|
admin
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: October 07, 2009, 03:56:32 PM » |
|
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?
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 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lwiley
Newbie
Posts: 11
|
|
« Reply #46 on: October 07, 2009, 06:02:09 PM » |
|
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". 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 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 07:02:23 PM by lwiley »
|
Logged
|
Leroy
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #47 on: October 07, 2009, 07:25:15 PM » |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lwiley
Newbie
Posts: 11
|
|
« Reply #48 on: October 07, 2009, 07:58:58 PM » |
|
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. 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 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 08:02:09 PM by lwiley »
|
Logged
|
Leroy
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #49 on: October 07, 2009, 08:18:56 PM » |
|
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.
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 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lwiley
Newbie
Posts: 11
|
|
« Reply #50 on: October 07, 2009, 08:59:41 PM » |
|
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. 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 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 09:52:21 PM by lwiley »
|
Logged
|
Leroy
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #51 on: October 08, 2009, 01:34:09 PM » |
|
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.
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 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff
|
|
« Reply #52 on: October 08, 2009, 03:28:11 PM » |
|
Which Cisco's Network Magic do you use? I have xp and vista Jeff, I use Network Magic Pro. There are the cheaper "Essentials" and free "Basic" versions too. Web site here http://www.purenetworks.com/NB. You need to check if your router is supported, look under one of the products and System Requirements for the list. There is a free trial too. Terry. 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 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Grumpy
|
|
|
lwiley
Newbie
Posts: 11
|
|
« Reply #53 on: October 08, 2009, 05:50:39 PM » |
|
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. 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 |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 06:02:03 PM by lwiley »
|
Logged
|
Leroy
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #54 on: October 08, 2009, 05:58:48 PM » |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lwiley
Newbie
Posts: 11
|
|
« Reply #55 on: October 08, 2009, 06:08:39 PM » |
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Leroy
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #56 on: October 08, 2009, 06:21:04 PM » |
|
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. 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 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lwiley
Newbie
Posts: 11
|
|
« Reply #57 on: October 08, 2009, 06:50:06 PM » |
|
No one else has ever mentioned anything similar to what you are doing! Chris did. Reply #44 in this thread. I thought there was another one but I couldn't find it. 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. 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? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 07:11:02 PM by lwiley »
|
Logged
|
Leroy
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #58 on: October 08, 2009, 07:59:36 PM » |
|
Chris did. Reply #44 in this thread. I thought there was another one but I couldn't find it.
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. 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?
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 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Uncle Don
Newbie
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #59 on: October 12, 2009, 07:36:48 AM » |
|
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 ......  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 12, 2009, 07:43:35 AM by Uncle Don »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
