Sync Collection Counts Incorrect

[Kirk Baker]

David,

It's quite possible that the image you uploaded isn't an actual bit-for-bit copy of your image when downloaded.  You could put it in zip archive instead of posting it directly.

Possibly - but those images also seem fine with all my other apps so I think there must be something about them that my installation of PM+ specifically doesn't like.

I have added some additional logging capability to the JPEG decompressor.  When processing your file, this is output:

NRFBasicJPEG.cpp:215 While processing file: '/Volumes/Photos/7.312-273 BNP C18 Brick Lane 1.jpg', Corrupt JPEG data: 578 extraneous bytes before marker 0xee

I suspect that if you open that image in Photoshop and save it out to a new file, Photoshop will correct that problem.

Quote from: DavidHoffmanuk on Yesterday at 11:06:00 AM

Previously when I've had a file show up as a grey blank with size 512x341 I've mostly just deleted it as it's no real use and I've thought it likely a leftover from some web design or something. I now know that at least some of those files were high res files, up to 7000 px long side & 500+ meg with layers. There will be backups but it'll only be if I need one & if I realise it's missing that I can start hunting. That's a loss.

Kirk:

Hmm. What is a loss?

It's having deleted a high res archive image that I should have kept because I thought it was 512x341 as shown in the contact sheet when it was really >3000x2000.

I suggest checking with another application before making that decision.  Some applications are more lenient with faults in images than others, depending on the conditions.  If you can open the image successfully in another image and save it out to a new file then you may be able to rescue some of those images.

-Kirk

[DavidHoffmanuk]

DavidHoffmanuk:

It's having deleted a high res archive image that I should have kept because I thought it was 512x341 as shown in the contact sheet when it was really >3000x2000.

Kirk:

I suggest checking with another application before making that decision.  Some applications are more lenient with faults in images than others, depending on the conditions.  If you can open the image successfully in another image and save it out to a new file then you may be able to rescue some of those images.

If I'd had any suspicion that it was really not a 512x341 image as shown I'd not have deleted it. I can mostly 'mend' damaged images. It showed normally in the contact sheet as 512x341 and I had no reason not to take the PM+ size info as accurate. There are quite a few small derivative images floating around and, as they're no longer needed, I trash them when I come across them. Now that I know that the size shown in a contact sheet may not be correct I'll not be trashing anything on that basis.

Is there other information shown in PM+ that should be considered 'indicative' rather than reliably correct?

Kirk:

If you can open the image successfully in another image and save it out to a new file then you may be able to rescue some of those images.

I think that would probably work. It would be easy to copy them to a new folder and batch process them but these images are scattered among a number of folders & I'd lose the original locations. Is there a way that I can open and resave them back to their original folder as a batch?

David

[Kirk Baker]

David,

DavidHoffmanuk:

It's having deleted a high res archive image that I should have kept because I thought it was 512x341 as shown in the contact sheet when it was really >3000x2000.

Kirk:

I suggest checking with another application before making that decision.  Some applications are more lenient with faults in images than others, depending on the conditions.  If you can open the image successfully in another image and save it out to a new file then you may be able to rescue some of those images.

If I'd had any suspicion that it was really not a 512x341 image as shown I'd not have deleted it. I can mostly 'mend' damaged images. It showed normally in the contact sheet as 512x341 and I had no reason not to take the PM+ size info as accurate. There are quite a few small derivative images floating around and, as they're no longer needed, I trash them when I come across them. Now that I know that the size shown in a contact sheet may not be correct I'll not be trashing anything on that basis.

Is there other information shown in PM+ that should be considered 'indicative' rather than reliably correct?

With damaged files?  It's hard to say.  It would depend on the damage present.

Kirk:

If you can open the image successfully in another image and save it out to a new file then you may be able to rescue some of those images.

I think that would probably work. It would be easy to copy them to a new folder and batch process them but these images are scattered among a number of folders & I'd lose the original locations. Is there a way that I can open and resave them back to their original folder as a batch?

