Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Olympus SD directories?
443 views
Skip to first unread message
Pete
Dec 3, 2015, 5:46:26 PM12/3/15
to
Hi,
I've just recently actually joined the digital era (:-)) [well, I
guess I did in 2000 with a 1.2MB (!) Olympus DSLR, but I now have
a lovely EM-10 MkII] and I'm still learning quite a few things.
I'm sure I'll have more questions over time...
Anyway, I'm curious if anybody knows anything about the 'extra'
directories on the SD. I understand about DCIM and its contents
of course, but the card has two other root-level folders: 'ALBM'
and 'IMGSHARE'.
IMGSHARE just has one file, 'RESERVE' that was apparently -- from
its timestamp -- written once when the card was first inserted.
This is mostly nulls except for the string "E-M10MarkII" at the
head.
ALBM -- presumably stands for "Album" -- has a 273KB 'ALB57ZZ9.BIN',
again mostly zeroes except for an "index number" (1..150) every 12
bytes. It was last written when the camera was last turned on.
I would guess that these are used by Olympus' own software [which
I can't run as I don't use Windows (or Mac)] and I imagine I can
ignore them. My main concern is whether it's OK to, say, delete
images via my computer rather than the camera itself -- which is
annoyingly cumbersome. (I recently tested out the "Sequential
Shooting" feature, and then had to spend 10 minutes or so deleting
the results one by one!)
Thanks for any illumination.
--Pete --
--
============================================================================
The address in the header is a Spam Bucket -- don't bother replying to it...
(If you do need to email, replace the account name with my true name.)
nospam
Dec 3, 2015, 5:51:47 PM12/3/15
to
In article <n3qgnq$pts$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Pete
delete them, they'll get recreated. ignore them.
<neve...@GoodeveCa.net> wrote:
> I've just recently actually joined the digital era (:-)) [well, I
> guess I did in 2000 with a 1.2MB (!) Olympus DSLR, but I now have
> a lovely EM-10 MkII] and I'm still learning quite a few things.
> I'm sure I'll have more questions over time...
>
> Anyway, I'm curious if anybody knows anything about the 'extra'
> directories on the SD. I understand about DCIM and its contents
> of course, but the card has two other root-level folders: 'ALBM'
> and 'IMGSHARE'.
>
> IMGSHARE just has one file, 'RESERVE' that was apparently -- from
> its timestamp -- written once when the card was first inserted.
> This is mostly nulls except for the string "E-M10MarkII" at the
> head.
>
> ALBM -- presumably stands for "Album" -- has a 273KB 'ALB57ZZ9.BIN',
> again mostly zeroes except for an "index number" (1..150) every 12
> bytes. It was last written when the camera was last turned on.
>
> I would guess that these are used by Olympus' own software [which
> I can't run as I don't use Windows (or Mac)] and I imagine I can
> ignore them. My main concern is whether it's OK to, say, delete
> images via my computer rather than the camera itself -- which is
> annoyingly cumbersome. (I recently tested out the "Sequential
> Shooting" feature, and then had to spend 10 minutes or so deleting
> the results one by one!)
who cares. they take up almost no space and do no harm. if you do
> I've just recently actually joined the digital era (:-)) [well, I
> guess I did in 2000 with a 1.2MB (!) Olympus DSLR, but I now have
> a lovely EM-10 MkII] and I'm still learning quite a few things.
> I'm sure I'll have more questions over time...
>
> Anyway, I'm curious if anybody knows anything about the 'extra'
> directories on the SD. I understand about DCIM and its contents
> of course, but the card has two other root-level folders: 'ALBM'
> and 'IMGSHARE'.
>
> IMGSHARE just has one file, 'RESERVE' that was apparently -- from
> its timestamp -- written once when the card was first inserted.
> This is mostly nulls except for the string "E-M10MarkII" at the
> head.
>
> ALBM -- presumably stands for "Album" -- has a 273KB 'ALB57ZZ9.BIN',
> again mostly zeroes except for an "index number" (1..150) every 12
> bytes. It was last written when the camera was last turned on.
