Messages

1226

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 07, 2010, 09:25 AM »

PM allows you to add tags to the photo itself as well as to a sidecar

-Dormouse (April 06, 2010, 05:16 PM)

Is one of these preferable?

-tomos (April 07, 2010, 03:36 AM)

Now that's a question. Much debate on the issue. It's generally felt that sidecars are safer, but it really all depends. And what it depends on may be something you don't know because it is in the future.

There's a sticky thread on this issue in the IDI forums.

1227

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 07, 2010, 09:15 AM »

The big advantage of PM is speed. It can process RAW files at high speed which is a critically important feature for a lot of professional photogs who need who need to get their photos on the market or with their customer ASAP. It isn't really a RAW converter in that it doesn't produce the best images, but it reads and processes raw files so that they are easy to sort, tag etc. Scripts for automatically appending copyright notices etc etc. Amateurs with a lot of photos can value this speed too.

It is also fast with other types of format. RAW just matters most because the file sizes are much bigger & take more processing and professionals prefer to shoot in RAW.

1228

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 06, 2010, 05:16 PM »

I'm confused.
What's the difference between a browser+sorter+tagger and a cataloger?

-zevel (April 06, 2010, 04:54 PM)

A cataloger stores details of all your photos, allowing very fast searches, allows you to keep lots of different virtual collections, keep track of different versions of the same thing.

A browser, sorter, tagger is like a file explorer taking in details of all the files, allowing you to browse them and add tags, ratings etc. It allows you to sort them rapidly, so that you can decide what to keep or not etc. PM allows you to add tags to the photo itself as well as to a sidecar (not many progs did that at the beginning though a number do now). Most cataloging products allow you to do all of these as well as being catalogers, but they won't (usually at least) be so fast.

You need to realise that this market is full of very, very specialised programs mostly at high prices. Adobe Bridge is another example of the same sort of product. Some progs specialise purely in downloading images from cards and cameras (eg Breeze Downloader).

1229

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 06, 2010, 04:48 PM »

If you are going to look at PM, you need to be very clear about what it is.

It is a browser, sorter, tagger - and it is fast.

But it isn't a raw converter, an image editor or a cataloger.

1230

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 05, 2010, 01:05 PM »

I don't know what I'd use for organization.  That's why i'm following this thread.  I'm not a big photo user, so i don't have a lot of pictures.  But if I did, I don't know what program I'd use.  Tagging, cataloging, etc.  I don't do any of that.  My photos are organized just by folders and files.  I'm actually amazed that nobody has recommended a clear cut favorite in this thread...it's been a while!

-superboyac (April 05, 2010, 08:55 AM)

There cannot be a clear cut favorite. It depends on your own needs and preferences.

My advice for this sort of program is always twofold.
1. Only use programs where you can easily export the data you have worked on to use in a different program.
2. Try programs that have the features you need. Buy/use the one that suits you best. Do not get sucked into buying programs at a degree of complexity that is greater than your need. You will spend time learning them, you will find them confusing and difficult to use, and you will have to spend lots of time relearning them because you won't be using them often enough to retain familiarity.

This is all just bringing back bad memories and reminds me about WHY I dumped the whole "organization" idea in the first place and just use DOpus 9...

-Darwin (April 05, 2010, 09:27 AM)

Nothing wrong with using DOpus. The main reason I originally chose it against the competition was that I thought its use in working with images was much better. And I still use it for lots of (simple) image management processes.

1231

Living Room / Re: Should I swtich from w7 32 bit to w7 64 bit?

« on: April 05, 2010, 12:38 PM »

Crucial (good RAM brand)

Not only a great RAM brand, but the only manufacturer whose RAM modules are 100% made in the U.S.A.

-Innuendo (April 04, 2010, 07:18 PM)

They do have plants all round the world. But the only manufacturer of RAM in the USA.

1232

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 04, 2010, 02:47 PM »

Doesn’t mention any problems in IDimager though.

-J-Mac (April 04, 2010, 01:21 PM)

No. It's just I'm not clear whether it is a specific problem in your IDI installation, or whether something is getting it so bogged down that it doesn't finish everything. I can't really see that it will just be down to your graphics card or settings, otherwise I'd've expected more people recognising the problem.

1233

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 04, 2010, 12:54 PM »

I haven't seen huge amounts of discussion about nVidia cards in the IDI forums, but I did see this post (quite old now).

1234

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 04, 2010, 05:10 AM »

I'll send in another support request and see if I get any reply this time...

-J-Mac (April 02, 2010, 10:17 PM)

I would really like to get a response from the developer before trying anything. I would think that he would want to get some info from me first, like logs, settings, etc. for diagnostic purposes. That is if he is interested in helping at all - which I am starting to doubt unfortunately.

-J-Mac (April 04, 2010, 02:24 AM)

Sorry, I thought I had already written and said this, but cannot find it in the thread. 

