Mike Chaney's Tech Corner

Mike,

Thanks again for the program. Looking good.  Is there a good place to request new features or will this thread suffice?

1 - Ability to start another program at the completion of the file transfer. Should be able to pick which program to start from a list. Example, when finished start adobe bridge, or qimage, etc... (Work flow enhancement)
2 - Option to shut the program down when transfers are complete (Convenience)

Sorry, but I don't know your name.... good morning

Feature request 1 is Mike's to respond, but I have a feeling that feature request 2 is there.
I just right click the "F" at the lower right of the taskbar, and click EXIT.
Flashpipe is no longer active.
To reactivate, simply click the large desktop icon or if you didn't allow one of those, go to All Programs and kick start it there.

Fred

Thanks for starting a thread for feature requests.  Yours are a good start: I like the sound of those features.  In fact, one of my beta testers suggested the first one, in particular, the ability to start Qimage and have Qimage start in the (first) destination folder in the operations table.  Rest assured, more features will be coming soon!  :)  Just to repeat what I said in the other thread, it was my intention to produce a streamlined version in the first release that handled the mainstay of the application: data transfer and automatic raw developing.  For myself and users alike, it's good to see the program in action so that the concept is clear, and then we work from that and put in extra features that people really need based on what the application was intended for.  So thanks for the suggestions and keep them coming!

Mike

A good idea but there may be a possible problem when you are copying to 2 different destinations as I plan to do. I would want one particular destination to open, maybe it could be always the one at the top of the list.

One useful thing would be the ability to stop a transfer (stop button). I accidently clicked Go today and had to use Task Manager to stop it  ::)

Terry.

Terry, Terry, Terry...  Funny how people forget that their keyboard has an "Esc" key.  :D

Mike

This forgetfulness must be something I caught from Fred  ;D
Thanks for the tip.
Terry.

Just purchaes the program based on hundredths of second file naming.

Something to add for the future - geotagging.

REALLY glad you said that.  Now, can you (well, would you) put it in QI to stop thumbs loading to the screen when you change directories?

Thanks,

Seth

You can already stop thumb building from the Thumb Builder menu.
Or did you mean in some other way?
Terry.

Stop building thumbs in the middle is already there. At the top of Qimage there's a selection that says Thumb Builder.
Click that, and then click STOP.

Fred

Yes, Terry, in some other way.  I was talking ESC as Mike put into FP (and said to use).  That's pretty standard.

Thanks, Fred.  I remember you saying that.  I just didn't want to go mousing around.  I instinctively go to ESC.  I am just asking Mike for a mod since he did so in FP.   

Hi Guys,
like the concept behind flash pipe.

I store my photos in folders based on shooting date. I might use a card for a couple of days seeing the card these days hold so many shots. Also I might not be in a position to copy them off the media.

My file structure while repetitive I find very useful. I have tried other structures and ended up loosing a number of photos. Due to software changes over the years I have to very similar formats.

yyyy->month->yyyy-mm-dd (or yyyy_mm_dd).

Request
A new file create option of shooting date.

Thank you
Ian M

This one I'm going to keep open and "on the shelf" for thinking right now.  It could severely complicate downloads to the point that you may not be able to find your files.  I started to implement it but then realized how many problems could be produced by such an option.  For example, you may have a camera that shoots photos and videos and you may like to copy all "other" files to your "Misc" folder in order to clear the card for the next use.  Many of those "other" files could have very old dates or (believe it or not) no valid date at all, throwing them into a folder you may never find.  And if you accidentally have this option enabled when transferring from one large folder on a hard drive to another location, they'll be scattered all over creation.  Even if you only have five days worth of photos on a card, for example, you could have as many as fifteen new subfolders created, five subfolders for the photos themselves and a "developed, raw, and misc" folder under each of those five.

Seems like there must be a better way.  I just don't like the idea of an image deciding which folder's to create.  That's just asking for trouble (where people can't find where their images are going or they go in unexpected places when running FlashPipe on hard drives or other media that aren't the typical flash cards).

Mike

I was really excited about this program, having been a QImage user for many years.  I just registered here and was about to request the same thing (subfolders determined by file date).  Without this option, the program would be more trouble for me to use than my current (free) Breeze Systems Downloader.  With that program, I choose a main subfolder for downloading (in my case, the current year -- say mwpics\2009).  The program automatically then creates additional subfolders under the year based on the file date (which is also customizeable by year, month, date or whatever order I choose).  So I then end up with "mwpics\2009\2009-09-25".  It is only necessary to go in at the beginning of each year and change the year subfolder. 

Anyway, Mike, I know what kind of magic you have worked in the past with QImage -- a program I could not live without -- so I am hoping you can come up with an option to provide this requested functionality in Flash Pipe.  For $20 I will probably buy the program anyway because I know it will only get better, but I hope you will put this "file date subfolder" functionality near the top of the list.  I can't imagine that there aren't lots of pros out there who would really appreciate it.  At the very least, make it an option and require that a top level folder be specified so that even if you did have files from 1-01-09 and 9-01-09, they would easily show up under a single subfolder. 

Thanks for listening.

The reason that FlashPipe doesn't create this subfolder mess is described at the bottom of this page, along with a much smarter way of doing the same thing:

http://www.ddisoftware.com/flashpipe/setapart.htm

I still don't know why anyone would choose to make things more difficult by creating so many subfolders that you spend most of your time switching folders to find what you want.  I think once you try it the FlashPipe way, you will agree that you don't need such "subfolder profusion".  I think the only people who are asking this are the ones who have been used to doing it the hard way for so long.  The subfolder should be generated by the date of the download.  You separate your photos by date using prefixes on the file names.  Much easier to navigate and find photos!

