tdi said:
Eg, how would you collect all your "most current versions" of files at once? This would require exactly the same sort of handstands required now to collect all your originals. It seems to me it trades on set of problems for another.
ok here's how marc... the same way I've been doing it all along with previous versions.
That's an approach that works for you because it happens to fit how you currently do things, just as the current approach works for me because it happens to fit how I currently do things. But people who previously had a different workflow than you would have to make changes to adopt your methods. And that's my point here - either approach will happen to make perfect sense and work well for some people and cause confusion and require change for other people.
now you know how... kind of curious how you did it before 3.0 if you don't know things like this tho...
Again, it's not a question of me or anyone else not being able to *figure out* an alternative workflow - it's simply a matter of our existing workflows requiring change. Your workflow works because you go ahead and explicitly make copies of files you aren't modifying. Not everyone does that. Yes, if ACDSee were changed the way you seem to be suggesting, one option would be to do those copies like you do - but that would require an extra step I'm not accustomed to doing. In other wordds, it makes your life easier but other people's harder. What I'm saying is, we really have no way of knowing how many people have workflows more like your versus ones more like mine.
If you're really curious about how I actually do things, I'd suggest you read my five-part article on DAM (Digital Asset Management) in the blog section of this site. Bbut the short version is:
- shoot RAW
- make all changes in place using non-destructive processing, so that folder always shows the "most current" versions of my RAW files
- batch convert anything I wish to have as JPEG into a new folder
- in that JPEG folder, if I need to do further processing (not very common), perform my changes in place as well, so that folder always contains the "most current" versions of my JPEG conversions
In 2.0, this worked fine because while editing a JPEG overwrote it, that was OK by me because it was just a batch conversion anyhow and hence possible to recover if necessary. But since recovery required having access to the externl hard drive that contains my RAW files, it was less than ideal. Sometimes I'd go ahead and save my changes as a new copy just to avoid that hassle, and then moving my original into a subfolder for safekeeping. 2.5, with its saved originals feature, automated exactly that procedure for me. 3.0 came along and not only kept that helpful feature, but also allowed me to use Develop mode on my JPEG's. This was great because it not only still guaranteed my most current version would remain in the main JPEG folder, but also allows me to selectively revisit processing, as opposed to the global all-or-nothing "restore original" of Edit mode.
So as you can see, depending on what your workflow looked like previously, the current 3.0 workflow either is a painful change (eg, for you) or a welcome one (eg, for me). But change 3.0 to work the way you describe, and all that does is flip these - people who found the 3.0 approach a welcome change would find the proposed change painful, and vice versa. I honestly have no idea which represents a larger set of users.
In my workflow above, you should notice the obvious lack of requiring to get up and do a handstand to complete my workflow. ;)
No, I see it quite clearly (the "save as" of otherwise unmodified files). You aren't noticing it because you're used to performing it already.
It must be a real bugger with the current approach because no one, especially the forum mod who has an answer to everyone's questions, has even attempted to answer my question of HOW that I posed several days ago...
I'm sorry, there have been so many questions asked, and so much arguing (largely in circles), that I have no idea which question you mean. Do you mean, how do you collect all your originals if you shoot JPEG? I actually gave you several ideas for that quite a while ago. And yes, I agree, they all require a slight change to your workflow - just as the alternative proposal here would require a change to the workflow of others.
Technically it can be argued that the file is not altered. But from a client point of view, the file is altered.
Depends on the client, I guess. I'm a client, and from mine, it is not. And I think anyone who has used non-destructive editing before, or read about it and understands what it meant by it, would agree with me here. You are talking about changes to the "directory information* associated with the file (eg, what folder it is located in, whether it is read only or not, what the file created date is, etc), but none of these change the essential nature of what is means to save the editing is non-destructive.
But frankly, if ACDSee really does not want me to work with the file, why pretend to keep it as an original?
Because that is the expectation of anyone who understand non-destructive editing - they care about the *content* of the file, not the details of the directory information associated with it.
If you do care about those details, you might consider simply backing up the folder before you begin working, and then you'd have pretty much everything th way you describe wanting it, with really only a tiny chane to your workflow an no change required to ACDSee, FWIW.
New Content Since Last Visit
No New Content Since Last Visit