Here are Hert's most recent posts on the IDI Forum. You'll see that they are generally helpful and aimed at finding solutions. His last visit had been 22nd March (but I notice that he's just visited on 3rd April, but not posted). I would imagine that he might be back after Easter, and that you will get a response then.

1235

Living Room / Re: First iPad Reviews Are In

« on: April 03, 2010, 10:13 AM »

Skiff Slate

-Darwin (April 03, 2010, 10:07 AM)

Still, neither really very portable.
Ebook readers can be put in pockets (just, depending on pockets) - and that's the size I'd be looking for.

1236

Living Room / Re: First iPad Reviews Are In

« on: April 03, 2010, 08:17 AM »

Microsoft Courier

-Darwin (April 02, 2010, 11:23 PM)

And the comments section has people reflecting my own concerns rather than the hype on Ars Technica comments on the iPad.

I can't see the point of a device that is too big to be really portable and doesn't have the functionality of a laptop or notebook. And which doesn't have good battery life. The Courier seems better than the iPad for portability, but I still can't see it having a decent battery life but better than a phone or netbook for email, reading, maps etc. So long as it's instant startup.

1237

Living Room / Re: Should I swtich from w7 32 bit to w7 64 bit?

« on: April 03, 2010, 07:43 AM »

Is 32bit software compatible with a 64 bit operating system?

-Musubi (April 03, 2010, 06:43 AM)

There's quite a lot that won't work.

Is it worth upgrading to 64 bit?

-Musubi (April 03, 2010, 06:43 AM)

Depends on
a) whether you have programs that you want to use that don't run & whether there are acceptable alternatives to them
b) whether you use programs that will benefit from its ability to use the extra memory.

Where stuff works on both, I can't say that I've ever encountered differences in speed etc unless they work much better in a lot of RAM. For me that's mostly image programs.

1238

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 02, 2010, 05:31 PM »

from j-mac's screenshots

-JavaJones (April 02, 2010, 04:15 PM)

You've prompted me to look at them again.

First noticing that the 2nd box above the column headers is empty. It's the filter box & I don't know how to get it empty. When I have no filter chosen, it says No Filter. Maybe it would be empty if I had never clicked on it. Can't remember that far back.

Second, the columns far to the right. The last of those is the repeat of the File Name. But this is only partly showing even though the scroll bar is as far to the right as it can go. This must be a display problem of some sort. Could be IDI - sometimes it can take a while to get the display completely organised when you change view; and yours seems to go very slowly quite often (eg. as in changing style). The next two to its left are presumably Bookmarked and In-Sync. That means you are missing 8 columns. I assume that the Column titles for the 3 far right columns you do have aren't showing either?

Maybe, it has got stuck drawing the window.

1239

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 02, 2010, 03:05 PM »

As you say, this suggests the columns are simply not there at all.
But we know they should be. Seems very unlikely that it would be a setting change. But also seems unlikely that a corruption would produce such a defined behaviour.
Might it be a database issue?
I see some people in the forums using the SQLserver database rather than the SQLite one, because they seem to have had problems with SQLite. (Generally the reason for doing that is because it is more solid in multi-user work over a network).

Until we can find a solution to this, I don't know if sort by dimensions will help in conjunction with using the Exif Summary pane.

1240

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 02, 2010, 01:11 PM »

I cannot change anything in that column header bar - it doesn’t allow me to find the hidden separators between the columns - I don’t think they are there.

-J-Mac (April 02, 2010, 01:04 PM)

They have to be there somewhere. Unless the Program installation got corrupted by something.

If you haven't already done it, you can:
a) Try using the zoom trick to make all columns visible; that should give you the separators.
b) Use the scroll bar to go to the right where the other columns are. When you see the separator for File Name, move it to the left.

1241

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 02, 2010, 12:59 PM »

Here's what I see in the Collection Viewer after clicking View>Details:

-J-Mac (April 02, 2010, 12:15 PM)

Looking at this, I think the column size for the File Name must have been expanded (a lot) at some stage. It's never come up like that for me by default.

1242

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 02, 2010, 12:56 PM »

I thought I would try changing the skin, or "style" as they call it, but each time I try the program uses 50%+ CPU and stays that way for over 10 minutes - at which time I kill it. I shouldn’t run into any issues running the program on this box; my specs are noted below:

-J-Mac (April 02, 2010, 12:47 PM)

That's more powerful than the system I'm running it on.
One way of trying to change style (not done that myself yet) without hitting the same CPU overhead would be to make a new database with one photo. Then try changing style while you are in that. Then loading your usual database.
I'm making the assumption that the CPU load is because the style changing is having to change the 'display' (seen and unseen) of all the stuff that's loaded in the database. I don't think it should be doing that, but can't think of another explanation.
I've just tried changing the style with my full database loaded. Virtually instantaneous.

1243

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 02, 2010, 12:51 PM »

So there are some "hidden" columns it seems...