Mike

I guess we all have our own ways of doing things.  I have been doing it this way for 10 years and have no intention of changing.  I suspect that there are many professional photographers like myself who would disagree with you as well.  While I often add descriptive words to the subfolder date, (2009-09-24 Arizona) to identify a particular shoot or location, I have no trouble navigating through my folders with ThumbsPlus or Adobe Bridge and find it much easier to remember the date I took some pictures rather than the date on which I actually downloaded them. 

I hope you will reconsider this request as an option in the future.

A few reasons, first off, it makes it easier to split up a collection of photos between DVDs. I like to have a copy of my old photos on DVD as a backup against my online backup and hard disk copies going bad. And second it tends to be much faster to load when you've got huge numbers of pictures in your catalog.

And it's not necessarily that much of an issue to find photos for those of us that use programs like iMatch to catalog the images.

My personal plan is to use FlashPipe to download the images to my hard disk and then something else to copy them to a final resting place.

You still have the date either way.  Why can't you remember the date by looking at the date prefix in the file name rather than manually navigating to a "one folder per day" structure?  The FlashPipe way, you have the best of both worlds.  You have both the date that you downloaded the photos (which could be important) and you also have a sensible file structure that automatically sorts by date by just using the file name.  

With files sortable by date within each download folder, you can look at the download folder and know which range to pick.  If you have an 8/30 folder and a 9/15 folder and you are looking for shots from a three day shoot that you did the first week in September, just choose the 9/15 folder and you know all three days will appear, sorted by date, and you can easily browse all three days together in any program and select the photos you want.

If I shoot a lot of pictures and, on average, take shots about half the days in a year, I can't imagine dealing with the mess of having 180 separate folders at the end of a year.  It just isn't necessary.  No matter how you look at it, you can easily separate photos by day without having to have this folder profusion.  Want everything shot on September 12th?  Go to the 9/15 download and select all the files that start with 2009-09-12 or 09-12 or whatever your choice for naming.  This makes a lot more sense because the download date is not arbitrary: people generally download a set of pictures when they are done with a certain event or when they have time and they know they have a batch of photos that they want from the card.  Separating photos by date, many times, would make no sense because days are arbitrary.  You could have taken a three day trip to Paris and now your photos are split into three different folders.  Just download them and then you'll see all your files by day in one folder:

09-12 0024.jpg
09-12 0025.jpg
09-12 0026.jpg
09-13 0027.jpg
09-13 0028.jpg
09-14 0029.jpg
and so on

And the best of both worlds is: you can see your whole trip and browse through the entire trip easily with any program, or you can just look at the files that start 09-13 if you just want that day.  I really still don't see the need for the folder profusion.

Edit: not trying to berate or belittle mind you.  Sort of playing "devil's advocate" right now.  I'm trying to separate need from habit so I can build something better than what is already out there.  I think there may be a better way to do this that satisfies everyone.  As a programmer and one who must support users, I really don't like the idea of your image files dictating arbitrary folders where you've really lost control over where things are going.  I did have one thought.  Since I'm still convinced you can easily separate files by date within a single folder, what about if instead of creating one folder per day, FlashPipe creates a folder that tells you the date range of photos that have been downloaded.  Example, instead of creating seven new folders for a week's worth of pictures, you get one folder named "2009-09-01 to 2009-09-07" or "September 1 - September 7" or some other user configurable format.  That way the folder shows the date range of the photos that are within that folder.

Mike

Mike, you are certainly making me think about how I do my folder structure.
I do something similar now manually, but each download is in a sub-folder within that date range folder because I usually am able to d/l after each photographic outing.
Could that include the ability to include some descriptive text? I realise that introduces a manual element for each download but could be useful too.

One thought/problem to overcome with date range folders: supposing you downloaded a card to a new date-range folder but didn't clear the card. Then some more photos were added at a later date, what would happen when the card was downloaded again, a new folder created with just the new images, or ...? I'm sure you can sort that one out; if you can make FP ping, you can do anything  ;D
I can see I'm going to be able to simplify the whole process soon :D
Terry.

I guess your suggestions might work for casual or non-pro photographers.  But I don't see a lot of pros wanting to lump multiple day shoots into a single folder.  I do horseback ride event photography (sometimes for a week at a time).  I may utlimately end up with 500 files in a folder (and I often end up splitting the folders into things like "Wednesday Ride" and "Wednesday Evening" to make them even more manageable.  I sell the photos at the ride and print out the numbers on the proof sheets.  With a filename like "Img_6402", it's easy for the user to enter "6402" on an order form.  There is no way somebody is going to enter a filename like 2009-09-02_D40_Img_6402 on the form.  Yes, I can see pick the last 4 numbers, but it's not always going to happen.  And I doubt that many pro photographs hunt for their photos by filename.  I think most of us use some sort of image management program and use thumbnails and keywords. 

But hey, it's your program so I guess you can do it however you want.  So far, I'm not seeing any real value in it for me but I could represent a very small percentage of your potential market.  I sort of doubt it, though.

I really don't think being a "pro" or part of some "elite" club has anything to do with it.  It's all about doing the file naming like you want/need so that you don't have to switch folders to find things that relate to the same event.  When I go on a seven day horseback ride and come back, I don't want to have to traverse a tree to seven different folders to find photos from that event.  Having everything in one folder would allow you to select only the day you want, two days, one evening and the next morning, and so on without having to bounce back and forth.  Plus I may not remember the exact day that everything occurred: much easier to sort them by day and just have them all display where I can quickly scroll through the photos without having to remember a date.

