O/T: Nibbling on an Apple

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

why would you do what? why would you recopy them? because if you change
one the others are now out of sync.

I sometimes send a copy to a different folder for a specific reason.
There is no reason to keep that copy in sync with the original.

For example, I have a folder titled Upload CandF. If I edit an image
that I will post in a forum like DigitalGrin or a competition like
Shoot-In, I send a copy of the final edit to that folder. It makes it
easy to find when I want to upload it and gives me a record of what
I've used in that forum or competition. I'm not going to re-edit that
image unless someone wants to see a different version. In that case,
I re-edit the .psd in the original file and send the new version to
that folder. I don't want to over-write the original.

Wow, that has got to be one of the most complicated workflows I've ever
seen.

suppose you go to france and take a photo of your wife in front of the
eiffel tower with a nice sunset. that is three categories right there.
photos in france, photos of your wife and sunset photos. your way would
be to make 3 folders with a copy of the photo in each. if a photo has
multiple people or fits multiple categories, then it's even more
copies. that's insanity.

What's that got to do with me?

It's a generic scenario that is meant to illustrate a common need for
people that have a desire to organize their photos.
Just because it doesn't specifically mention your wife by name or the
last city you visited doesn't mean it can't be applied to your
horrendous workflow above.

In the case above, the photo would be in Lightroom with whatever
keywords I assign to it. One photo is all that's needed.

You do know what Lightroom is, don't you? And how keywords work?

You do know that Lightroom uses a *DATABASE*, do you? You just proved
the entire point.

It sounds like you do a lot of things more complicated than necessary
and you need some computer crutch to allow you to do these things.

nonsense.

That you would even think the three photos in your example would be
needed shows that you do.

Incorrect. If the file system is all that you have then three files is
what you'd be required to do (or create aliases, but it's the same
manual work). The very fact that you just exposed that you DO use a
database to circumvent the limitations of the file system is exactly the
point,

it sounds like you're stuck with the limitations that a file system
imparts and don't understand that there are much easier and better ways
to do things as well as being able to do many more things that were not
previously possible.

Learn about what the Lightroom Library module and keywording works and
you won't be thinking of such ridiculous examples.

Ironic.

i brought it up because music is an *excellent* example how technology
has advanced beyond the limitations of directly accessing it in the
file system. photos are getting there.

Once again, you apply your own needs to other people without any
consideration of what their needs and interests are. Music is *not*
an excellent example to people who don't listen to music using their
iPad.

But it *IS* an excellent example of how the computing world is moving
*away* from direct file access. As is Adobe Lightroom, ironically.

you are fixated with the past and want to remain with those
limitations. fortunately, the rest of the world enjoys the additional
features and capabilities and ease of doing things that once required
more work.

Why is it "fortunate" that other people see needs for their devices
that I don't see?

You do see it. You use Lightroom.

The fact that I don't see a need for certain things
doesn't affect anyone else in any way.

The fact that you use Lightroom to circumvent the limitations of the
filesystem shows 100% that you see a need for this "certain thing".

No wonder you were in my killfile *rolleye*




--
Sandman[.net]

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 01:31:20 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I suppose what you've said
means something to some people, but I put the same image in several
folders by using "Copy to:".

no, you made a copy. now you have *two* (or more) photos, one in each
folder.

Yes, I understood that from the get-go.

apparently not, based on what you've written.

you *cannot* have one photo in more than one folder. it is *not*
possible.

worse, *you* have to manage it. if you change one photo, you then have
to then re-copy them to all of the other folders, assuming you remember
where they all were.

Why would I do that?

why would you do what? why would you recopy them? because if you change
one the others are now out of sync.


I sometimes send a copy to a different folder for a specific reason.
There is no reason to keep that copy in sync with the original.