>
> I would guess that these are used by Olympus' own software [which
> I can't run as I don't use Windows (or Mac)] and I imagine I can
> ignore them. My main concern is whether it's OK to, say, delete
> images via my computer rather than the camera itself -- which is
> annoyingly cumbersome. (I recently tested out the "Sequential
> Shooting" feature, and then had to spend 10 minutes or so deleting
> the results one by one!)
delete them, they'll get recreated. ignore them.
Pete
Dec 3, 2015, 6:00:36 PM12/3/15
to
In article <031220151751434143%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
sure the camera is not storing info about images anywhere but in the
files themselves, so there are no links or anything to get screwed
up if I delete an image directly. (Also my curiosity still insists
I'd like to know what those folders *are*! The web is no help.)
-- Pete --
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <n3qgnq$pts$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Pete
><neve...@GoodeveCa.net> wrote:
>
>> I've just recently actually joined the digital era (:-)) [well, I
>> guess I did in 2000 with a 1.2MB (!) Olympus DSLR, but I now have
>> a lovely EM-10 MkII] and I'm still learning quite a few things.
>> I'm sure I'll have more questions over time...
>>
>> Anyway, I'm curious if anybody knows anything about the 'extra'
>> directories on the SD. I understand about DCIM and its contents
>> of course, but the card has two other root-level folders: 'ALBM'
>> and 'IMGSHARE'.
>> [....]
>In article <n3qgnq$pts$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Pete
><neve...@GoodeveCa.net> wrote:
>
>> I've just recently actually joined the digital era (:-)) [well, I
>> guess I did in 2000 with a 1.2MB (!) Olympus DSLR, but I now have
>> a lovely EM-10 MkII] and I'm still learning quite a few things.
>> I'm sure I'll have more questions over time...
>>
>> Anyway, I'm curious if anybody knows anything about the 'extra'
>> directories on the SD. I understand about DCIM and its contents
>> of course, but the card has two other root-level folders: 'ALBM'
>> and 'IMGSHARE'.
>>
>> I would guess that these are used by Olympus' own software [which
>> I can't run as I don't use Windows (or Mac)] and I imagine I can
>> ignore them. My main concern is whether it's OK to, say, delete
>> images via my computer rather than the camera itself -- which is
>> annoyingly cumbersome. (I recently tested out the "Sequential
>> Shooting" feature, and then had to spend 10 minutes or so deleting
>> the results one by one!)
>
>who cares. they take up almost no space and do no harm. if you do
>delete them, they'll get recreated. ignore them.
Which of course was not what I asked... (:-/) I just want to make
>> I would guess that these are used by Olympus' own software [which
>> I can't run as I don't use Windows (or Mac)] and I imagine I can
>> ignore them. My main concern is whether it's OK to, say, delete
>> images via my computer rather than the camera itself -- which is
>> annoyingly cumbersome. (I recently tested out the "Sequential
>> Shooting" feature, and then had to spend 10 minutes or so deleting
>> the results one by one!)
>
>who cares. they take up almost no space and do no harm. if you do
>delete them, they'll get recreated. ignore them.
sure the camera is not storing info about images anywhere but in the
files themselves, so there are no links or anything to get screwed
up if I delete an image directly. (Also my curiosity still insists
I'd like to know what those folders *are*! The web is no help.)
-- Pete --
Tony Cooper
Dec 3, 2015, 6:03:05 PM12/3/15
to
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:46:19 +0000 (UTC), neve...@GoodeveCa.net
(Pete) wrote:
>I would guess that these are used by Olympus' own software [which
>I can't run as I don't use Windows (or Mac)] and I imagine I can
>ignore them. My main concern is whether it's OK to, say, delete
>images via my computer rather than the camera itself -- which is
>annoyingly cumbersome. (I recently tested out the "Sequential
>Shooting" feature, and then had to spend 10 minutes or so deleting
>the results one by one!)
>
>Thanks for any illumination.
