Batch convert output directory


Posting rules: It shouldn't need saying, but... play nice. Please keep your discussions civil. You can disagree, just don't be disagreeable. And, of course, all of the usual stuff like no spamming. Tex adds: I'll be rigorously enforcing this as we go along. We're probably going to be a small community in a little lifeboat, so we can't have members at each others' throats. This is for the sake of the project as a whole. So when you post, pretend you're speaking in person with your very wealthy auntie who has always treated you wonderfully and currently lists you prominently in her will. I won't be tossing anyone out of the forums because we are all in this together (except spammers: immediate membership cancelation), but I'll delete suspect posts right away.


12 posts / 0 new
Last post
lintujuh
Batch convert output directory

In the preferences there is the "Save to Folder" option, where it possible to select the original folder of the image or the most recent one. This applies only to the _lzn.jpg files, not to the final image you create with the "Convert" command. "Convert" uses the most recent folder. It would be nice if the same (or an additional) option would control the final output folder. I have several times moved the output files with filemanger from the wrong folder to the right one.

 

-Juha

SFA
Juha,

Juha,

 

Both of the Convert options (Different interface depending on whether you are calling it when in Edit mode for a single image or from Browser mode for batching images) offer the ability to select where you wish to place the final output files. Both retain their own 'last used folder' values and so can point to different places. However although the options are functional I have never found them elegant and more often than not I forget to change the target folder to the one I wish to use or create.

 

That said I don't use Convert on a daily basis and so I guess I have never really developed the 'automatic' procedural steps that one starts to follow if using something regularly. So like you I mostly end up moving output from where it is to where I wanted it to be. Of course I have to find the output files first ....    ;)

 

I suspect that the concept as implemented works quite well if using LZ as a plugin type resource for another workflow step. Sending always to a default folder is very easy.

 

It is less user friendly if you are treating each shoot (or similar) as a project that should have its own output folder(s). LZ can be happily operated that way but you always have to think about what you are doing during the Convert (or Send) process if unneccesary process steps  are to be avoided.

 

Or so I find.

 

 

HTH.

 

 

 

Grant

 

 

 

 

 

 

lintujuh
Grant

Grant,

I hadn't notice that there are two "Convert" dialogues. The preferences affects to that one, that is available in the Edit mode, but not to the dialogue that is used in Browse mode. I'd like the preferences also control the dialogue in Browse mode. I want to store the outputs into the same folder where I have the RAWs so making the dialogue to default to the current directory would save me from some stupid errors. Though I'm used to the current logic in the batch convert as Canon's DPP also defaults to the most recently used save folder for batch operations and not the current one.

 

-Juha

 

SFA
Juha,

Juha,

 

I'm not so keen on saving output files to the same folder as source files. Here's why:

 

Firstly the outputs have a different purpose. I would prefer that they have their own folder or folders although I lke those to be within an overall folder structure that both separates and groups images by something logical. As an extension of that idea I think many people like to work with a specific output location that creates their library of completed work in a known place.

 

Secondly the outputs, whether jpg or tiff, may be easily confused with the lzn edit files.

 

Thirdly it clutters up the folder for no good reason that could not be done better (I will explain shortly) with some simple structuring of folders. By default LZ will want to add a preview of your output files duplicating the number of files in the "folder" and probably having a negative effect of some sort on system performance. Remember that at this time the Java tech available has limitation on how much memory it can address.

 

Fourthly ... I think there are better way of doing it within LZ although that might not be something that easily carries over to all external DAM tools.

 

My personal preference would be for a default assumption of a "Converted" folder (Or "Outputs" if you prefer) to be created in the Source file folder whenever anything is converted. (The same for "Send" too.) That way you always know where things are going to go if you forget to place them somewhere else! It also makes a complete backup or a selective backup relatively easy. I would assume that most DAM applications could be made to function well enough with such a structure. Further separation within the outputs folder should also be possible.

 

That would be a basic approach of course and probably possible without too much development work. There would be nothing to stop people changing the default location for output of course although to maintain a local default would require some sort of settings file for the source folder. That might prove a little more complex than desirable without taking things one or two steps further.

 

Taking those further steps might lead to something similar to the "Sessions" concept that can be found in Capture One - or at least some parts of it to provide a basic level of functionality.

 

It seems inappropriate to describe it in detail here but in outline a Session is a folder system (or collection of folders) that has a file cross-referencing database (to link the source file to the edit/sidecars and preview, etc.) and an underlying folder structure that includes  "Selects", "Trash" and "Output" folders ready and waiting when the session is set up. (Also a "Captures" folder if the session relates to a tethered shoot with images being downloaded directly fomr the camera.)