What application would you be using to perform this task?  It can't be Photo Mechanic Plus if you're suspecting that Photo Mechanic Plus is having problems reading your image.

-Kirk

[DavidHoffmanuk]

Kirk:

If you can open the image successfully in another image and save it out to a new file then you may be able to rescue some of those images.

DavidHoffmanUK:

I think that would probably work. It would be easy to copy them to a new folder and batch process them but these images are scattered among a number of folders & I'd lose the original locations. Is there a way that I can open and resave them back to their original folder as a batch

DavidHoffmanUK:

What application would you be using to perform this task?  It can't be Photo Mechanic Plus if you're suspecting that Photo Mechanic Plus is having problems reading your image.

Photoshop is the obvious one but the automate/batch process needs a single destination specified so I thought that wasn't going to work but then I remembered the Image Processor Pro tool which can process 'Open Images' and save them back to their original folders. That worked and, after checking,  I deleted the files that PM couldn't read so I think that's now sorted. The processor only saves in the format selected at the start so I had to batch them by format to retain the original file type.

One very strange thing I noticed was that after processing, the folders had both the original files & the newly resaved files in them with both new and old having exactly the same filename yet in the same folder. Screenshot attached. I didn't think that possible and deleted the old versions quickly in case it caused a problem.

I ran a full sync at this point. It showed 99 new files but clicking it shows zero images. It's odd that these new and wrong file counts are so often around 100. I saved a log yesterday and another just now. I'll upload them in case they shed any light but think I'm sort of sorted for now.

I tried to find the new files by searching for today as modified date but it seems that PM+ can't search on date modified or created. I can sort by date and then select as a work around but it's a surprising omission. I'll add that to my feature request list.

David

[Kirk Baker]

David,

Very odd about the file system allowing two files with the same name existing in the same folder.  You may want to run the Disk Utility and run the First Aid operation on your disk(s).

Did you consult the list of files I sent you?  There are 101 items in that list.  If they're still present, they're still going to contribute to any sync operations that you execute.

-Kirk

[DavidHoffmanuk]

Hi Kirk

Kirk Baker
March 09, 2022, 07:55:27 AM

Very odd about the file system allowing two files with the same name existing in the same folder.  You may want to run the Disk Utility and run the First Aid operation on your disk(s).

I think it was Photoshop's Processor Pro app saving the file with a space at the end which is no less odd. P'shop usually adds a number to the filename base, I've never seen it add a space to the extension. Also that file was one of a few hundred that I was re-saving as a batch. The others were all saved back overwriting the original as I intended.

Did you consult the list of files I sent you?  There are 101 items in that list.  If they're still present, they're still going to contribute to any sync operations that you execute.

I re-saved the files in that list as well as the ones that had been showing as grey and that fixed the problems with sync and with images showing as grey placeholders and the wrong size at the time. Since then I've again found anomalies with sync image counts but as yet I've not had time to document it clearly. I'm away soon for a couple of weeks but I'll try to nail down just what's going on once I'm back.

David

[Kirk Baker]

David,

Kirk Baker
March 09, 2022, 07:55:27 AM

Very odd about the file system allowing two files with the same name existing in the same folder.  You may want to run the Disk Utility and run the First Aid operation on your disk(s).

I think it was Photoshop's Processor Pro app saving the file with a space at the end which is no less odd. P'shop usually adds a number to the filename base, I've never seen it add a space to the extension. Also that file was one of a few hundred that I was re-saving as a batch. The others were all saved back overwriting the original as I intended.

Ah.  I hadn't thought of white space characters which aren't visible.

Did you consult the list of files I sent you?  There are 101 items in that list.  If they're still present, they're still going to contribute to any sync operations that you execute.

I re-saved the files in that list as well as the ones that had been showing as grey and that fixed the problems with sync and with images showing as grey placeholders and the wrong size at the time. Since then I've again found anomalies with sync image counts but as yet I've not had time to document it clearly. I'm away soon for a couple of weeks but I'll try to nail down just what's going on once I'm back.

OK, sounds good.  I appreciate both your patience and your efforts to help me solve your problems.

-Kirk