Thank you for the clarification, Hert!

R. Neil Haugen

IdImager - 5 is not going to be "updated" from what it is now ... no further bug-fixes, "dot" releases, or camera's added to the list.

PhotoSupreme, the new product, is a much 'lighter' featured DAM ... yet ... due to the howls of many of the IdI base, Hert is bringing some of the capabilities of IdImager-5 up to PhoSup.

What PhoSup does, it does FAST. Importing of say, 50k files, something that would have taken a day or so with IdI-5, takes a matter of minutes for many of the users reporting on the forums there. And some of the 'lost' capabilities, enterprising individuals have found how to get PhoSup to accomplish, though in ways that Hert said would have been considered a "bug" as the  options that accomplished these things WEREN'T planned to work that way. However, as the "base" LIKES it doing X instead of the Y Hert thought it would ... he's leaving them, and there's been a couple chuckles about "bugs" becoming "features".

That said, PhoSup is a far more limited product, if vastly easier to understand and vastly faster in operation.

Things left out ... like a "file manager" capability, to move files through your computer system within PhoSup (yes, that was a conscious planned deletion of capability for some odd reason!) forcing the user to move the files outside of PhoSup, then MANUALLY re-connect them to PhoSup, have irritated enough people that Hert is not insisting that is a forever-dead capability. I 'spect it will come back at some point in PhoSup.

Also, the lack of IdI-5's "Version Detectioning Wizard" ... a wonderful capability to connect as Versions all the derivative files of an image, has received a LOT of complaints. Some of the folk trying out PhoSup have found that it's manual capabilities are actually greater that Hert thought they were, in as far as being able to accept the user's instruction that these files were to be considered versions of the same file. It's not clear to me yet how FAR that ability goes, and further ... bringing in 20 to 50 clients in a group into the program, then having to MANUALLY hunt through every client in both original and derivative folders/trees and then "connect" the found files through a series of actions ... over and over again  ... is a HUGE chore, inviting of mistakes and errors and omissions.

The last thing I'll mention, is the current inability to upload to file-sharing sites from within PhoSup. It's not something we've done much of, yet for many both pro and amateurs, this is a HUGE part of their normal workflow. IdI-5 had an extensive capability to create custom frames for your images and upload them to specific sites with specific instructions in batches. As much attention as THIS has received on the IdImager/PhoSup boards, I do suspect Hert will try to remedy this paucity and that right soon.

So ... PhoSup is a somewhat limited if blazing fast DAM program. It's getting more capability practically by the day. Will it eventually get to be a major-featured program? Certainly hope so. The interface is said to be MUCH better and easier to navigate than IdI-5, and that's good ... and I certainly wouldn't mind a program that works far faster than IdI-5 does.

Neil

Photo Supreme ... which is the new product from IdImager ... and isn't quite yet "supreme" in my view ... is becoming somewhat better tooled. Due to the MANY complaints on the PhoSup and IdI forums, Hert has already brought some functionality back to PhoSup that it didn't originally have. So ... that is looking not quite so woeful as late last week.

Still, PhoSup is missing two things that my business NEEDS ... any ability to migrate files within your computer system within PhoSup and the wonderful Version Detectioning Wizard in IdImager-5 Pro.

The first ... having to go outside PhoSup to move your files with some system or other software, go back to PhoSup and do a manual re-connect is a ton of work, and simply BEGS for mistakes and lost files to result.

The second ... in a business with a TON of derivative files, and the need to track originals/multiple-derivatives ... well, it's huge for us. We've used Lr for "basic" RAW processing/tracking within the computer that each of us does our main work in, and then transfer the files to the archives system after we've delivered the client's work. In batches. So, say, twenty to fifty clients worth of work, MANY gigs total, originals and derivatives each with their own "home" ... manually connecting all of those is again, fraught with error and mislaying of files, partly due to the obvious problems ... and partly due to needing to have this done by employee-types, rather than my spending two days doing it when I NEED to be doing other 'more valuable' work.

There are some other issues with PhoSup, such as the lack of decent capability for uploading to 'net services, such as Flickr, SmugMug, etc. We've just started prepping to do that, so up till now that's not something that would be a big issue. For others, this was an IMMEDIATE problem ... IdImager had the tools to make custom frames for your images suited to the particular service to which you uploaded files, so it was great for those what do so. I can't imagine Hert will let this go much longer ... sales of PhoSup seem to be doing good BUT a lot of the dedicated amateurs that are (I think) the main intended clients are addicted to photo-sharing sites. That will (if not aleady) become a hot-button updating issue.