My own practice is insert the card in a card reader, upload the files
(Pete) wrote:
>I would guess that these are used by Olympus' own software [which
>I can't run as I don't use Windows (or Mac)] and I imagine I can
>ignore them. My main concern is whether it's OK to, say, delete
>images via my computer rather than the camera itself -- which is
>annoyingly cumbersome. (I recently tested out the "Sequential
>Shooting" feature, and then had to spend 10 minutes or so deleting
>the results one by one!)
>
>Thanks for any illumination.
to the computer, verify that all files were uploaded, return the card
to the camera, and format the card in the camera using the camera's
format setting.
In your example, I would have left the test images on the card and
waited until I had images that I wanted to upload. After uploading, I
would have deleted the test images on the computer and formatted the
card in the camera.
The only reason to delete images one-by-one when the card is in the
camera is to retain space on the card if you have a small-capacity
card and are shooting a lot of images.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
charles
Dec 3, 2015, 6:12:38 PM12/3/15
to
On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:46:19 +0000 (UTC), neve...@GoodeveCa.net
(Pete) wrote:
>
(Pete) wrote:
>
lets the camera exchange files with a smartphone.
Something about it here:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/olympus-image-share/id561896860?ls=1&mt=8
I don't really know, just something I found on the web.
nospam
Dec 3, 2015, 6:13:07 PM12/3/15
to
In article <n3qhif$rqc$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Pete
absolutely no difference. in fact, photo management software can do
that *for* you automatically after copying them.
some people think a card must be formatted in the camera but it does
not. fat32 is fat32 no matter where it's formatted (assuming it's done
correctly which is a safe assumption).
as for the extra files, ignore them. the camera will put them back if
needed, and it's possible that deleting them may have a downside.
<neve...@GoodeveCa.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I would guess that these are used by Olympus' own software [which
> >> I can't run as I don't use Windows (or Mac)] and I imagine I can
> >> ignore them. My main concern is whether it's OK to, say, delete
> >> images via my computer rather than the camera itself -- which is
> >> annoyingly cumbersome. (I recently tested out the "Sequential
> >> Shooting" feature, and then had to spend 10 minutes or so deleting
> >> the results one by one!)
> >
> >who cares. they take up almost no space and do no harm. if you do
> >delete them, they'll get recreated. ignore them.
>
> Which of course was not what I asked... (:-/) I just want to make
> sure the camera is not storing info about images anywhere but in the
> files themselves, so there are no links or anything to get screwed
> up if I delete an image directly. (Also my curiosity still insists
> I'd like to know what those folders *are*! The web is no help.)
you can delete images from the computer or the camera. it makes
> >>
> >> I would guess that these are used by Olympus' own software [which
> >> I can't run as I don't use Windows (or Mac)] and I imagine I can
> >> ignore them. My main concern is whether it's OK to, say, delete
> >> images via my computer rather than the camera itself -- which is
> >> annoyingly cumbersome. (I recently tested out the "Sequential
> >> Shooting" feature, and then had to spend 10 minutes or so deleting
> >> the results one by one!)
> >
> >who cares. they take up almost no space and do no harm. if you do
> >delete them, they'll get recreated. ignore them.
>
> Which of course was not what I asked... (:-/) I just want to make
> sure the camera is not storing info about images anywhere but in the
> files themselves, so there are no links or anything to get screwed
> up if I delete an image directly. (Also my curiosity still insists
> I'd like to know what those folders *are*! The web is no help.)
absolutely no difference. in fact, photo management software can do
that *for* you automatically after copying them.
some people think a card must be formatted in the camera but it does
not. fat32 is fat32 no matter where it's formatted (assuming it's done
correctly which is a safe assumption).
as for the extra files, ignore them. the camera will put them back if
needed, and it's possible that deleting them may have a downside.
Pete
Dec 3, 2015, 6:34:53 PM12/3/15
to
In article <vvi16b5cgsubdse7o...@4ax.com>,
"import list", which undoubtedly goes there. [You did a better web
search than I did... (:-)) I see my manual also talks about it, but as
I don't have a smartphone...]