In your example, if you wanted to display or print photos from Wednesday evening and a continuing ride Thursday morning, you'd have to go to your 2009-09-02 folder, select Wednesday evening photos, back up to the containing folder, select the 2009-09-03 folder and then select the files from Thursday morning.  It's much easier to go to one folder and select 2009-09-02 [6402] through 2009-09-03 [6649] within one folder.  If you can tell people to select 6402 on an image that says IMG_6402.jpg, you can just as easily tell them to select the number in brackets when you have 2009-09-02 [6402].jpg.  But like I said, a lot of people are used to doing it the hard way and now they insist on it.  Sometimes it's not easy to change bad habits.  ;)

Mike

I see the reason to seperate each day's shoot also.  In sporting events like auto racing, track & field championships, boat racing, etc.  you usually wind up with multiple images of the same car/boat/person.  Immediately knowing the date shot lets you reference the heat sheet, qualification times, etc.  Adding the feature would avoid the necessity to use BreezeBrowser, etc. to sort the images in the folder by date then doing a Move to Folder to break them out.  Sorting in this way does help with databasing in programs like iMatch.

It would also simplify backing up each date to its own CD/DVD.

Terry,

Yes, that's just one of many problems you can run into when allowing images/files to dictate where they are going.  Since FlashPipe can transfer files other than just photos and videos such as indices, control files, movie thumbnails, voice annotations and other image database type files that might be on either a photo card or an AVCHD card, you can run into the "where did my files go" syndrome which is one of the things I'm trying to avoid.  Believe it or not, even the latest model cameras sometimes create non-photo files that have no EXIF date and have no valid file date!  Where do you put those?  Where will old images go that you've left on the card?  Where will they go if you forget to turn off the "image dictates its own subfolder" feature when transferring files from one large hard drive repository that contains images from a span of years?  You might say, why should I care?  If people really want to create the subfolder mess, let them.  Well, right now, FlashPipe is foolproof.  There's no way you can inadvertently overwrite files, no way to lose them to some folder that you won't recognize, no way a file will ever be deleted from the card until it is first verified to have been copied to the destination, and so forth.  As soon as I put code in that allows the files themselves to dictate their own subfolders, even if it's hidden in an "advanced" menu somewhere, I'll start getting complaints "FlashPipe lost all my files".

That plus the fact that date cutoffs are totally arbitrary is why I don't think it a good idea to do a "subfolder per day" approach.  I've shot professionally before at weddings, receptions, anniversary parties, golf tournaments, parties, vacations, etc. and I've never found an instance where it is OK to arbitrarily split my photos by day.  When I did a wedding and the reception ran until 1:30am, do I really want to look in a second folder to find the last hour and a half of the event?  When I shot a two day golf tournament, am I going to remember which shots happened on which day, or would I rather go to the folder and quickly scroll from day 1 to day 2 and so on?  And I don't think that's just me.  I think for a lot of people, once you do it "right", you won't go back.  When I download photos from the card, that's the decision that merits creation of the subfolder: that's the point where the subfolder should be made because when I'm ready to download it generally means I'm finished with that event and those photos should be grouped together.  Then if I need day beyond that, I just scroll and select the day I want.

Mike

Years ago I shot a powerboat race in Ocean City, Maryland.  The event was covered by ESPN and I was just there to shoot for fun, but I did get photos from three days.  I've also shot the IronMan competition in Clearwater, FL including the practice/trials the day before.  In no way would I want either of those events in two or three different folders.  I didn't have FlashPipe then but if I did, it would have come up with (for example) 2008-11-07 as the subfolder.  I would have probably added to that so that the subfolder was 2008-11-07-IronMan.  Now I have the IronMan trials and the actual race in one folder.  I can select all the files from the day of the trials, print them, copy them, etc.  I can select only the files from the day of the race.  Make a DVD of those, copy those, etc.  People seem to be ignoring the fact that within the folder they are already sorted by date and then image number: FlashPipe has already created the file names to cater to that.  There is simply no downside to this, but there is an advantage.  If I want to print all the photos from both the trial day and the race day of one particular athlete, I can go through that folder without concern for day, and just pick the photos, create a DVD, print them, etc. without having to "travel" across my hard drive to do it.

In your scenario, I wouldn't want to have to search across several folders in order to give a guy all shots of his boat either.  I could just open Qimage and quickly select all of his boat, regardless of day.  Then if he just wants all shots from heat 1, I just select all the ones of his boat that start with 2008-05-21.

The only thing I might be able to rationalize is creating day subfolders under the event folder.  For example, you start with a subfolder based on the download date and then within that subfolder, a folder per day is created.  At least that way you have one "container" for the download you just did without stuff (potentially) flying all over the place.  I could see that for certain events that are mutually exclusive per-day.  Then my complaint about not knowing where your images are really going until they are processed would go away.

Mike

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.  ;)  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.

Mike

Okay, what we do now in a major event (read that-many photogs) Photo Mechanic DLs all chips to a folder for the day, like Indy Quals 1, or something.  Each card then DLs to a subfolder by photog which it gets from the camera serial numbers.  It does not seperate by camera; it just starts doing SIR001, SIR002, SIR003, etc.  This is about the limit of what the FP request would be.  We format the chip before re-use or just use another, so dupes is not an issue.  It would wreak havoc.

(Each folder is looked at and some images are copied to Selects which have images from all photogs.  Edits and transmits come from there.)

If that helps...

It might just be my computer or the software I use to view images, but large folders of hundreds and thousands of images tends to cause problems.