For example, I have a folder titled Upload CandF. If I edit an image
that I will post in a forum like DigitalGrin or a competition like
Shoot-In, I send a copy of the final edit to that folder. It makes it
easy to find when I want to upload it and gives me a record of what
I've used in that forum or competition. I'm not going to re-edit that
image unless someone wants to see a different version. In that case,
I re-edit the .psd in the original file and send the new version to
that folder. I don't want to over-write the original.


suppose you go to france and take a photo of your wife in front of the
eiffel tower with a nice sunset. that is three categories right there.
photos in france, photos of your wife and sunset photos. your way would
be to make 3 folders with a copy of the photo in each. if a photo has
multiple people or fits multiple categories, then it's even more
copies. that's insanity.

What's that got to do with me? What you do is apply your own system
to other people's system with a total lack of understanding of how
they use their system. Consequently, your comments make little sense
and are usually totally off-base.

In the case above, the photo would be in Lightroom with whatever
keywords I assign to it. One photo is all that's needed.

You do know what Lightroom is, don't you? And how keywords work?

It sounds like you do a lot of things more complicated than necessary
and you need some computer crutch to allow you to do these things.

nonsense.

That you would even think the three photos in your example would be
needed shows that you do.

it sounds like you're stuck with the limitations that a file system
imparts and don't understand that there are much easier and better ways
to do things as well as being able to do many more things that were not
previously possible.

Learn about what the Lightroom Library module and keywording works and
you won't be thinking of such ridiculous examples.


I understand my system. You are a hater of good systems. A systems
basher.

you don't understand it as well anywhere near as well as you think you
do, and i don't hate anything, nor was i bashing systems.

You have proven yourself to be a file system hater and a basher. In
fact, you have become an Apple basher and hater because you are
criticizing the use of the product if no apps are added. You may have
your Apple Kool-Aid subscription cancelled.

you are once again lying and twisting, trying to change this into
something it isn't.

What is it? Isn't it part of a long-running series of comments from
you that I don't do what you do or what you suggest and that this
indicates that I am mired in the primordial soup of anti-technology?
And, that I am saying that I am doing exactly what works for me?
What am I trying to change?


I don't have music on my iPad unless it was pre-loaded from the
source. I haven't bothered to look.

Why are you nattering on about music? Who brought that up?

i brought it up because music is an *excellent* example how technology
has advanced beyond the limitations of directly accessing it in the
file system. photos are getting there.

Once again, you apply your own needs to other people without any
consideration of what their needs and interests are. Music is *not*
an excellent example to people who don't listen to music using their
iPad.

but must have known that, because you 'understood it from the get-go'.
i guess you didn't understand anything.

you are fixated with the past and want to remain with those
limitations. fortunately, the rest of the world enjoys the additional
features and capabilities and ease of doing things that once required
more work.

Why is it "fortunate" that other people see needs for their devices
that I don't see? The fact that I don't see a need for certain things
doesn't affect anyone else in any way.

Well, except you. You are constantly in a state of frenzy because I
don't do what you do or what you think I should do, but no one else is
affected. The future of app developers is safe and secure without my
participation.

You are evidently under the impression that everyone else except me
(cf: "the rest of the world") is embracing every new technological
advance. Do you realize that there are millions of people who think
"Apple" is only the name of something to make pies from?

Take another airplane ride, nospam. You might find your "market
survey" will show that there are a few people on that airplane who
don't even own a mobile phone, let alone an iPad or other brand
tablet. Try not to faint from shock.

I hate to tell the iContingent but NTFS lets you assign keywords to
files directly. Right click on the filename and pick "properties" then
"details". The options available depend on the file type.

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Take another airplane ride, nospam. You might find your "market
survey" will show that there are a few people on that airplane who
don't even own a mobile phone, let alone an iPad or other brand
tablet. Try not to faint from shock.

I hate to tell the iContingent but NTFS lets you assign keywords to
files directly. Right click on the filename and pick "properties" then
"details". The options available depend on the file type.