-- Pete --
charles <ckr...@west.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:46:19 +0000 (UTC), neve...@GoodeveCa.net
>(Pete) wrote:
>
>>Anyway, I'm curious if anybody knows anything about the 'extra'
>>directories on the SD. I understand about DCIM and its contents
>>of course, but the card has two other root-level folders: 'ALBM'
>>and 'IMGSHARE'.
>>
>
>On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:46:19 +0000 (UTC), neve...@GoodeveCa.net
>(Pete) wrote:
>
>>Anyway, I'm curious if anybody knows anything about the 'extra'
>>directories on the SD. I understand about DCIM and its contents
>>of course, but the card has two other root-level folders: 'ALBM'
>>and 'IMGSHARE'.
>>
>
>I wonder if the imageshare could be related to the Olympus APP that
>lets the camera exchange files with a smartphone.
>
>Something about it here:
>https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/olympus-image-share/id561896860?ls=1&mt=8
>
>I don't really know, just something I found on the web.
Ah, thanks! That's obviously it. That note talks about building an
>lets the camera exchange files with a smartphone.
>
>Something about it here:
>https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/olympus-image-share/id561896860?ls=1&mt=8
>
>I don't really know, just something I found on the web.
"import list", which undoubtedly goes there. [You did a better web
search than I did... (:-)) I see my manual also talks about it, but as
I don't have a smartphone...]
-- Pete --
Pete
Dec 3, 2015, 6:44:12 PM12/3/15
to
In article <031220151813030960%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
at the card, but I wanted to make sure. The manual (which I haven't
entirely grokked yet) I see also mentions ways to erase more quickly
and do multiple files, but I'm not there yet...
shooting woth the purchased card. No problems.
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>you can delete images from the computer or the camera. it makes
>absolutely no difference. in fact, photo management software can do
>that *for* you automatically after copying them.
OK, thanks. I'd pretty well come to that conclusion after looking
>
>
>you can delete images from the computer or the camera. it makes
>absolutely no difference. in fact, photo management software can do
>that *for* you automatically after copying them.
at the card, but I wanted to make sure. The manual (which I haven't
entirely grokked yet) I see also mentions ways to erase more quickly
and do multiple files, but I'm not there yet...
>
>some people think a card must be formatted in the camera but it does
>not. fat32 is fat32 no matter where it's formatted (assuming it's done
>correctly which is a safe assumption).
I in fact ignored the 'in-camera' recommendation and just started
>some people think a card must be formatted in the camera but it does
>not. fat32 is fat32 no matter where it's formatted (assuming it's done
>correctly which is a safe assumption).
shooting woth the purchased card. No problems.
Tony Cooper
Dec 3, 2015, 7:02:04 PM12/3/15
to
On Thu, 03 Dec 2015 18:13:03 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
In my view, it's not a question of whether the card *must* be
formatted in the camera or in the computer. It's a question of when
to format the card.
I would never allow my photo management software (Lightroom or
Photoshop) to format the card automatically after upload. I want to
verify that the files have been uploaded before I format the card.
Consequently, I format in the camera after uploading and verifying.
The card is removed from the card reader after uploading.
I can, of course, upload from the camera without using a card reader,
but I prefer the card reader route. I don't think it makes any
difference to use one, but I prefer to.
wrote:
formatted in the camera or in the computer. It's a question of when
to format the card.
I would never allow my photo management software (Lightroom or
Photoshop) to format the card automatically after upload. I want to
verify that the files have been uploaded before I format the card.
Consequently, I format in the camera after uploading and verifying.
The card is removed from the card reader after uploading.
I can, of course, upload from the camera without using a card reader,
but I prefer the card reader route. I don't think it makes any
difference to use one, but I prefer to.
Pete
Dec 3, 2015, 7:03:56 PM12/3/15
to
In article <17i16bh8njotrosfi...@4ax.com>,
will continue to be that I'll usually delete junk soon after I've taken
it, so that if I want to scan the images in-camera I don't have to skip
over lots of unwanted stuff. Things are going to be bad enough as the
drive fills up!