One sort of compromise solution to this, which would probably get to the nub of it for me at least, would be if FP would be able to look up the size of the directory it's going to put the files into, then move onto the next one if it exceeds a particular size. Bonus points if one can select the size and double bonus points if there's a list of the popular optical disk sizes.

I'd love to be able to label my directories like:
DVD_00-2009_03-2009_05
DVD_01-2009_05-2009_07
DVD_01-2009_07-2009_09

Or something similar, even if it were just the first bit, it would be quite helpful.

So far you haven't convinced me that FP's current scheme is going to give me what I want to end up with.  I do NOT want to download to a single giant subfolder with God only knows how many pictures in it, which I might or might not be able to identify by name.  If the folder contains images for a location or an event, I typically add something descriptive to the date subfolder after it is created.  And I use ThumbsPlus to do view the folder thumbnails or do keyword searches.  Other than printing out orders, the filenames are irrelevant to me.  But in the hopes that you can come up with something better for FP, and I have no doubt that you will, here is another suggestion.

As an option, could you give us a list of all the dates for the files on the card and allow us to specify multiple subfolders per date, IF WE WANT THEM.  Otherwise, the default could be one giant folder with the download date.  Then the folks who like large folders with lots of pictures in them (and you, apparently) could be happy and those of us who prefer more organization (or "folder profusion" as you call it in your "What Sets Us Apart" blurb) would be satisfied as well.  I would love to have the ability to customize names of the folders at download time instead of after the fact as I do now.  So if I am on a trip I might want pictures taken on 2009-09-29 to be downloaded under 2009 folder to a folder called "2009-09-29 Grand Canyon" and those from 2009-09-30 to be downloaded to "2009-09-30 Lake Powell".  Setting that up at download time to SEPARATE folders would be very cool. 

Anyway, just some thoughts.  Obviously you can't be everything to everybody and maybe you are target the average everyday user market who doesn't like lots of subfolders and who typically doesn't have an image management program.

Thanks for listening.

Any chance of being able to enter the paths manually or the ability to save "profiles" which store different paths? I deal with two separate cameras weekly and the difference in the paths is just two letters, whereas they are miles away from each other when you have to browse to them. Thanks for the renaming option - made a big difference

Best - Anthony

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

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

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.

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

Ah, that is *very* cool. Many thanks!

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.

I would not have called FlashPipe a "File Sharing" program, but wrt:
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.

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

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

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.

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."

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.

I would not underestimate Mike's ability to foresee problems related to the use of FlashPipe and program accordingly.  ::)
And - you know from experience he will rapidly correct any "glitches"  :)
Terry.

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.

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. ;)

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

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

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  :)) 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

Yes, that's correct.  You can certainly do it manually and FlashPipe will remember your folders.  What I'm doing right now are two things.  First, I'm trying to encourage people to use the tools in FlashPipe as they are designed now to see if they might still fit their needs.  Sometimes we just need to learn how to use a new tool and a slight modification in the way we do things will allow us to do that.  Second, I'm taking notes as to how people are doing things.  There's such a wide variety of things going on out there, some of which make sense (under certain conditions), some that I think make no sense at all, some that work for some people but not others.  So right now I'm just listening and giving my own ideas along the way.  My hope is that I can see some pattern evolve as to how most people handle their subfolders and given that, I can make FlashPipe even more flexible in the future while at the same time addressing some of my own concerns like feature bloating, transferring non-image files and where they fit in the scheme of things, etc.

Mike

I don't think I said I "always" remember which camera and lens I used.  I said most of the time I remember one or the other and can find my images pretty quickly that way.  Believe that or not but it goes to my original point, my mind likely does not work the same as yours.  Again, I've never lost an image.  Which brings me to:

Point 6.  98% of the time I go out with one camera and download the images that day.  Therefore, the FP scheme will give me about 98% of the number of directories my way will.  Further, with FP I'll have a directory called 2009 then under that I'll have 100-300 directories (one for each day I shoot).  That is a long scrolling mess to me.  Granted, many people will like it that way.  But many of us won't.  I much prefer one more level in the tree.  By the way, that's all we're discussing.  One more level.  One more level and now it's "dangerous?"  That's a reach.

Point 7.  Actually it is two levels, not one, because my first level is camera.  But that is the way I work best.  The nesting of the structure is the way I like to work.  Am I stuck in my ways?  Well I guess you could say that.  But I'm stuck in this way because it works.  I've tried other ways and they don't work.  For me.

Where would I put those other files?  The first time they're found on the card, I would ask the user.  User, where do you want your audio files, with your images or elsewhere?  Where do you want your video files?  Where do you want your other files?  In other words, do not assume where to put them.  Correct me if I'm wrong but the vast majority, if not all, of the images have the make and model of the camera in the EXIF, right?  So we're only talking about the exceptions and with those exceptions you can tell what type of file they are.  So I assume the best you can do is allow them to be stored in a more generic structure like, type/year/month/day or something simpler if the user prefers like type/year-month-day.

You say, "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."  I buy that except that the tools I learn to use to their best are those tools that don't force me to redo things that already work for me.  Imagine how successful Lightroom would be if it forced a specific directory structure on it's users.  Or Photoshop, etc.

Worse yet, what if ACDSee forced one directory structure, Photoshop another and FP yet another?

Leroy

Yet somehow you learned to use ACDSee and PhotoShop, neither of which has any type of automated directory building.  So do the same thing with FlashPipe.  If you want to create a folder with the year, then create another folder repeating the year and adding the month, then create a third subfolder where you repeat the year a third time, the month a second time, and add the day, go ahead.  Do that in FlashPipe.  You can do exactly what you ask in FlashPipe right now and in fact, with FlashPipe creating the date subfolder for you, you'd only have to change the directory structure once a month.  Like I said, learn to use the tools to the best of their ability rather than just wanting something to conform to you.  Not many companies are going to customize software for everyone who wants something a little different.