 

All of that is by default and the user can change what they wish to change within that concept or ignore it completely if they wish. The session control file will retain their values for future visits.

 

For output purposes each session defaults to its own output folder initially but the user can change that. As a concept that is similar to LZ EXCEPT that LZ does not have a local default as the standard option.

 

I should mention that the Capture One Session concept starts with a Session folder and then subfolders for everything else including imported image folder(s). However it also allows for the use of folders anywhere on the "system" to be referenced and the contents used and edited.

 

I think that total is extremely flexible but such a concept perhaps requires more development effort than can be justified at this point for LZ. It would certainly be overkill as a solution for your request! However the parts of the concept I have outlined would seem to fit quite well with your suggestion and with using an external DAM application.

 

I look forward to you comments on this suggestion.

 

 

 

Grant

 

 

 

grubernd
grant,

grant,

having had to work with C1 and their aweful folder management i can only say: session management is a bad concept unless you do only one thing and always only one thing and that happens to be okay with what the devs designed. ugh.

 

among the things that keep me saying that bibble/aftershot is *the* best workflow-raw-converter tool around is their hyper-flexible combination of work- and batch-queues.

 

in a nutshell: a workqueue is a textfile that lists files and their locations and opens that as a virtual folder for you. where that textfile comes from and who created it - B/ASP doesnt care.

and you create batch-queues that do certain things and use them at your own disgression. from overwrite to auto-rename, from relative to absolute folder-locations, from meta-data-derived file- and folder-renaming to calling external scripts and software: you can do all that with one batch. and then assign a keyboard shortcut to it. or rightclick on the folder-tree and let a batch run recursively on a folder and all it's subfolders.

 

i know this is a bit far-fetched for LZ right now, but who knows? ;)

 

cheers, grubernd

SFA
Pre-structured sessions won't suit everyone.

However I really have very little desire, for photographic purposes, to have to get my hands durty under the hood.

 

"Big Data" data analysis and finding ways to combine very different data sources - fine, it can be interesting and even fun. But not for a production run of photos.

 

I have never liked the apparent design constraints of catalogues - but maybe should spend more time with them as they are developed. LightRoom version 1 was never a happy relationship for me - I much preferred LightZone when I found it.

 

When I worked out what Capture One session could actually do if I allowed them to I found something LZ like but with add-on benefits for dealing with my sort of shoots. Plus I can run both applications on the same folder structure.

 

I'm really not a script person by nature so the idea of having a powerful script tool available is not a huge attraction. I can see that it will be for others. But then I also see a lot of comment from people who just want something to work for them without feeling that I need to understand all of its guts at a technical level befoire I can make good use of it.

 

And that's the sort of problem that faces all software developers - especially in the creative fields.

 

Every user who cares enough to give a darn will have theri opinion of what is right or wrong, useful and useless, good workflow and bad.

 

Mostly, but not always, they will be right for their methods and wishes and the way their mind works in line with the sort of creative activity they undertake. In most cases that probably means that the other 80% in 'active' users will obviously be misguided, at least in their minds. The developers may feel pressurised into trying to deal with those conflicting needs leaving them open to charges of creating inefficient bloatware and never listening to their customers. And maybe everyone complaining about performance, though not necessarily always for the same reasons.

 

In that lies the challenge of software development, especially in an Open Source world where it is likely that no single person or group is in a position to take and retain control or development strategy against a single specific plan at any particular point in the development process.

 

The C1 sessions default folder structure concept may not be everyone's Holy Grail of image management but it occurs to me that something along similar lines ought to be possible to enhance LZ for everyone without a lot of effort or a big learning curve for users. To be realistic here, as Light Crafts realised some years ago, there are a lot of core technologies that need to be updated before any real new and exciting functionality can be delivered in a sensible way. My feeling is that adding small benefits to the existing tool with minimal effort is a viable approach but for any major changes of desgin or impementation the project will need to get to grips with the wider challenges of the development tool set before it would make any sense to deploy a lot of effort delivering totally new and different functionality to the existing 'old technology' based product.

 

Of course your mileage may vary - but then that's why we have discussion forums, right?

 

 

Have fun.

 

 

 

Grant

 

ETA:

 

BTW I think you may have missed some aspects of C1 folder management options - as I did for a long time and probably still do. But as you correctly point out - everyone has their own requirements that they see from their own perspective.

grubernd
just three addons to your

just three addons to your well worded answer:

 

- the batch outputs in B/ASP are far from scripting. thats the beauty of it. it is all contained in one window only a little bigger than the current convert-tool in LZ. i'll have to upload a screenshot and explain the principle, but thats for another day and time.