-J-Mac (April 02, 2010, 12:18 PM)

Ah yes, I've never had that scroll bar because all my columns were showing. Maybe because that's because I've got a big widescreen monitor.
Another way (usually anyway) of seeing all the columns would be to use the zoom bar at the top right to zoom right out, reducing the amount of the screen that everything is taking.

1244

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 02, 2010, 09:03 AM »

Speaking of which, how does IDImager compare with IMatch (and others) in the context of cataloging and searching very large image collections?

-zevel (April 01, 2010, 10:04 PM)

It's a few years since I gave IMatch a thorough trial, so I might be a bit out of date - though, on a quick glance, the program doesn't seem to have changed massively since then.

IMatch is more purely an image catalog program. IDI is an image catalog program with more extra functions that you might want to use if you are using your image catalog.

There is some difference in functions. When I was looking at it, IMatch didn't have a good ability to manage versions and this had been a frequent request and had been in development for some time with nothing emerging/ (not sure if it does now); this was a feature I wanted and so that relatively small point was one of the things that steered me away.

The biggest difference is probably in style. The UI works differently. IMatch is much more of a programmers program (the scripting forum currently has 8905 posts, the 2nd biggest on the board to the General Discussion with 12766; IDI has 2150 posts in its scripting forum, with 13042 in Product Related and 9962 in IDI Pro (and 7986 in Bugs & Problems; IMatch doesn't have a forum for Bugs).

It's a question of what suits you best. They can both handle large databases of large images very well.

1245

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 02, 2010, 08:16 AM »

I tried to use the "Move to folder..." feature in the right-click menu but the resultant dialog said it was going to automatically resize the images in order to move them. Why?!?! And there was no way to deselect that - I could change the new size and/or the method used to resize it but I didn't want the damn image resized! So I thought that perhaps the image was too large for the program, that maybe the program has a size limit on images. (Though my images don’t generally exceed about 2272 x 1704 x 24 px).

-J-Mac (April 01, 2010, 02:06 PM)

I've just tried this with a much bigger image - no offer to resize at all; worked very straightforwardly.

1246

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 02, 2010, 08:05 AM »

E.g., double-clicking a thumbnail, as in most image/photo apps, opens a window with a larger view of that image. This worked the first few times I used it but then all of a sudden I was getting what appeared to be a blank window - no image at all showing in it. After I stopped muttering all kinds of unkind words to the program (Yes, I do talk to programs when they drive me to it!) I noticed that the window was actually a "recipe" window; turns out that whenever you open a large image view like this it usually has a recipe sidebar (for lack of a better way to put it) on the right-hand side. Well for whatever reason the blank recipe window (since I have created no recipes) had taken over that whole window, squeezing the actual image window down to about 2 pixels wide. Once I grabbed the left edge of the blank recipe pane with my mouse and drug it over to the right I could see the image. Why did it do that?

-J-Mac (April 02, 2010, 12:51 AM)

Not sure what is going on here. There's a lot of panels that open on the right side, but they have always stayed where they are put for me.

If you are having a few problems where the program isn't working normally (always difficult to know when it is a new program for you), then you would really need Hert to address it, and he does seem to be away at the moment. Even if you don't, I will keep an eye out for his return (after Easter maybe?) and then direct him to the relevant threads. I've always found himvery responsive (well, I've only made one request to him directly - asking for a feature to be added - and he had a script for it within a few days).

1247

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 02, 2010, 07:53 AM »

Of course, that is when you do the View Details view.
Further down the View menu, there is Show the Image Details, which brings up the whole EXIF panel on the right hand side - which does include the dimension details amongst a host of other stuff if you have the Full Exif or with just a few bits of basic info if you have the Exif Summary. This only applies to the chosen image of course - but it comes up very fast.

You can also sort the image display by dimensions (amongst many other choices), if that would be helpful.

1248

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 02, 2010, 07:38 AM »

Now see, I am not seeing that here.

-J-Mac (April 02, 2010, 12:51 AM)

This is what you should see:-

1249

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 01, 2010, 03:25 PM »

I guess that you can see I can't really discuss this program right now without getting frustrated all over again! Not worth the aggravation!

-J-Mac (April 01, 2010, 02:06 PM)

I really feel your pain. And feel guilty, since I feel I tipped you in the IDI direction at the beginning.

1250

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« on: April 01, 2010, 03:23 PM »

Unfortunately they have made it complex needlessly in many areas it seems. Category labels and keywords should not be that difficult to assign! And "synchronizing with XMP" is just crazy! Took the program three full days and nights to "sync" my ~20,000 images - and I don’t use the XMP format!

-J-Mac (April 01, 2010, 02:06 PM)

I'm not sure about needlessly complex - there are always people that want and are using the extra complexity or ways of doing things that the program allows. It is slow to get stuff in, but I've found that to be the case with most of these complex image programs (simple ones tend to be very fast) - but once it is in, it has always been pretty easy and fast to keep up-to-date. Once you know what you are doing and how to make it work the way you want. And that is a burdensome learning curve.