Mike

Yes, ACDSee and Photoshop are flexible in that they don't force a certain structure.  Easy to live with.

I have seven cameras so using FP would require I create up to seven new directories a month.  That's getting to be kind of a pain.  Also I'm not sure whether FP recognizes different cameras - I apologize but I didn't get that far - and if it doesn't, I'll need to keep telling FP which camera the images are from because my directory structure is camera/year/month/day.

I'm not asking you to customize it just for me.  Many people work the same way I do or very similar.  To be fair, IIRC the downloaders in ACDSee and Lightroom are not as flexible as I wish either.  But Downloader Pro is and it's not that tough to set up, IMO.  If you want to use a directory structure similar to mine, for each camera you will need to tell DP the make and/or model.  And then tell DP what structure you want, camera/year/month/day, in my case.

I fear I've upset you with my tone or something.  Very sorry about that.  Like almost everyone else here, I use and love Qimage and wish you much, much success with Qimage and FP.  I'm trying to be constructive with my FP remarks so that it can be a tool for the widest possible audience.  The more money you make, the stronger the future is for Qimage and FP.  And that's good for all of us.

By the way the converting as you download is a very slick idea.  Kudos.

Leroy

You have seven cameras and you said you shoot almost every day.  IF you shoot with all seven cameras, that means at the end of the year, you will have created 365 x 7 subfolders.  That's more than 2500 subdirectories to have to scroll through just to find images... for one year!  And for every single day you shoot, you'll have to switch directories seven times just to find all your images for that one day!  That's a huge mess and only complicates things.  FlashPipe already gives you the ability to separate your photos by camera within a single folder so why don't you try using year/month/day as the subfolder and then within that folder, all the files can start by camera model so not only can you separate your photos by camera, you're not forced to separate them by camera if you'd like to see all you shot on that day regardless of camera.  Much better flexibility and you don't have an overabundance of thousands of folders at the end of each year when you really don't need that many.  I don't care what you're "used" to, thousands of folders per year is way too many!  It just complicates the task of asset management.

Mike

I do shoot most days but not with all of the cameras.  Like I said before I almost always use one camera and download those images the same day.  So I don't have to "switch directories seven times just to find all your images for that one day."  It would be close to the same number of directories either way (my way or the FP way).

I'm not going to endlessly argue the benefits of doing it my way.  I've done that with myself years ago and settled on what works for me.  Because of FP, I have revisited the mechanics of doing it the FP way.  It just seems a bad way to do it (for the reasons I've already stated).  But that's me.  To many others it will work great.

What I'm getting out of this discussion is that you think my way is dumb and cumbersome and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.  That's fine.  And I would argue that the FP way is cumbersome, for me.  I'm not alone though, just as you're not alone.  Surely you can see that what seems cumbersome to you might work well for others.  And what seems cumbersome to others might work well for you.

Leroy

I do think you are in the vast minority.  Most people don't remember their photos by which of seven cameras they used to shoot the photos!  Regardless of how many cameras you use, your top level is camera.  So even if you remember the approximate date of the shoot, you have to first remember which camera you used.  And if you don't, and let's be honest, there will be times when you don't, then you have to start at one camera and work your way down through year, year/month, and then year/month/day, you're not able to find them under that camera so you have to start over and look under a different camera and work your way down through year, year/month, and then year/month/day.  Then if you don't remember the exact day (since you only have one day per folder), you have to keep backing up to year/month and searching different days in individual folders until you find your photos.  I can assure you that very few people have such a convoluted structure which is why I'm not inclined to program this for one person.

Nuff said.

Mike

Terry.

Installed Network Magic Trial, but could not get the Vista computer to connect to the Xp Computer.

However, NM help files etc suggested a Registry modification, never before messed with the registry but jumped in both feet and now working fine.

Many thanks for mentioning NM

Jeff

Once again you're not understanding what I'm saying.  I never claimed most people find photos the way I do.  Not even close.  Quite the opposite.  If you remember, I mentioned the way I usually find photos to show that not all people think along the same lines.  Something you refuse to acknowledge.

Also, if you remember, I said I don't always find images that way - sometimes I have to use my DAM.

Because you can't admit other people are put together differently than you, I have to yet again endlessly argue for the benefits of my way.  Ugh.  Here we go...

As far as my way of storing photos being convoluted, please.  I'll say it again, what seems complicated, convoluted or cumbersome to one person will be perfectly straightforward to another.  My structure is not any more complicated than yours.  You are limiting your idea of complication to how many directory levels there are even though there are close to the same number of directories in either structure.

Open up your thinking.  Directory levels are not the only thing involved here.  There are other things that make looking for images convoluted.  One, the FP way of having 200-300, or more, sub-directories listed in one directory.  That scrolling mess is convolution, IMO.  Two, the FP way of having images from numerous cameras in the same directory.  That is convolution, IMO.

If dumping images from different cameras into one directory is a good idea because 1, it limits the directory levels and 2, you have the date and camera in the file name anyway, why not dump all images into one directory?  I mean one giant directory for all of your images.  Why not?  Why not dump video and audio in there too?  You have all of that intelligence built in the file name, why not use it?

A structure with no directory levels.  Why not force your customers to do it that way?  By your definition (as near as I can tell), that would be zero convolution.

I didn't want to get into the 'my way is better than your way' discussion because it's silly.  But you insist on directing the discussion that way.  Please try to understand we don't all think along the same lines.  I understand perfectly why you think the FP way is the best way.  That makes perfect sense because I understand that not all people think the same way I do.  Would you please return the favor?

