Load selection - problem when .cr2 and .dng files both present

[FVlcek]

Hello,

I have a slight problem with Load selection... function in the contact sheet.

I have 844 files, half of that .dng, other half a mix of .raf and .cr2 files. Now, I want to get rid of the dng files that correspond to the .cr2 files only. So I do a Save selection on the .cr2, textedit the selects.txt, doing a find and replace of all .cr2 to .dng, making it a list of the dngs that are safe to be deleted. But when I do Load selection and load the edited list, this happens: There were 185 matches in the selects file(s), 370 matches were found. And of course, both the .cr2 and their .dng files are now selected.

This happens irrespective of RAW+JPEG pairing mode.

Looks like it ignores the extension altogether?

I can of course get around it using F2 key (View selected) and doing another Find to select just the 185 .dng to be deleted, but still, is it intended behaviour? IMHO unless the files are paired (R+J) and pairing is enabled, Load selection should follow rigidly the contents of the selects.txt

Thanks

(MacOS 10.12.6, PM 18980)

[FVlcek]

Just tried the same Load selection after I deleted the .dng files, and still, it selects all the .cr2 files even though the filenames in selects.txt say only .dng

[Kirk Baker]

Frantisek,

I'll take a look at this on Monday.  I'm out for the weekend.

-Kirk

[FVlcek]

Sure, it's not a major issue. Thanks Have a nice weekend!

[Kirk Baker]

Frantisek,

I looked into the code for that feature.  It matches base filenames first.  I'd consider it a bug.  But my tech support staff tells me that they often describe workflows that take advantage of that behavior and changing it would cause a lot of people problems (the workflows wouldn't work).

We'd have to add a preference to allow exact matching.

-Kirk

[FVlcek]

Kirk, thanks for looking into it. I do consider it as a "bug" as well (or more like behaviour not up to specs if we are talking about exact string matching), but many "bugs" turn out to be features in development, especially since users are now expecting the behaviour. And I can imagine the use cases where it might be useful the way it is now. And the workaround with viewing only selected and making another search works. Certainly wouldn't want to break existing workflows and expectations. I will leave that up to you to consider in future versions