Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
4 problems with II
The DAM Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 21, 2020, 09:13:28 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
28033 Posts in 5147 Topics by 2903 Members
Latest Member: kbroch
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  The DAM Forum
|-+  Software Discussions
| |-+  ImageIngester and ImageVerifier
| | |-+  4 problems with II
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: 4 problems with II  (Read 10032 times)
jeremyrh
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


View Profile
« on: July 20, 2006, 04:59:53 AM »

Hi:

After reading a lot of good things about Image Ingester, I gave it a try, downloading the latest non-pro beta. However, I ran into 4 problems. Some of these may be due to an error behind the keyboard, but maybe someone can help find which?

1. It requires an image filename with 3 segments, eg datetime_text_number. I want a filename with datetime_text. I don't shoot multiple images per second, so for me the number is useless.

2. The download was quick but then it took so long copying files from place to place that I killed it.

3. When it found that a directory already existed with the name it planned to use, it just wrote into it, instead of creating a new one. Naughty!!

4. The DNG conversion step is in the wrong place in the workflow (for me, anyway). I use DNG conversion to verify my ANNOTATED NEF files, after annotation in iVMP, to check the "iView corrupts NEF files" nasty.

Any comments?

cheers,

J;
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2006, 06:32:36 AM »

Jeremy,
1. Check Pro, it has more robust naming, but maybe still not what you want.
2. Pro also seems to be much quicker (or in any case is quicker than the test I gave a few weeks ago to the non-pro).
3. Did it overwrite files, or just drop them into the directory?  With limited testing, I'm finding that I like what it can in terms of folder nesting.
4.  DNG conversion is also at the wrong step for me, but for some shoots, I'll use if for file integrity confirmation.  There are a number of times in the llifecycle of an image you might want to run DNG converter to check file integrity.  I think the iView problem was fixed.  BTW, as I understand it, this came from official Nikon libraries that Nikon failed to update upon changing the file structure.  (This kind of sloppiness is one of the reasons I don't trust Nikon to be anything like an archival format).
Peter
Logged
jeremyrh
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2006, 06:44:41 AM »

Peter:

Thanks for your reply. I'll give the Pro version a whirl.

It didn't overwrite any files (you'd have heard me hollering if it had :-) but dropped them in a pre-existing directory.

Thanks also for the info about NEF annotations. I don't think I trust Nikon either, but I'm not sure who I *do* trust! (I know what you're going to say ... :-)
Logged
danaltick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1616

evaa-xdtb@spamex.com danaltick
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2006, 08:26:44 AM »

Guess I'll give Pro a try.  I use the DNG verify only option on ingestion without doing the actual conversion.  Peter, do you feel this is not necessary because it does slow down the ingestion.  I just thought the verification would be worth it, but maybe not.

Dan
Logged

WindowsXP, ImageIngester Pro, RapidFixer, IVMP 3, ACR4, Photoshop CS4, Controlled Keyword Catalog, Canon EOS50D
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2006, 09:27:58 AM »

Jeremy,
Well, I trust what I can check, and since the DNG has openly documented metadata storage...


Dan,
I would use the confirm feature when it makes sense, a high-value shoot where you could actually do something about it if there was a problem.
Peter
Logged
jeremyrh
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2006, 06:43:09 AM »

Thanks for your reply. I'll give the Pro version a whirl.

Well, I did give Pro a whirl, and it does allow more flexible naming, but frankly, fifty bucks .... ??
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2006, 06:57:53 AM »

Jeremy,
Did you look at all the features?  Particularly the database and checklist, plus all the card and project remembering features.  Don't take this the wrong way, but we definitely have different perspectives on this, due to the nature of our work (pro vs personal work).  I hire a skilled assistant to do this work on location, and it is a time-comsuming process that requires the attention of a detail-oriented and skilled person to accomplish.  I pay $50 extra *each shoot* for the ability to trust someone to do this.

I would love to free Darren up from having to babysit this process, and let him spend more time helping me.

And even for personal work, this would pay for itself pretty quickly.  While in Europe, I shot 5000 images. Babysitting this process (download, backup, rename, apply metadata template, apply camera raw defaults) took more than 5 hours.  It would have easily been worth $50 not to have to spend my vacation doing these chores.  Not to mention the peace of mind in having a permanent record of all downloads automatically generated.