I hate to tell you, but NTFS doesn't have support for keywords, and the
keyword options in Windows is the same as the "Spotlight comment" in
OSX, it's saved in a filesystem-external database.

Here's some more info about NTFS:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l...0%29.aspx#w2k3
tr_ntfs_how_rxtc



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Wow, that has got to be one of the most complicated workflows I've ever
seen.

I know, I know.

Good.

It takes seconds to accomplish. Sometimes - oh, ten
or twelve seconds - of backbreaking labor. I guess it could seem
complicated to some people. Let's see, right click, copy to, navigate
to folder, click, done. You might need notes to keep all of that
straight.

It's a mess.

It only applies to those images for which I have a need to do it.

Uh, yeah? Do you think any task applies to images that doesn't need to
have that task applied to it? What's the purpose of the above remark?
You'd have to be a blithering idiot to have a task that you have to
apply to ALL images or not at all.

Just for ****s and giggles, I'll reveal another horrendous workflow
practice of mine. All images are uploaded from the SD card to a file
designated by month. Today, it's 2013-08-RAW. Bridge automatically
puts each day's output in a sub-folder by date (ie: 20120807). I
allow Bridge to number them up from DSC_xxxx_xxxx.

I then go through that sub-folder and delete the obvious no-keepers. I
then re-number the rest 2013-08-07-001 and up. I then make a second
pass through the folder and rate the keepers. Some will be kept, but
nothing further done to them since they don't appear to have great
interest.

Wow. By now my brain would be hemorrhaging from all the unnecessary crap
it is being forced to do.

The better ones (assuming there is a better one, or are a few better
ones) are then opened in the CS6 RAW converter, edited in CS6, and
saved as .psds. They are then cropped and saved as .jpgs for web use
or printing.

My GOD.

Now - get this, it will shock and dismay you - the .jpgs are moved to
a 2013-08-JPG folder. (I could save-as directly to the folder, but
this increases navigation time.) This allows a quick glance through
one folder at the keepers to see if I want to copy them in the
Lightroom file, copy them in some other special folder, or add them to
my iPad.

THE HUMANITY.

Only jpgs are in Lightroom since I don't edit in Lightroom. The file
name, though, tells me where to find the .psd or RAW image if I want
to do something with it in the future.

AAAAAAARRRRRRGH!!!!!! WORST WORKFLOW EVER INVENTED BY A HUMAN BEING

Now...what's your workflow?

Import using Aperture to an existing or new project. Using minus and
plus keys to rate images, smart folder that shows my favorites.
Automatic tagging of RAW files, and automatic version handling for
specific purposes (i.e. I want a Flickr version of this image (alt-G),
edit using Aperture or Photoshop or any other app, share to FLickr with
one click.

Smart folder created for favorites of that particular shoot (or for
several shoots), export command for web versions on the fly for whatever
thumbs I currently have selected.

The same can be done in Lightroom, of course. Using files and folders in
the horrendous way you do isn't just 1980, it's worse.

It's a generic scenario that is meant to illustrate a common need for
people that have a desire to organize their photos.
Just because it doesn't specifically mention your wife by name or the
last city you visited doesn't mean it can't be applied to your
horrendous workflow above.

But is isn't my scenario.

I just said that, Sherlock. Read the words above.

Why bring it up to convince me of something?

I find it hard to believe anyone would set out to convince you of
anything. The discussion isn't about you though, it's about file system
versus database.

Even so, it is not any kind of generic or common scenario.

Yes it is.

To be a generic scenario, it has to be relating to a whole group or
class.

As it does.

That's what "generic" is.

Exactly.

You think there's some whole group or class out there that creates
three files as described above?

Sigh. Maybe English just is a third or fourth language to you? The
scenario was this:

"suppose you go to france and take a photo of your wife in front of
the eiffel tower with a nice sunset. that is three categories right
there. photos in france, photos of your wife and sunset photos."

nospam then used YOUR system and applied that to the generic scenario:

"your way would be to make 3 folders with a copy of the photo in
each"

And your workflow above reinforces this.

