|
UltraChrome
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2010, 06:20:28 PM » |
|
EPILOGUE:
Mike – you may be happy to know that I’ve now messed up my sorts in Explorer AND Nikon!! By renaming my files, NO date sort works right (which is what I was afraid would happen with new filenames). In the attached screen prints, the LAST DIGIT in the filename is the CORRECT sort order, 1 through 30 or 30 through 1. I’ve now got a ticket in to Nikon <sigh>…
I see now that I have no choice but to acquiesce to renaming my files to include a reference to date/time/order shot in the first fields. It seems no programmer can actually accomplish this seemingly simple task – SORT BY DATE TO INCLUDE MONTH-DAY-YEAR-HOUR-MINUTE-SECOND-MILLISECOND. Why, then, capture that information if you cannot use it?
- 30 -
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 06:22:18 PM by UltraChrome »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rayw
|
|
« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2010, 06:24:55 PM » |
|
I've no idea about how Mike does what he does, but it looks to me as if it may be that the date is being sorted after being converted to another format i.e. 2pm instead of 14.00hrs when the file number/name is added. It may be, Ultrachrome, that it works OK if you say do a batch at 2pm and 4pm, say, or you change the format of the date in the exif info (I do not use ultimate, and not that area of studio, but it seems the exif date format can be changed there. Sensibly, you should be able to sort, and sub-sort on any of the real exif data, by simply enter the tags, and/or on the iptc and/or gps data too  . Best wishes, Ray ps You posted just before me - so above may not be at all relevant, but may be worth you trying more. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 06:27:53 PM by rayw »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #32 on: September 13, 2010, 08:26:03 PM » |
|
No, there's simply no issue with the date sort in 119. I don't sort by "am", "pm" or anything like that. File dates are stored as integers by the operating system: no way to get them out of order. I will not be making any more changes because 119 works perfectly. If it isn't working for you, Ultrachrome, then your file modified dates/times are wrong as I said before. If you want to post any further info, please post a screen shot of Windows Explorer showing the 1224-1253 files and sort by the column "date modified" in Explorer. Better yet, enter the folder name in the address bar in FireFox and look at the date/time that way because FireFox will show down to the second on the date/time stamp. I guarantee you that if you look at the date modified column (which is how Qimage sorts), you'll find that 1224-1238 have a later date modified than 1239-1253! That's what I've been trying to tell you since 118.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #33 on: September 13, 2010, 08:50:27 PM » |
|
P.S. I just recreated your scenario. I created 15 images (1224 through 1238) all of which had the exact same file modified date of 9am on Sept 11. I then created 15 more (1239 through 1253) all of which had the exact same file modified date of 2pm on Sept 11.
Date(-) produced the sort: 1253,1252,1251,1250,1249,1248,1247,1246,1245,1244,1243,1242,1241,1240,1239,1238,1237,1236,1235,1234,1233,1232,1231,1230,1229,1228,1227,1226,1225,1224
Date(+) produced the sort: 1224,1225,1226,1227,1228,1229,1230,1231,1232,1233,1234,1235,1236,1237,1238,1239,1240,1241,1242,1243,1244,1245,1246,1247,1248,1249,1250,1251,1252,1253
Keep in mind that all 15 of the first set had the same 9am stamp (as if all 15 were shot at the exact same instant in time) and all 15 of the second set had the 2pm time stamp yet it still sorted properly.
