds self-evident, but I admit that I had never thought of it before (probably due to my being set in my current ways), but there does not seem to be anything that prevents me from using FlashPipe to download files to an existing folder already specified by month and turn off the Subfolder option.  Am I correct in this understanding?

There are many features that I do like about FlashPipe, especially its ability to upload from multiple cards at one time, its ability to upload videos at the same time, and its ability to copy files to multiple drives.

It would help me to hear from others who are using FlashPipe and Lightroom as their DAM.

Thanks, as always, Mike for your creativity and responsiveness to your customers.

- Chris

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Security updates 2022 by ddisoftware, Inc.