Further, because you think the FP way is the best way and it makes perfect sense to you, I believe you will be more productive with that method.  You understand it and it is in sync with how you think.  If you open up your mind, you might see that the same can be said for those of us that organize our images differently than you.

Leroy

Look, I think enough is enough with this.  You haven't even purchased FlashPipe yet you've made a vendetta out of coming here and trying to convince me to support some mess of a directory structure that no one else on this planet will ever use.  You said you use Downloader Pro, so if you want, you can use a convoluted tool to make convoluted directories.  You already own it so why not use it?  That's why there are different tools for different people and why I've said all along that if you decide to adopt a certain tool, just learn to use it within its abilities rather than trying to make it something else.  If you decide it won't do what you want, move on to something else.  Now let's move on please.

Mike

Sure, let's move on.  Vendetta?  Really?  Some mess that no one else on this planet will ever use?  Some people in this thread have said they use a structure very similar.  You're not listening, Mike.  As to why I'm doing this?  To help you.

No one else has ever mentioned anything similar to what you are doing!  No one here has ever suggested starting with a subfolder that is the camera you are using, then under each camera subfolder creating (potentially) a new subfolder for the year, and under each year the year and month, and finally under each year/month subfolder another one for the actual day.  That requires that FlashPipe create (or verify) four sublevels of folders before it ever gets to the folder where it is storing images.  The only other thing mentioned in this thread was the ability to create one new subfolder for each day of shots.  That's a far cry from four (potentially new) sublevels.

And you talk about scrolling, scrolling is far easier than backing up four folder sublevels just because you chose the wrong camera, or backing up one or two levels and then grinding back down to a different day.  So right now, because this seems like an awful hassle and unnecessarily splits photos to the point that you can't see enough at one time to be able to find what you want, and because you are the only one asking for a program that can parse/create four sublevels of folders just to get to a day/date, I have no plans to implement this in FlashPipe.  Hopefully that will be enough to let us drop this.

Mike

Chris did.  Reply #44 in this thread.  I thought there was another one but I couldn't find it.






To my way of thinking, it's an afternoon of programming at most to get it roughed in.  Then another half day of playing with it and finding the gotchas.  What are we talking about here?  Adding one character to your 'Renaming Parameters,' the "\".  Then changing the way you parse the string and adding some code to create directories if they're not there.

If you want to pretend that I'm all alone and that my way is extremely complicated, then yes, don't implement it.  If you want to make a flexible tool for your clients, reconsider.  Why on earth would you care how we choose to organize our images?

Chris didn't.  He doesn't start with camera type which is the major convoluting factor here as you are mixing two things that are exclusive (camera type and date) which doubles the complexity of the structure.


If you can program it in an afternoon, have at it!  You'll program it and then you'll realize after you dump it on your users how many problems you have with non-photo files, where to put them, and people complaining about lost files.  As I said, the big picture is a lot bigger than catering to your specific needs.

I will not be implementing this in FlashPipe.  I may consider the ability to create subfolders based on image date only, but that's down the road a bit.  Now, that's the end of story.  You've made your case.  I know what you want.  You have my answer.  Any further postings related the Leroy/Mike discussion will be deleted.  We're moving on.  This is supposed to be a general feature requests thread, not a "what Leroy wants" thread.

Mike

1st of all,
        Thank You for Flash Pipe, I think it is a very cool tool, and I have ordered it.

2nd: Feature reguest 
        Regarding Flash Pipe v2010.110

Automatically add copyright text to the web sized photo.  Nothing fancy needed.  Just text in the lower right hand corner would be fine.  Not a huge need for me, but if you've got nothing else to do ......  ;)

"uncle Don", I remember him from radio days many years ago.

Uncle Don, I think you are referring to Qimage 2010.100 and accidentally typed Flashpipe????
If I am right, then that feature you want is already in Qimage.
Set up your image as you like, and add your logo/copyright. Then do create web sized copies, and that logo sticks just fine.
One caveat. You cannot see the logo unless you have Qimage looking at the image using a high resolution screen. So test your web copy using the hover/spacebar method.

See screen snap...

Fred

Hmmm.Maybe you did mean Flashpipe. They both have similar version designations...
Sorry if I was off base.
Fred

Mike...
Would you consider expanding the file renaming section to include a user defined prefix, suffix, and a remembered number count option that can be manually changed at any time? What I have in mind in addition to what is offered is something such as found in Thumbs Plus (see attached image). Thanks for another great program from a long time Qimage user.

Thanks for the suggestion.  FlashPipe can already do the prefix and suffix: all you need to do is type them in, so all that is missing is an incrementing count.  That's easy, BUT... FlashPipe can download files of different types, not just photos.  How would you handle the count for photos versus videos?  Just keep each one unique with a new number?  Also, since FlashPipe can download from multiple flash cards at once, how would that be handled?  I know some people would want a different count for each camera/flash card.  It'd be easy to do a count that just increments once for each photo or video but I'm not sure that'll handle all the cases that people want.  I'd like to get some clarifying/refining thoughts from others on this, which is a good idea BTW.

Mike

You have me thinking now  :-\.

Actually, after thinking about it, it may be best to not overcomplicate.  If there is a running number, that number should always be used for photos and video.  So if you start with 1 and you have a card with 50 photos and 3 videos, the photos would be numbered <whatever>1, <whatever>2, up to <whatever>50, and then the videos will be numbered <whatever>51, <whatever>52, and <whatever>53.  Then the dialog would show "54" as the next number so that it would start with <whatever>54 on the next run.