-- Pete --
Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>My own practice is insert the card in a card reader, upload the files
>to the computer, verify that all files were uploaded, return the card
>to the camera, and format the card in the camera using the camera's
>format setting.
>
>In your example, I would have left the test images on the card and
>waited until I had images that I wanted to upload. After uploading, I
>would have deleted the test images on the computer and formatted the
>card in the camera.
>
>The only reason to delete images one-by-one when the card is in the
>camera is to retain space on the card if you have a small-capacity
>card and are shooting a lot of images.
I don't think I'd want to follow that idea. I expect my usual practice
>
>My own practice is insert the card in a card reader, upload the files
>to the computer, verify that all files were uploaded, return the card
>to the camera, and format the card in the camera using the camera's
>format setting.
>
>In your example, I would have left the test images on the card and
>waited until I had images that I wanted to upload. After uploading, I
>would have deleted the test images on the computer and formatted the
>card in the camera.
>
>The only reason to delete images one-by-one when the card is in the
>camera is to retain space on the card if you have a small-capacity
>card and are shooting a lot of images.
will continue to be that I'll usually delete junk soon after I've taken
it, so that if I want to scan the images in-camera I don't have to skip
over lots of unwanted stuff. Things are going to be bad enough as the
drive fills up!
-- Pete --
nospam
Dec 3, 2015, 7:32:22 PM12/3/15
to
In article <n3ql98$2hk$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Pete
photos.
<neve...@GoodeveCa.net> wrote:
> >The only reason to delete images one-by-one when the card is in the
> >camera is to retain space on the card if you have a small-capacity
> >card and are shooting a lot of images.
>
> I don't think I'd want to follow that idea. I expect my usual practice
> will continue to be that I'll usually delete junk soon after I've taken
> it, so that if I want to scan the images in-camera I don't have to skip
> over lots of unwanted stuff. Things are going to be bad enough as the
> drive fills up!
drives are cheap. 3 terabyte drives are under $100. that's a *lot* of
> >The only reason to delete images one-by-one when the card is in the
> >camera is to retain space on the card if you have a small-capacity
> >card and are shooting a lot of images.
>
> I don't think I'd want to follow that idea. I expect my usual practice
> will continue to be that I'll usually delete junk soon after I've taken
> it, so that if I want to scan the images in-camera I don't have to skip
> over lots of unwanted stuff. Things are going to be bad enough as the
> drive fills up!
photos.
nospam
Dec 3, 2015, 7:32:22 PM12/3/15
to
In article <n3qk49$ho$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Pete
alternately, configure your photo management software to auto-delete
after successful import. let the computer do the work *for* you.
<neve...@GoodeveCa.net> wrote:
> >you can delete images from the computer or the camera. it makes
> >absolutely no difference. in fact, photo management software can do
> >that *for* you automatically after copying them.
> OK, thanks. I'd pretty well come to that conclusion after looking
> at the card, but I wanted to make sure. The manual (which I haven't
> entirely grokked yet) I see also mentions ways to erase more quickly
> and do multiple files, but I'm not there yet...
after successful import, select all, move to trash, empty trash. done.
> >you can delete images from the computer or the camera. it makes
> >absolutely no difference. in fact, photo management software can do
> >that *for* you automatically after copying them.
> OK, thanks. I'd pretty well come to that conclusion after looking
> at the card, but I wanted to make sure. The manual (which I haven't
> entirely grokked yet) I see also mentions ways to erase more quickly
> and do multiple files, but I'm not there yet...
alternately, configure your photo management software to auto-delete
after successful import. let the computer do the work *for* you.
Bill W
Dec 3, 2015, 8:05:09 PM12/3/15
to
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 00:03:52 +0000 (UTC), neve...@GoodeveCa.net
(Pete) wrote:
>I don't think I'd want to follow that idea. I expect my usual practice
>will continue to be that I'll usually delete junk soon after I've taken
>it, so that if I want to scan the images in-camera I don't have to skip
>over lots of unwanted stuff. Things are going to be bad enough as the
>drive fills up!