Past the above, those that are trying PhoSup having come from IdImager-5 Pro have commented that it can 'import' 50k images in minutes, not the couple days that IdImager would have taken. MANY of the features it does have 'occur' at near-lightning speed, so that is quite a good thing.

Neil

I've liked IDimager myself ... but as of today, it's dead software ... no further support. Narrows the field a bit ...

Neil

Hert posted a forum response today over on the IDimager forums that as of today, September 18, IDimager is no longer supported. No bug fixes, no RAW file upgrades/updates, nada.

So ... one less program to consider. Sadly

Neil

Hert has been quite strident that the release of "PhotoSupreme" and it's other amateur-related apps would have no effect on IDimager. They were for a different market, don't worry. IDimager 6 is still being developed.

Until today.

He simply responded to a post buried in a long thread that as of today, IDimager is discontinued and no longer supported. No bug-fixes, no RAW file updates, nothing.

Except they are going to keep the IDimager5 forum up for all the wonderful help the other users can be. How nice of him.

Neil

Thank you, John ... you are always so politely willing to answer questions!

I've only got one right now ... you note that {IPTC title} is part of your naming regimen, do you actually put an individual title in there, or did you populate that from the original camera-title like some people do?

Neil

Thanks, John. Are you manually "loading" your buckets or have you found something to do it by wondrous computer logic?

(I always have questions available, you know ...   )

Neil

I would think that down in the "Workflow" area of the LR metadata window, "Job Identifier" would be what you are looking for. Or you could "hijack" a field from say, IPTC or Image, such as "Headline" or "Intellectual category" ... most photographers shooting for clients (like our portrait studio) don't bother putting anything in those fields ...

Neil

Hmm ... just went to their website, and like SO much computer gobble-dee-gook, knew no more AFTER reading their stuff than before. It's supposed to help "connect" DAM programs with CS-suite programs ... like, um, how, in plain Americansk, and um ... what programs?

Geepers.

Neil

Am I correct that by "both sets" you mean "original" dng's and derivatives, or do you mean original NEF's and DNG's? With derivative tiff's in their own buckets?

Neil

Brian,

Just to go a bit further than Destry's comments, at first we all tend to think we need to "file" anything we've made ... and um ... rather soon (especially for active pro or amateur shooters) ... you end up with a billion bits of image files. And then realize you don't really, REALLY need to keep all of 'em. So the question is almost more of where to draw the bright-line in choosing to keep them, rather than how to file them all ...

I must admit, getting the missus to adopt this (we're both pro portrait photogs) ... has been difficult. It's that whole thing of letting go your "children", you know? Or even worse, willfully destroying them! But really, ALL those extraneous derivatives are just that ... extraneous. And they take up WAY TOO MUCH TIME if you try to track them all!

So ... the derivatives worth keeping and tracking are of course the "original" (no matter the shooting format); any major-working of the image, and we may have several different major treatments through p-shop, though oft only one (and I'm finally getting the missus to be willing to leave these fully layered, in case we wish to re-visit); and any re-sized image that we prepped for printing, and these only because we often do a bit more on them after re-sizing. Hard-drive space is cheap these days, so if we've put work in it, we keep it.

EVERYTHING else ... web-jpg's for client viewing, email use, whatnot ... can easily and quickly be re-created at need. So ... you may want to temporarily keep some of these in some kind of "temp" folder arrangement, where you know EVERYTHING in there is a knock-off derivative and of no intrinsic value ... no need to even back 'em up. But they can be handy within a couple weeks or so of the original use of these ... after that, they tend to be space-takers and that's about it.

So Destry's comments about routinely cleaning out the temp folders is most apropos.

Neil

Hmmm ... I'd think the stand-alone DNG converter would work great for your purposes ... wouldn't have to take the time to 'import' into Lightroom at this point, and still (as noted in that wonderful book) you can use the DNG converter to also check for file validity ... though using something like Adobe Bridge to simply browse your conversions to make sure the images a good is wise.

Well ... just think, you might actually be done for Halloween!     

My ... this sounds like such a joy.

Oh wow ... don't you love surprises? Keep posting, interesting to hear of your progress!

Neil