Photo Mechanic 6 soooo slow!!

[navidmughal]

So should I be using a different setting to create folders named when the images were created as apposed to date go ingest?

I ingest straight to Western Digital NAS drive via wifi network. this has never been a problem in the past when I was using PM5 though?

As I mentioned before I was getting a message "Getting Sort Data" bottom left of the screen which remained the whole time.

[Luiz Muzzi]

Hi,
I myself use dated folders based on the day photos are created. Never had any problems.
Regards,
- Luiz Muzzi

[Hayo Baan]

Hi,
I myself use dated folders based on the day photos are created. Never had any problems.
Regards,
- Luiz Muzzi

Me too, BUT I use variables, not the “into dated folders only” setting that Navid was using.

So should I be using a different setting to create folders named when the images were created as apposed to date go ingest?

For the ingest, what to do depends wholly on what you want
If you like the folder name to be the date of ingest, keep it as it is. Otherwise use one of the other options. Personally I use “into folder with name” and then in the folder name field, I specify the name based on the date-taken (using variables) and some fixed text. For instance: {year}/{datesort} {day} {monthname} BLAHBLAHBLAH. This creates a two-level folder with the year and the date of the image.

I ingest straight to Western Digital NAS drive via wifi network. this has never been a problem in the past when I was using PM5 though?

As I mentioned before I was getting a message "Getting Sort Data" bottom left of the screen which remained the whole time.

Indeed you mentioned this earlier. So while the NAS is relatively slow, it was never this (unusable) slow with PM5. So there's a change in how PM6 does things OR there's an overlooked change you made. I suspect either one, or a combination of, the following is the case:
1) it's the way the contact sheet sorting is implemented now that causes overly much communication and with data having to come via a relatively slow link, this has a huge impact.
2) you accidentally (?) had contact sheet sorting turned to something other than filename.

Can you try to repeat (part of) the ingest to two new locations (but on the same media!) and try (both) the following:
a) Make sure (the default) contact sheet sorting is set to filename.
b) Ingest but now select another option than “open contact sheet during ingest”.

If a) doesn't help (or was already the case) and b) does help, we know the culprit: the (constant) sorting of the contact sheet. If that's the case, hopefully @kirk has some way of mitigating the slowness…

[navidmughal]

Ok will do. I have checked default is filename and will ingest to my local hard drive to primary and secondary.
Contact sheet to open after ingest.

I will get back to you after it is done... hopefully quickly.

[Hayo Baan]

Great, fingers crossed
Assuming a USB speed of 30MB/s, this should be less than an hour…

[navidmughal]

Hi Kirk.

So that did take an hour which is great. I never had to change settings before using PM5 but turning contact sheet off and saving to a local volume is much quicker.

I am running a test with the same settings but to the NAS volume and I expect that to take 2-3 hours. Better than 18 hours before.

The 2 disk images also saved into one dated folder.

Thanks Kirk and I'll keep an eye on the processing time next when I'm culling; again probably quicker from the local volume folder.

[navidmughal]

Hi Kirk,

So I’m it took 5.5 hours to ingest to the NAS volume but at least it did complete fully. The way forward is to not have contact sheet visible while ingesting to speed up the process and invest to the local volume then back up to the NAS.

Didn’t have to do this when I was using PM5 which is confusing but at least it seems to working now.

Thanks for your support. Hopefully no issues with culling speed now.

[Luiz Muzzi]

Hi,
I myself use dated folders based on the day photos are created. Never had any problems.
Regards,
- Luiz Muzzi

Me too, BUT I use variables, not the “into dated folders only” setting that Navid was using.

So should I be using a different setting to create folders named when the images were created as apposed to date go ingest?

For the ingest, what to do depends wholly on what you want
If you like the folder name to be the date of ingest, keep it as it is. Otherwise use one of the other options. Personally I use “into folder with name” and then in the folder name field, I specify the name based on the date-taken (using variables) and some fixed text. For instance: {year}/{datesort} {day} {monthname} BLAHBLAHBLAH. This creates a two-level folder with the year and the date of the image.

I ingest straight to Western Digital NAS drive via wifi network. this has never been a problem in the past when I was using PM5 though?

As I mentioned before I was getting a message "Getting Sort Data" bottom left of the screen which remained the whole time.

Indeed you mentioned this earlier. So while the NAS is relatively slow, it was never this (unusable) slow with PM5. So there's a change in how PM6 does things OR there's an overlooked change you made. I suspect either one, or a combination of, the following is the case:
1) it's the way the contact sheet sorting is implemented now that causes overly much communication and with data having to come via a relatively slow link, this has a huge impact.
2) you accidentally (?) had contact sheet sorting turned to something other than filename.

Can you try to repeat (part of) the ingest to two new locations (but on the same media!) and try (both) the following:
a) Make sure (the default) contact sheet sorting is set to filename.
b) Ingest but now select another option than “open contact sheet during ingest”.

If a) doesn't help (or was already the case) and b) does help, we know the culprit: the (constant) sorting of the contact sheet. If that's the case, hopefully @kirk has some way of mitigating the slowness…

Hi, Hayo

I have noticed that I also use "into folder with name" and as the folder name {year4}_{month0}_{day0}.
Best regards,

-Luiz Muzzi