Also, it should probably pad the numbers with zeroes, like <whatever>0000001, <whatever>0000002, and so on, or the files will not sort properly by name.

Mike

This request may be scary, but I would like a way to erase (format) my cards.
I have the Delkin 8 port reader which combined with FP has allowed me to go to bed after 12-16 hour shoots with my cards downloaded and backed up.
I can't tell you how much I love this program.
However, it would also be great to be able to format the cards when I'm ready for the next shoot. I erase cards before I leave the studio so that I don't need to worry about placing a card in the camera that has images that I just shot, and than formatting on site. All the cards in my card wallet are clean before each job.
If I could tell FP to format those 8 cards it would be another big time saver. (Yes I do confirm downloads before reformatting)

Thanks!

THeEdge...I heard (rightly or wrongly) that it is best to always format in the camera.

Mike...The only reasonable way I see to accomplish an incremented count is to have a separate auto rename option for each type of file, i.e., photos, videos, and other. An Auto Rename Options button next to each type file. Or possibly to be able to assign the set buttons for each type file if desired. But you would still have to keep track of each of three possible incremented counts. And yes, there would have to be "number of leading zeroes" option to make it useful. Having said that, I guess I don't really need it after all, though others might find it useful. My workflow is to copy photos to a temp folder in the database, throw out the non-keepers, rename the keepers by year and incremented number, (2009_0100, 2009_0101, etc.), assign the keywords, move to permanent folder and backup. Then on to Qimage or whatever. Using FP to get the photos into the temp folder is easier now, but I still go to the database to sort out the non-keepers before renaming the keepers, so I might as well do it in the database as I've always done. Anyway, it's an idea and would give the user further control over the filenames. While I have your ear, I agree with an earlier post of having the ability to open another program from within FP. Thanks for listening.

I like to have an empty card when I'm done as well, so I can just put it back in the camera and go.  FlashPipe can do this now, without reformatting!  As your last operation(s) in the table, just tell it to "move" instead of "copy".  If you have a line that says "move photos", one for "move videos", and you add one for "move other", then your card will be empty when FlashPipe is done.

Mike

Hi Mike
I have not purchased the software yet but plan to because of all hard work you have put into Qimage software that i also use. I am using downloader pro for this task now and use a year/camera/date/ folder system and have photos going back 7 years. i agree with your thoughts on the many clicks to get to my photos and i struggle to find photos i took of events airshows, motor racing and vacations etc etc etc
I now have all my photos on 1 drive that i have backed up can i use flashpipe to move these files and reorganize my folders from the year/camera/date/ folder system all in one action?
Sorry i have not tried the trial yet just saw your email about this new product
The feature that i like in downloader pro is the gps tagging and i would love that feature to make it into your software so do you have any plans to add Geotagging ?

Yes.  FlashPipe isn't limited to just flash cards.  You can click and point FlashPipe at that hard drive and the location that contains all those folders (hopefully there is one "containing" folder above the year).  Then FlashPipe can copy all files from there into whatever new structure you decide upon.  I'd definitely recommend doing a small test or at least just copying to a fresh location (don't use "move") so you can start over if you didn't anticipate something.


That's definitely a feature I'm looking into.  The biggest problem is that there's no "standard" for storing that data and it ends up being proprietary (different) for each camera model.  But... I'm checking into it.

Mike

Sometimes I shoot a lot of telephoto pictures, and I know that some or most of them will need to be up-sized, so maybe an option to produce a directory of enlarged photos at 200%, 300% etc would be easy to implement, and might be useful to some people.

Is this for print? If so, use Qimage for printing, you will not need to do any separate upsizing.
Terry.

FlashPipe can already do that, but I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to upsize photos or assume that telephoto shots will need upsampling.  Seems like something that should be done at display/edit/print time, but if you want to do it, just enter a larger number in the web copies dialog (whatever you want).  Then your web copies will be upsized instead of downsized.

Mike

Thanks for the replies.  I don't print often, so I am not as familiar with Qimage as I should be.  Also, I agree many photos don't have to be upsized, but it is nice to have a batch option available as Flash Pipe does.  Easier for me to delete photos, than to manually upsample each one.

Thanks again

would it be possible to add copyright info owners name etc. to the exif of files as they are downloading that way you would know all your files carry your name and whatever copyright statement you wish
would it also be possible to add keywords to the iptc eg. a country name or an event name etc.etc.

Good morning!
There's a dedicated tool, and I believe it's free; EXIFTOOL-7.44, that will allow changes to the EXIF header. Since the headers are not 100% standard, you might be better off doing that by hand.
The IPTC info can be added in Qimage to a single image or in a batch form which is very handy and saves time.

Copyright info, logos, and even watermarks are easily done in Qimage too.
Hope some of this helps.
Fred

Here are the details:
This is a command line program which is ok for those who understand how to use such applications.
Fortunately, someone has produced a GUI fro the program that enables many of the features via an easy to use interface.
You can access the downloads & instructions here: http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/foto/exif/exiftoolgui.htm
It's an easy program to use and unlike Exifer, will copy from raw images.

I first mentioned this program on the forum here http://ddisoftware.com/tech/computer-software/metadata-read-edit-copy.
Terry.

thanks fred,terry i will try your suggestions also the gui was updated 4 days ago for ExifToolGUI and it looks easy to use

Mike,

Hello.  I just purchased FlashPipe and I like it a lot.  One thing that I think would be useful as a feature in a future version would be an additional transfer option that will only copy those files with the archive bit set, and then clear the archive bit.  It would also be useful to have an option that only clears the archive bits, so you could put it at the end of a series of other copy operations.  Some other picture transfer utilities use that method to mark the pictures as already transferred, so they can ignore them next time.  I realize that FlashPipe is smart enough to skip files that are already in the destination, but it is still slow for it to go through a 16 GB SDHC card full of pictures, just to skip most of them.