Peter

Logged
danaltick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1616

evaa-xdtb@spamex.com danaltick
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2006, 07:34:12 AM »

Unfortunately no Windows version yet.  Hopefully soon.

Dan
Logged

WindowsXP, ImageIngester Pro, RapidFixer, IVMP 3, ACR4, Photoshop CS4, Controlled Keyword Catalog, Canon EOS50D
jeremyrh
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2006, 10:24:46 AM »

Jeremy,
Did you look at all the features?  Particularly the database and checklist, plus all the card and project remembering features.  Don't take this the wrong way, but we definitely have different perspectives on this, due to the nature of our work (pro vs personal work).  I hire a skilled assistant to do this work on location, and it is a time-comsuming process that requires the attention of a detail-oriented and skilled person to accomplish.  I pay $50 extra *each shoot* for the ability to trust someone to do this.

I would love to free Darren up from having to babysit this process, and let him spend more time helping me.

And even for personal work, this would pay for itself pretty quickly.  While in Europe, I shot 5000 images. Babysitting this process (download, backup, rename, apply metadata template, apply camera raw defaults) took more than 5 hours.  It would have easily been worth $50 not to have to spend my vacation doing these chores.  Not to mention the peace of mind in having a permanent record of all downloads automatically generated.

Peter

No problem - if it meets your requirements, obviously go for it - in your context 50 bucks may be good value. As you say, our perspectives differ.

The price seems excessive to me from the point of view of what IIPro does compared with what free utilities do, what other non-free utilities do, and what other programmes for a similar price do (compare, say Graphic Converter).
Logged
danaltick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1616

evaa-xdtb@spamex.com danaltick
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2006, 10:54:19 AM »

Jeremy,

II Pro really fallls into the niche category for professionals with a smaller market.  Given that, $50 is not a bad deal; especially considering I just paid over $300 for another niche photography business software package.  I can certainly see how it's features would pay dividends for a high-volume media photographer.  I have not come across any other ingestion software that has all these capabilities; and all of which have a useful purpose.

Dan
Logged

WindowsXP, ImageIngester Pro, RapidFixer, IVMP 3, ACR4, Photoshop CS4, Controlled Keyword Catalog, Canon EOS50D
Mike Guilbault
Full Member
***
Posts: 226


mike.guilbault
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2006, 05:13:39 AM »

It didn't overwrite any files (you'd have heard me hollering if it had :-) but dropped them in a pre-existing directory.

Actually, I like the ability to drop into an existing folder without having to create a dummy folder and transfer the files later.  For me this works great with certain workflows.  I have several recurring jobs that I have set up to download to the same folder each time.
Logged

Marc Rochkind
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1136


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2006, 05:38:36 PM »

[Back from vacation.]

Jeremy (and others)--

An interesting thread!

$50 is indeed too much for what you get with ImageIngesterPro as it stands now, which is the main reason why it's actually $0, a 100% discount. My aim is to get it to the point when it is considered to be cheap or just right at $50 by, say, 80% of the target market, with 20% thinking it's too expensive. However, all that is in the future.

The free ImageIngester beta and the Pro version have a MUCH faster copying approach, as someone noted in the thread.

The Pro version will have a very flexible file-naming approach that will do essentially anything you want. The current 4-component, drop-down list is going to be completely scrapped in favor of a string of characters with embedded macros for year, month, sequence number, client, card, camera, etc., etc. There will be several dozen macros.

DNG conversion is in the wrong place according to The DAM Book. You can run it for verification only (slows down the processing, though), or just skip it. However, DNG conversion at ingestion time works fine for photographers with low volumes, as the increased time to keep the preview up to date isn't significant.

As far as folders go: For Date, Client, Project, and Destination, using the existing folder is what I intended. However, an image will never be overwritten, even if the names would be the same. A suffix is added if necessary.

For Number-Range folders, you are guaranteeed a fresh folder for each ingestion (maybe more than one, if the folders are scattered by date), with a suffix added if necessary.

--Marc
Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!