It works correctly. It sounds to me like the issue you are having is that you are confusing file creation date with file modified date. I can't say whether or not your Nikon software has a problem because I don't know all the steps you took (there may have been other steps involved) but at first glance, it looks to me like the Nikon software is using the correct file creation date but isn't properly setting the file modified date. Again, use FireFox to compare because it does it right (like Qimage). It always shows you file modified date (whereas explorer sometimes just shows "Date" which is the file creation date) and FireFox also shows you seconds where Explorer does not.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UltraChrome
|
|
« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2010, 09:30:41 PM » |
|
So you are saying I cannot sort by the date/time that the photo was taken?? I'm just looking to sort in an order that the photos were CREATED, not modified, loaded, edited or whatever. Here are two photos of the problem, taken today from 13:44:36:531 until 13:44:44:765 (approximately 8 seconds worth of shots). I have renamed the files with a random name AND THE LAST NUMBER (prior to “dot” NEF) IN THE FILE is THE CREATED ORDER (#'s 1-15). The first shows the order that is created in QIU when sorted DATE MINUS (so it sorted them 8-15-12-4, etc). The second shows those photos in order. Sorry for the loss of detail - it is the best resize I could get with the file size limitation. I can email you a beautiful jpg if you wish.
Notice the photos are a DIGITAL CLOCK WITH MILLISECONDS. If you look at the second photo, you will see that the files ARE NOT IN THE CORRECT DATE/TIME order (the order they were TAKEN in).
In reality, the sort is of no use, period. And these photos were shot within 8 seconds of each other. Your sort becomes more random as file names are changed and the size of the directory grows. It’s not in any sensible order that would lend itself to being able to find a particular photograph for a particular time frame. Nikon software will keep the CREATION DATE sort within the SECOND (even with name changes) but fails the “millisecond” test. Oh well…
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 09:56:52 PM by UltraChrome »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #35 on: September 13, 2010, 09:59:56 PM » |
|
No, as explained previously, the only software able to show you the exact time taken is the Nikon software. Qimage has the same data available to it as any other file manager including Windows Explorer, FireFox, and other third party tools. The dates/times available are file "date created" and file "date modified". Those are good to a resolution of 2 seconds.
The proper date/time sort when dealing with files is "date modified". Qimage (like other tools that offer a date/time sort) uses "date modified" for good reason. If you download 30 images and you then modify the first 15 and resave them, the age of the first 15 files is now later than the second set of 15 that you never modified. That's the definition of file "age": it's the last date that the file was changed.
So let me ask you this. Why would you download 30 files and then take the first 15 and modify them and resave them, thereby updating their age to a later time (later in fact than the second set of 15)? Is that what you did with those 30 files? Because you shouldn't have a problem unless you are modifying your original files or the Nikon software doesn't know how to properly set "date modified".
Bottom line: you should not be modifying NEF files so the date created and the date modified should be identical. I'd love to know what you are doing that is screwing up the date modified. Whatever it is, just stop doing that and it'll work fine. Sorting by file creation date is useless. People want to see files sorted by the last time they were updated, and that's how Qimage sorts and it sorts (always has) properly.
Mike
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 10:09:06 PM by Mike Chaney »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UltraChrome
|
|
« Reply #36 on: September 13, 2010, 11:07:01 PM » |
|