I realize that I could use the move option to get the pictures off the card so it won't scan them next time.  However, that's not the way I usually work.  I tend to leave the pictures on the card until it is nearly full, and then clear it off completely.  That allows me to essentially keep a temporary extra backup copy on the SD card during the period between when I transfer them onto the PC, until the next time the PC gets backed up, and until I rotate that with my off-site backup.  I'm a believer in the adage that if you don't have three copies of your digital data, you don't have any copies. :)

Bill

Mike,
I echo the comments above...flashpipe is a great program that has already found its way into my workflow.  The ability to add meta data (like copyright info) would be a very welcome addition (I believe someone already included that in the wish list, but I want to add my vote too  ;D).  Thanks for making all of our lives easier!

I forgot to add...Canon S90 and Nikon D3S raw file support  ;).

Not sure what is the mechanism to request new raw support, but since I see another request above.  Could you please add raw support for the Fuji S200EXR?

Thanks!

i would like to be able to see where the files are going based on my current selections before i download them displayed on the main screen
i would also like to see where the files are going displayed while i am downloading them
i would also like to see an option to open the containing folder from the transfer status window

I am also looking for this feature. IN fact that is the ONLY feature that I need right now, as I am very happy doing my raw processing in either Lightroom or DXO - both of which I've already licensed. I have backup programs also, such as SyncbackPro, but none so far can store files based on their CREATE date! If you had that in Flash Pipe it would be enough for me to purchase it. (I think that the old Canon Zoom Browser did something like this, but doubt if it would copy my Nikon raw files or Sony videos).

Thanks,
Paul

FlashPipe file renaming and folder naming has moved on since Sept 2009  :)
See attached screen snaps of current options, are these adequate for you use or can you change your approach to synchronise with the given options?
Terry.

Thanks Terry. I've dowloaded the eval and found Nirvana :) and bought a license straight away.

Hi Mike,

As of v.2010.118: One feature request just popped up while I prepared a bunch of images for the Web:
Apparently the JPEG settings from Develop are just taken over by the Web size creation. This leads to inappropriately large web files (at given target pixel size) when you use a good quality setting for Develop (which I do).
So my request is a separate JPEG quality setting for the Web file creation - I just cut down the Web size to one quarter for the same image size by changing my Develop JPEG setting from 98 to 80 - and must make sure that I do not forget to reset it before the next 'real' Develop job ...

Thanks for listening  ;)

Peter

• I would like to request FP to be multi threaded, so that it can respond to button clicks while it is processing.
  
• I would like to have a STOP and a PAUSE/RESUME button
  
• Trace log would be nice, so that when things bomb out I can tell what was done and what caused the problem
  
• NO OVERWRITE would also be handy, in case I need to restart a job, but don't want to re-copy gigabytes of stuff that was already done. This may need a bit of planning as it must take into account the excellent renaming option.
  

---

Big thank you for this tool. It is so very useful to me. BTW, I personally do not use the raw processing part only the file transferring components, as I prefer to do my "development" using either Lightroom or DXO.

Just a tip for Kaspersky Internet Security users: I recommend setting FP as an Exclusion App, so that KIS doesn scan every one of the hundreds of huge photo files as they are copied.

Hi,
What on earth are you ding to make FlashPipe "bomb out"? No such problems have been reported as far as I know  ???
This feature already exists.   ;) FP will ignore absolutely identical files and not copy again. If a file has the same name but is different in terms of its bits, the it will copy and re-name. This is useful when copying images folder to folder as opposed to card to folder Thus if you have created a new version of an image or created Qimage Filter flt files or RAW qrs files, the original files will not be over-written but a re-named version created. No data is ever lost.
I can't comment on the other 2 requests except to say I've not had any difficulty in using FP in it's current state.
Terry.

LOL. It hung once - that's all.

I would love it if you had a simple space by each source folder that you could type in a card ID (or whatever).  Whatever was typed in that space would be added to the naming convention during import/renaming.  It would simply let me identify which card the file came from.  Let's me identify problem cards or cameras, etc.  That would be huge for my anal retentive soul. :)

Always a fan of your work

mike

Perhaps, in the meantime, you could add that code letter or ID to the destination folder.
Example: Center column: C:\Pics
Right side column: Gatorland-6-22-10-20D
The 20D would tell me that camera was being used for these shots.
Fred

Hi Mike,
You can already include the camera model in the auto-renaming set-up.
If you have multiple card readers, the auto-renaming feature allows you to specify the drive letter so if a particular reader was always used for a particular card (label it) you would get that ID in the file name too.
This would be ok. if you did not have too many cards and an equal number of readers -  you do know FP can read multiple cards in one session.
Fred's idea is very straightforward because FP allows you to add text to an auto produced sub folder name.  8)
Terry

We have many cards. This would make MC break out in an agitated sweat ;), but we actually download each card to it's own folder.  It's just the way we do it.  Recently, started having corrupt files.  It was easy to identify the card.  Each of our cards have a unique ID#.  If I could just trace the file back to it's originating card, and automate the task of downloading, and get away from so many subfolders, it would of course be huge for me.  The camera isn't an issue really since it's easy to see from the the file which camera captured.  Lightroom makes using subfolders a non-issue for us.  We are wedding and event photographers btw.  Our current folder structure is simply YYYYMMDD EVENT/RAW/cfcardid