If you use the camera to format the card, that will tell you if those
(Pete) wrote:
>I don't think I'd want to follow that idea. I expect my usual practice
>will continue to be that I'll usually delete junk soon after I've taken
>it, so that if I want to scan the images in-camera I don't have to skip
>over lots of unwanted stuff. Things are going to be bad enough as the
>drive fills up!
mystery folders or files are needed by the camera. It's not going to
delete something it needs, unless it creates them again after
formatting.
Tony Cooper
Dec 3, 2015, 8:10:51 PM12/3/15
to
On Thu, 03 Dec 2015 19:32:18 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
Non sequitur. He's talking about reviewing the photos while still on
the card in the camera. The "drive" he's referring to is the SD card.
wrote:
the card in the camera. The "drive" he's referring to is the SD card.
Tony Cooper
Dec 3, 2015, 8:19:29 PM12/3/15
to
On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 00:03:52 +0000 (UTC), neve...@GoodeveCa.net
(Pete) wrote:
>In article <17i16bh8njotrosfi...@4ax.com>,
>Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>My own practice is insert the card in a card reader, upload the files
>>to the computer, verify that all files were uploaded, return the card
>>to the camera, and format the card in the camera using the camera's
>>format setting.
>>
>>In your example, I would have left the test images on the card and
>>waited until I had images that I wanted to upload. After uploading, I
>>would have deleted the test images on the computer and formatted the
>>card in the camera.
>>
>>The only reason to delete images one-by-one when the card is in the
>>camera is to retain space on the card if you have a small-capacity
>>card and are shooting a lot of images.
>
>I don't think I'd want to follow that idea. I expect my usual practice
>will continue to be that I'll usually delete junk soon after I've taken
>it, so that if I want to scan the images in-camera I don't have to skip
>over lots of unwanted stuff. Things are going to be bad enough as the
>drive fills up!
>
Follow your own instincts, but consider the alternatives.
(Pete) wrote:
>In article <17i16bh8njotrosfi...@4ax.com>,
>Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>My own practice is insert the card in a card reader, upload the files
>>to the computer, verify that all files were uploaded, return the card
>>to the camera, and format the card in the camera using the camera's
>>format setting.
>>
>>In your example, I would have left the test images on the card and
>>waited until I had images that I wanted to upload. After uploading, I
>>would have deleted the test images on the computer and formatted the
>>card in the camera.
>>
>>The only reason to delete images one-by-one when the card is in the
>>camera is to retain space on the card if you have a small-capacity
>>card and are shooting a lot of images.
>
>I don't think I'd want to follow that idea. I expect my usual practice
>will continue to be that I'll usually delete junk soon after I've taken
>it, so that if I want to scan the images in-camera I don't have to skip
>over lots of unwanted stuff. Things are going to be bad enough as the
>drive fills up!
>
When you shoot a test series, you may want to delete from the card
while in camera. However, when shooting in general, you may not want
to delete what you think is a loser. When you see that image on your
computer screen, you may see part of it that can be rescued as a good
shot by cropping to a portion of it or working with it in post.
You're asking here because - I would imagine - you understand that
there are experienced photographers in this group that may know
something you have not yet discovered. Or, that may have found ways
that work that are as yet beyond your own experience.
I do some review of images in-camera, but not much. The image you see
on the camera's screen is not really indicative of what you will see
when that image is uploaded and reviewed on your computer's screen.
This is especially true if you're shooting RAW. The in-camera jpg you
view of a RAW image may be terribly over- or under-exposed and you'll
think it's not worth keeping. But, in the post-processing of a RAW
image you can correct that and it may be a keeper.
nospam
Dec 3, 2015, 8:28:09 PM12/3/15
to
In article <4up16b1okku3lm36v...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
cheap too.
it's not worth the effort to micromanage things, plus, what looks like
a mistake now can often be salvaged and worth keeping, even if it's
less than ideal. this is particularly true with raw.
copy everything to the computer, possibly deleting anything that can't
be salvaged no matter how hard you try.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The only reason to delete images one-by-one when the card is in the
> >> >camera is to retain space on the card if you have a small-capacity
> >> >card and are shooting a lot of images.