re: "Bottom line: you should not be modifying NEF files so the date created and the date modified should be identical. I'd love to know what you are doing that is screwing up the date modified. Whatever it is, just stop doing that and it'll work fine." The real bottom line is that QIMAGE is changing the data. Here's a screen shot of the files used for my last example Note the date/times. These files were DIRECTLY downloaded from a CF card using the card copy function in Ultimate. I DID NOT TOUCH OR CHANGE ONE THING, PERIOD! So what's up? BTW - apparently, Nikon uses what Explorer calls the "date modified" for the "date shot" in their software. Are we confused yet? That field appears to be unchangeable by those of us who don't know how to program  If things are like they were in the 60's when I WAS programming, the next thing the software engineer says is "I'm blaming the hardware"! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 11:16:01 PM by UltraChrome »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rayw
|
|
« Reply #37 on: September 13, 2010, 11:08:01 PM » |
|
Mike, I don't know how you can know that 'People want to see files sorted by the last time they were updated'. Some people do, some don't, and obviously Ultrachrome wants the sort by time shot. I can see that being more useful if taking fast action shots, or working on images taken by different cameras by other people at a similar time - in which case sorting purely on the image name order would be useless (and unless the cameras were synchronised wrt time it would still be tricky, I guess, but a time offset could be applied if you really wanted to solve the problem). I use Opanda iexf (free from http://www.opanda.com/en/iexif/) if necessary to view most exif data. Also, for some cameras with the raw file not being handled by dcraw, the files have to be processed by other software, so any relationship to 'date/time of original' to 'date/time digitised' will be lost. Personally, I would have thought it not too difficult to give the option of using any of the time fields, or indeed any other tags for sorting. For example, gps info sort could be very useful, if available. Best wishes, Ray PS, Utrachrome has done it again, , pre-empted my post. Hi, Utrachrome, download opanda, compare the times shown for your images. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 11:11:48 PM by rayw »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UltraChrome
|
|
« Reply #38 on: September 13, 2010, 11:23:08 PM » |
|
Ray - re: "Hi, Utrachrome, download opanda, compare the times shown for your images." I need to buy Opanda Pro for RAW files. Really don't need another EXIF viewer. I normally use Irfanview which works fine with all file formats I use. Thanks for caring Here's the EXIF data from Irfanview for the first shot in the series: Filename - 300_1254.NEF ImageWidth - 160 ImageLength - 120 BitsPerSample - 8 8 8 Compression - 1 (None) PhotometricInterpretation - 2 Make - NIKON CORPORATION Model - NIKON D300 StripOffset - 120320 Orientation - Top left SamplesPerPixel - 3 RowsPerStrip - 120 StripByteCount - 57600 XResolution - 300 YResolution - 300 PlanarConfiguration - 1 ResolutionUnit - Inch Software - Ver.1.10 DateTime - 2010:09:13 13:44:59Artist - ReferenceBlackWhite - 0 Copyright - ExifOffset - 600 DateTimeOriginal - 2010:09:13 13:44:59 ExposureTime - 1/50 seconds FNumber - 5.60 ExposureProgram - Normal program ISOSpeedRatings - 200 DateTimeOriginal - 2010:09:13 13:44:59
DateTimeDigitized - 2010:09:13 13:44:59ExposureBiasValue - -1.00 MaxApertureValue - F 5.66 MeteringMode - Multi-segment LightSource - Auto Flash - Not fired FocalLength - 105.00 mm UserComment - SubsecTime - 93 SubsecTimeOriginal - 93 SubsecTimeDigitized - 93 SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor FileSource - Other SceneType - Other CustomRendered - Normal process ExposureMode - Auto White Balance - Auto DigitalZoomRatio - 1 x FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 157 mm SceneCaptureType - Standard GainControl - None Contrast - Normal Saturation - High Sharpness - Hard SubjectDistanceRange - Unknown GPS information: - GPSVersionID - 2.2.0.0 Maker Note (Vendor): - Data version - 0210 (808595760) ISO Setting - 200 Image Quality - RAW White Balance - AUTO Focus Mode - AF-S Flash Setting - NORMAL Flash Mode - White Balance Adjustment - 0 White Balance RB - 706 Exposure Adjustment - 68608 Thumbnail IFD offset - 8670 Flash Compensation - -67041792 ISO 2 - 200 Lens type - 234881024 Lens - 854 Flash Used - Not fired Bracketing - 1114112 Contrast Curve - I0 Noise Reduction - OFF Total pictures - 4373 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 11:28:04 PM by UltraChrome »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #39 on: September 13, 2010, 11:38:39 PM » |
|
The real bottom line is that QIMAGE is changing the data. Here's a screen shot of the files used for my last example Note the date/times. These files were DIRECTLY downloaded from a CF card using the card copy function in Ultimate. I DID NOT TOUCH OR CHANGE ONE THING, PERIOD!
