Duplicate filenames and sequential numbering

[Goos van der Veen]

If you rename your image files during ingest using sequential numbering, you may occasionely end up with different files with the same name. This may happen if one of your cards contains some images made on the previous day (you either forgot to reformat a card or shot a few pictures after the last job was done). In that case PM will apply today's numbering on yesterday's files.

Wouldn't it be great if PM remembered the last sequence numbers given on previous days, and automaticaly switched back to the appropriate number if it found an older file during ingest? And if it (optionally) automatically started with 1 on a new day? You wouldn't have to bother about filenaming anymore!

I'm assuming here that most photographers rename their files using the capture date, but I assume another variable (i.e. jobname) could also be chosen. 

>Goos

[Kirk Baker]

If you rename your image files during ingest using sequential numbering, you may occasionely end up with different files with the same name. This may happen if one of your cards contains some images made on the previous day (you either forgot to reformat a card or shot a few pictures after the last job was done). In that case PM will apply today's numbering on yesterday's files.

If you turn on the "Incremental Ingest" option, then images that have been downloaded before will not be downloaded again.

-Kirk

[Goos van der Veen]

Kirk,

I know, and appreciate the feature. But I asked for this not to solve this little problem, but for the sheer beauty of it: think of PM being able to completely free the photographer (or editor for that matter) of his worries of numbering his files logically and uniquely, even when he keeps on shooting after midnight....

This is a more detailed suggestion of how this feature might work.
Suppose you entered a file naming formula like this:

GV{year2}{month0}{day0}x{seqn}

You could then enter a variable part of this formula, in this case:

{year2}{month0}{day0}

as a trigger for the sequence numbering.
Each time this formula generates a new result, the sequence number is set to 1 (with predefined number of pre-zero's). The last number plus formula result is stored by PM. Each time the formula generates a stored result, the sequence is resumed after the stored number.

This way you're not stuck with dates alone:

Rename= {photog}_{jobname}_{seqn}
Trigger= {jobname}
would automatically number within each job correctly, and starts with 1 on a new job. Even more detailed with:
Trigger= {photog}_{jobname}

In the DeLuxe version of this feature you could also set a variable part of the folder name as a trigger!

[Kirk Baker]

Goos,

I know, and appreciate the feature. But I asked for this not to solve this little problem, but for the sheer beauty of it: think of PM being able to completely free the photographer (or editor for that matter) of his worries of numbering his files logically and uniquely, even when he keeps on shooting after midnight....

This is a more detailed suggestion of how this feature might work.
Suppose you entered a file naming formula like this:

GV{year2}{month0}{day0}x{seqn}

You could then enter a variable part of this formula, in this case:

{year2}{month0}{day0}

as a trigger for the sequence numbering.
Each time this formula generates a new result, the sequence number is set to 1 (with predefined number of pre-zero's). The last number plus formula result is stored by PM. Each time the formula generates a stored result, the sequence is resumed after the stored number.

This way you're not stuck with dates alone:

Rename= {photog}_{jobname}_{seqn}
Trigger= {jobname}
would automatically number within each job correctly, and starts with 1 on a new job. Even more detailed with:
Trigger= {photog}_{jobname}

In the DeLuxe version of this feature you could also set a variable part of the folder name as a trigger!

Now you're getting somewhere!  Before you added this explanation, I thought you were expecting Photo Mechanic to be a magic mind reader.  Now this, I could see being implemented.  I'll think it through.

Thanks for the additional explanation.

-Kirk

[Goos van der Veen]

Thanks, Kirk. I really appreciate that you're listening to us users and think with us to improve the software. I wish all software makers did this...

Greets,
Goos

[IanGoldstein]

Now you're getting somewhere!  Before you added this explanation, I thought you were expecting Photo Mechanic to be a magic mind reader.  Now this, I could see being implemented.  I'll think it through.

Kirk,

I'd like to suggest you also consider setting up the ability to have different sequence numbers for specific folders. While this could be done with a trigger criteria as suggested by Goos, which would trigger a new sequence number when the folder name changed, an additional method which could work very well and should be fairly easy to implement would involve the use of a "global" and "local" sequence number.

The current sequence variable would be the global one, and it's behaviour would not need to change (other than the possible addition of the reset trigger as suggested by Goos above). The local sequence variable, however, would be a new variable -- {localsequence} -- and it would work in the same manner as the existing global sequence variable, except that its value would be specific for the current directory. The current value of this variable could be stored in a ".pmlocal" file, much in the same way a .pmarrangement file is optionally kept for each directory. Whenever {localsequence} is referenced, PM would first check the current directory for a .pmlocal file and if it exists, the value is read, incremented and re-written to the file. If no .pmlocal file exists, the sequence would automatically be initialized to 1 and a .pmlocal file would be created.

-Ian

[Goos van der Veen]

Ian,

the system that you propose may result in different files with te same name, though in different folders. This may not be a problem for everyone, but in general I think that every single photograph should be given a unique name, for archival and retrieval purposes. This can only be achieved if the stored sequence numbers are linked to results of the file renaming formula.
For the same reason I have to withdraw my suggestion for the DeLuxe version. The trigger must be in the filename.

>Goos

[IanGoldstein]

the system that you propose may result in different files with te same name, though in different folders. This may not be a problem for everyone, but in general I think that every single photograph should be given a unique name, for archival and retrieval purposes.

I agree 100%. Filenames should be unique. However, with a file naming scheme that uses criteria other than just the sequence number, using a folder specific vs. global sequence numbers should not introduce any greater chance for duplicate file names than any other method. It would be just one more tool to help make the file naming more flexible and more powerful.

-Ian

[Kirk Baker]

Goos,

the system that you propose may result in different files with te same name, though in different folders. This may not be a problem for everyone, but in general I think that every single photograph should be given a unique name, for archival and retrieval purposes. This can only be achieved if the stored sequence numbers are linked to results of the file renaming formula.
For the same reason I have to withdraw my suggestion for the DeLuxe version. The trigger must be in the filename.

OK, so we don't want this feature at all?

-Kirk

[Goos van der Veen]

O yes, we do. It just needs some thinking over... and it's about bedtime on this side of the globe. I'll be back later.

>Goos