 

- what i dont like about the C1 approach - and i am quite sure i am not up to date to their current development status - is that up until my last check you had to use their folder structure or be left with single exports like LZ now. and the whole "settings in a subfolder" makes management on a file-by-file basis really cumbersome.

 

- by giving the user an open structure with good defaults one can easily design a flexible workflow - actually the user can - while giving the majority something to jump right in and get going.

 

cheers,

grubernd

 

PS:  about requirements: having only tipped my toes into LZ-waters i am far from wanting to say "this and that should be like so-and-so software". but borrowing good ideas is something else. the whole of lightroom is based on that last one. they are even borrowing the double-click on slider-labels to reset to defaults from B/ASP i heard. ;)

SFA
Thanks for the observations.

C1 also has the click on slider controls to reset to default. LZ does not have that feature but does offer direct entry of a value and some 'stepped' adjustments if one clicks on the slider line either side of the 'slide control'. Double click to reset to default would be nice to have but I don't find the lack of it much of a problem. That may be because I started with LZ and went to other programs that offered the click to reset option. Going the other way is probably less satisfactory.

 

I think there are two aspect of C1 (and other programs I imagine)  that are interesting as potential simple looking updates to what LZ offers. The main reasons I refer to C1 are that, in sessions mode, the open folder structure that can be used is really quite similar and compatible with LZ already. C1 offers a default for some automated creation of folders that people might typically use - but one can ignore that or create one's own version using the built in short cut functionality. The multiple 'associated files' approach is much the same as LZ was before the LZ  preview and edit instruction files were combined into the _lzn jpeg format file.

 

The "output to file" process in C1, based on recipes, for batch processing can be made very comprehensive indeed and the background batching is useful. It may be similar to the bibble/ASP approach you mention.

 

That's not to say that it is perfect - I can think of requirements that might be established differently to the ways that are currently available  but to do so might, in reality, be more of a "what if" thought experiment than a regular need for most users.

 

Once again what already exists in LZ is very similar to the most basic level of C1 functionality and folder handling so there would seem to be some gains possible without things becoming too complex. (That comment might not apply to (re)naming!)

 

Good points for discussion I think - and important when developing 'by committee' in an Open Source environment - which is what I anticipate will happen as things develop.

 

Enjoy LZ - there are many interesting things to discover.

 

 

Grant

lintujuh
My Views

I use the filesystem as "storage blocks" and my main interface towards my images is the DAM. The filesystem is only visible when I do the edits. That's why it doesn't matter much to me that the sources and outputs are mixed. The only thing that makes things cluttered in other tools (than LZ) are the _lzn.jpg files, that the other ones misinterpret them as standard images. One idea to reduce the clutter could be to separate the editing information to a .lzn file and place the preview/thumbnail into a Thumbs subfolder.

 

The idea of having a specific folder structure imposed by a tool, is not something I would like to have. I store my images in directories by the day created and I try to postprocess them on the same day. Reflecting to what I understood from the description of C1 then my session would equal to a single day which would equal to a single directory. The way LZ operates on a directory basis you can draw equals sign between session and directory. What I don't understand is the use of a session specific trash, you can always go to the OS level trash and restore an accidentally deleted file from there?

 

What I would like to see in LZ is a concept of "Selects". I feel that LZ is in the overall workflow slow compared to e.g. DPP. The current concept operates IMO too much on single image and reading/writing everything from/to the disk. If a user could select a set of images to work on and they were kept in memory until final commit, that could improve the workflow performance. I understand that this requires the upgrade of the underlying Java toolkits as the current one imposes memory restrictions.

 

-Juha

 

 

Arts2go
Tethering

I just downloaded program to do some phototethering. I do not see a tab or button for that process. Does Lightzone have tethering options? If so, does it go by another name?

Arts2go

larshenrikoern
LightZone is not made with this in mind

Hi

 

LightZone does not at the moment and probably not in near future support tethering. It is made for processing RAW file and other picturefiles. Offcourse you can use LightZone in your workflow, but it can not make the photos. Im sorry about that.

 

Have a nice day

phachey
v 4.17 print freeze

Hello folks,

Just letting you know that I upgraded to the sierra version 4,17 from the el capitan version. I have problems printer. The systems hangs if I make any changes to the print setup. I re-install the el capitan version and it is back to it's old self. 

Just to let you know, I love this program and it is my main editing app (I have many at my disposal)  Keep up the dev

P

phachey
v 4.17 print freeze

Hello folks,

Just letting you know that I upgraded to the sierra version 4,17 from the el capitan version. I have problems printer. The systems hangs if I make any changes to the print setup. I re-install the el capitan version and it is back to it's old self. 

Just to let you know, I love this program and it is my main editing app (I have many at my disposal)  Keep up the dev

P