Wrong! Qimage does not change the date modified. Check your CF card and the date modified on the CF card will match the date modified after Qimage copies it. If they don't match, then something else on your system is changing it and very likely this could be the cause of all your problems. I wonder if some virus software or other software you are using to "touch" the files might be causing it? Qimage has been sorting properly by date for over a decade and no complaints, so I don't think you've all of a sudden discovered a critical flaw. I don't know how you can know that 'People want to see files sorted by the last time they were updated'. Some people do, some don't, and obviously Ultrachrome wants the sort by time shot. I can see that being more useful if taking fast action shots, or working on images taken by different cameras by other people at a similar time
Any software that offers one date sort will sort by date modified. The date the file is created isn't particularly important for most users and if files are copied/used properly it won't make any difference anyway. File creation date can be fouled up simply by restoring or copying data from another drive or computer. I'm not saying that one person wouldn't benefit from having a "date created" sort but it is not the norm. Most people want to sort by the time the file was last modified because they want the stuff they worked on most recently to bubble to the top (or bottom). Sorting by file creation date is simply an oddball request and I state again, completely unnecessary because "date created" and "date modified" should be identical for files created on a CF card. Honestly, this whole thread has gone beyond ridiculous at this point. Qimage works properly, always has, and has been modified to even be able to sort files with identical times. On top of that I've given a myriad of different ways to completely solve the problem. (1) For example, when initially copying the files from the CF card, use Qimage's auto renaming capabilities to stamp the file NAME with the correct date and time followed by the original file name. This does two things. First, it embeds the original date/time on the file so that it CANNOT be lost by things like modifying the file or even restoring the file from a backup. Second, it preserves the original file name if that's important to you: very easy to create files like 2010-09-11 14.00.56 (300_1238) and so on. (2) If you simply refuse to do it the right way by making your file names have some meaning (1 above), then keep the file names. Ultrachrome already said they sort in sequence if you simply sort by name. I don't see the problem. Mike |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 13, 2010, 11:40:31 PM by Mike Chaney »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UltraChrome
|
|
« Reply #40 on: September 14, 2010, 02:19:01 AM » |
|
re: " If they don't match, then something else on your system is changing it and very likely this could be the cause of all your problems." This sounds like the 2010 version of blaming the hardware (we only had punch cards in the 60's so we couldn't use the "virus" excuse... Here's a screen print of the files: Frame one shows the files as they are on the CF card (note that the "modified" and "created" dates are the same and the "date accessed" has defaulted to the same date with a 12:00 AM time (since it has not yet been accessed). This is a function of every Nikon DSLR I own. Frame two shows the same fields after being transferred using Qimage. Note the field changes: "modified" is the same; "created" and "accessed" have changed to the time of the transfer. THIS IS INCORRECT AS THE “CREATED” DATE HAS NOT CHANGED, the files have only been transferred to a different medium. You’re re-writing the “date created” the same as Explorer does. I suppose you can argue that by placing it on the hard drive it has been “created” but that’s not how I see it. I believe a NEW DATE/TIME is “CREATED” when you edit the photo and CREATE a NEW ONE! Frame three shows the same fields using Nikon Transfer. Note the changes. "Modified" and "created" remain the same; ONLY "accessed" changes to the time of the transfer. THIS IS CORRECT as the file has only been “accessed” for the transfer and has not been changed since it was shot with the camera. The “created” and “modified” date will change when the file is edited since it will now be a “new” file, hence, a new creation date. Their software also shows a “date shot” that NEVER changes and can be sorted within ViewNX or NX2, although only to the second (proprietary info, no doubt). So I don’t have a virus, and yes, Qimage does have a minor flaw. It shouldn’t change the “creation” date of a file that has NOT BEEN CHANGED IN ANY WAY SINCE ITS CREATION (it’s only been “moved”). And, sadly for me, there is no way to sort the original shooting date. I’m sure the reason I never noticed this before is because I was using Qimage only to print edited files. When I started transferring and editing my photos using Ultimate I noticed the problem. Since I have no interest in changing my workflow, which has worked for me since the advent of digital, I’ll learn to deal with the flaw, whatever it requires from me (and thanks to all for the possible options). I really do like some of the functions in Ultimate and hope to learn to like it even more. Thanks for your time and patience. PS – With all of the changes you have made, the sort is now almost non-functional. Can you put it back to the beginning?? and, PLEASE, DO NOT TAMPER WITH STUDIO’S SORT FUNCTION!!!!!! PS - don't read Alan’s post  He must have a virus, too…. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 03:29:03 AM by UltraChrome »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rayw