You do know that Lightroom uses a *DATABASE*, do you? You just proved
the entire point.

Yes, I do. What it proves is that I use the system that works the
best for the application. I use a folder/file system for general
storage and Lightroom for retrieving photos by keyword.

*rolleye* You use a database to circumvent the limitations of the file
system, which is the entire point.

then three files is what you'd be required to do (or create aliases,
but it's the same manual work). The very fact that you just exposed
that you DO use a database to circumvent the limitations of the file
system is exactly the point,

I haven't "just exposed" anything. I've been using Lightroom for
several years and made many mentions of it here.

I've had you killfiled, remember?

But it *IS* an excellent example of how the computing world is moving
*away* from direct file access. As is Adobe Lightroom, ironically.

That is, as you so frequently say, irrelevant.

Incorrect.

The fact that you use Lightroom to circumvent the limitations of the
filesystem shows 100% that you see a need for this "certain thing".

What I subscribe to is using what benefits me and eschewing what I
don't see as a benefit to me. Anyway, the "certain things" are apps
for the iPad.

What benefit you and you alone is totally irrelevant to anyone but you,
so I have no idea why you keep telling us about it?

No wonder you were in my killfile *rolleye*

Were? What unfortunate change of circumstances let me out?

A backup restoration of my dropbox folder, which contained the newsrc
file for my newsreader.

(As if I'd ever been there in the first place. You are too
egotistical to have really killfiled me. You want to know if I've
talking about you.)

Wtf? You don't know the first thing about me. I had you killfiled for
quite a while and the group became a rather pleasant place again. When I
saw that your posts popped up I thought I may give you the benefit of a
doubt and a second chance. Great work in showing me just why I had you
killfiled.

What's with "*rolleye*"? I dunno about Sweden, but in the US that's
something small children do when presented with a parental command to
do something they don't want to do...like "Put away the Legos and go
take your nap". We grow out of that here.

http://english.stackexchange.com/que...-roll-your-eye
s-mean

You're welcome.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article 2013080706073955640-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

it's not a file system. it's a database.

The database won't work without a file system.

A database is a file system.

no it isn't. it's a database.

In article 2013080706162010679-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

You're not as hostile as usual. Did you take "be nice" pills recently.

He isn't responding to you or Tony.

that too.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

You're not as hostile as usual. Did you take "be nice" pills recently.

i was waiting for your idiotic and inane comments to let loose. i
didn't need to wait too long but they weren't as stupid as usual. you
disappointed me.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

If you said you had folders full of files, nospam would argue that you
had files full of folders.

definitely not. more stupid comments.

In article , Sandman
wrote:

i don't assume anything. however, making things easier is something all
users want. except maybe you.

Do you know his needs? You can't suggest how to make things easier,
unless you understand the user's needs. One size does not fit all.

Well, using a database is most certainly a superset of using the
filesystem. Everything you do in your file system can be done with the
database approach and more. So generally speaking you most certainly
cold make the claim that a solid database application would make it
easier for everyone, even if they currently can't see any use outside of
their current system.

exactly.

if they want to be limited to what a file system can do, they can still
do that, but if they want to avail themselves of additional
functionality, which *does* make things easier, they can do that too.

Think of it as Adobe Bridge vs Adobe Lightroom. In Bridge, what you see
and handle are files in the filesystem, while in Adobe Lightroom, you
manage the database that in turn point to files kept inside the
Lightroom Catalog structure that you don't have to deal with at any
point.

yep.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

users want to access *content*. where that content is does not matter.
it might not even be on their device.

If the content I need is "what to do when the power goes out," I want it
on my device, so I can access it while I still have battery power.

what's your point?

get a ups if power outages are an issue, or plan ahead and get what you
need before the power goes out.

or just move to where power outages aren't a serious problem.