|
|
« Reply #41 on: September 14, 2010, 03:32:29 AM » |
|
Hi Utrachrome, I see what you are getting at, I think. The exif dates are not altered by Qimage, or anything else if dealing with a raw image. These are the dates, afaik, that Mike uses to sort on, I hope. However if you move or copy any file, then windows will correctly assign a new creation and access date, since in the folder you move it to, it is a new file. If you copy it to the same folder, windows does not change the creation date or access date of the original file, just the new one. I would not expect it to be any different. The modified date stays the same, indicating that the contents of both files are identical (or it took less than a second to change one of them. ;-). This basic windows side of file dating pays no attention to the type of file, at the windows level, it is merely a chunk of data. For a raw file, unless you go in and actually modify the data, then the modified date will be the same for all instances of that file. The creation date is unlikely to be the same as any date in the exif information, it is merely the time at which the file was saved. the pc clock is unlikely to be the same time as the camera clock, in any case. Are we talking at cross purposes here  Best wishes, Ray Best ignore the foregoing - it's too late for me to test it thoroughly. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 03:40:27 AM by rayw »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #42 on: September 14, 2010, 03:36:57 AM » |
|
re: " If they don't match, then something else on your system is changing it and very likely this could be the cause of all your problems." This sounds like the 2010 version of blaming the hardware (we only had punch cards in the 60's so we couldn't use the "virus" excuse)... What I was actually proposing was that some ANTI-virus software was opening the files to check them and might be erroneously resetting the date/time, not that you HAD a virus! Now that you posted the full picture, I can see that Qimage is transferring correctly, i.e. the file modified date is carried over as it should be and the creation date is changed, just as it should be when a file is created in a new location. That is the standard and as you observed, the way Windows does it. You’re re-writing the “date created” the same as Explorer does. I suppose you can argue that by placing it on the hard drive it has been “created” but that’s not how I see it. I believe a NEW DATE/TIME is “CREATED” when you edit the photo and CREATE a NEW ONE! Well I guess Bill Gates and Mike Chaney are wrong and we should just to it the "Ultrachrome way". Please! I've given you the proper technique for sorting by date. You rename your files to date/time plus the numeric part of the file name. End of story! That method sorts properly EVERY time and you retain the ORIGINAL file date/time as part of the file name so that any program can read it and sort by it. If you want to fool around with file creation dates, file modified dates, and hope that no one ever modifies the file, restores it from a backup, or does anything that might change those dates, just realize the consequences. Rename your files to something meaningful and include the date/time in the file name, else you are subject to the whim of ANY program that copies, moves, or modifies files. That's just the nature of the beast. In the mean time, Qimage is sorting properly by the file modified date/time. Mike |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #43 on: September 14, 2010, 04:45:10 AM » |
|
I did find a problem where certain files could get sorted improperly in 118 and 119. The fix is in 120. It doesn't change anything WRT the discussion on what dates to use when (date modified, date created, etc.), but it does correct a problem what was throwing off the sort on 118 and 119. 120 will now sort properly by date modified (like all prior versions) plus the new file name subsort for files that have the same date/time stamp.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UltraChrome
|
|
« Reply #44 on: September 14, 2010, 05:10:46 AM » |
|
Well, 120 looks pretty good. At least it now shows the same order ("last edit") I see in my directory on the disk, which I can live with. At least it is back on par with Studio. The basic "problem" is that you and Mr. Gates think like programmers; Nikon and I think like photographers. Gee - it was a software glitch in the last two versions! Who'd a thunk it! And I had another 4 screen shots to send you from version 119... PS - and, as a matter of clarification, I DO NOT habitually mqke ANY changes using an editor. That only started when I determined that Qimage was not able to sort the same way my Nikon software can. Thanks for the changes and you're welcome for the debugging.... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 14, 2010, 06:01:43 AM by UltraChrome »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