> >>
> >> I don't think I'd want to follow that idea. I expect my usual practice
> >> will continue to be that I'll usually delete junk soon after I've taken
> >> it, so that if I want to scan the images in-camera I don't have to skip
> >> over lots of unwanted stuff. Things are going to be bad enough as the
> >> drive fills up!
> >
> >drives are cheap. 3 terabyte drives are under $100. that's a *lot* of
> >photos.
>
> Non sequitur. He's talking about reviewing the photos while still on
> the card in the camera. The "drive" he's referring to is the SD card.
that's normally called a card, not a drive, but regardless, cards are
> >> >The only reason to delete images one-by-one when the card is in the
> >> >camera is to retain space on the card if you have a small-capacity
> >> >card and are shooting a lot of images.
> >>
> >> I don't think I'd want to follow that idea. I expect my usual practice
> >> will continue to be that I'll usually delete junk soon after I've taken
> >> it, so that if I want to scan the images in-camera I don't have to skip
> >> over lots of unwanted stuff. Things are going to be bad enough as the
> >> drive fills up!
> >
> >drives are cheap. 3 terabyte drives are under $100. that's a *lot* of
> >photos.
>
> Non sequitur. He's talking about reviewing the photos while still on
> the card in the camera. The "drive" he's referring to is the SD card.
cheap too.
it's not worth the effort to micromanage things, plus, what looks like
a mistake now can often be salvaged and worth keeping, even if it's
less than ideal. this is particularly true with raw.
copy everything to the computer, possibly deleting anything that can't
be salvaged no matter how hard you try.
Tony Cooper
Dec 3, 2015, 10:27:47 PM12/3/15
to
On Thu, 03 Dec 2015 20:28:05 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <4up16b1okku3lm36v...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >The only reason to delete images one-by-one when the card is in the
>> >> >camera is to retain space on the card if you have a small-capacity
>> >> >card and are shooting a lot of images.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think I'd want to follow that idea. I expect my usual practice
>> >> will continue to be that I'll usually delete junk soon after I've taken
>> >> it, so that if I want to scan the images in-camera I don't have to skip
>> >> over lots of unwanted stuff. Things are going to be bad enough as the
>> >> drive fills up!
>> >
>> >drives are cheap. 3 terabyte drives are under $100. that's a *lot* of
>> >photos.
>>
>> Non sequitur. He's talking about reviewing the photos while still on
>> the card in the camera. The "drive" he's referring to is the SD card.
>
>that's normally called a card, not a drive, but regardless, cards are
>cheap too.
I know, but he's announced that he's new at this.
wrote:
>In article <4up16b1okku3lm36v...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >The only reason to delete images one-by-one when the card is in the
>> >> >camera is to retain space on the card if you have a small-capacity
>> >> >card and are shooting a lot of images.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think I'd want to follow that idea. I expect my usual practice
>> >> will continue to be that I'll usually delete junk soon after I've taken
>> >> it, so that if I want to scan the images in-camera I don't have to skip
>> >> over lots of unwanted stuff. Things are going to be bad enough as the
>> >> drive fills up!
>> >
>> >drives are cheap. 3 terabyte drives are under $100. that's a *lot* of
>> >photos.
>>
>> Non sequitur. He's talking about reviewing the photos while still on
>> the card in the camera. The "drive" he's referring to is the SD card.
>
>that's normally called a card, not a drive, but regardless, cards are
>cheap too.
>
>it's not worth the effort to micromanage things, plus, what looks like
>a mistake now can often be salvaged and worth keeping, even if it's
>less than ideal. this is particularly true with raw.
>
>copy everything to the computer, possibly deleting anything that can't
>be salvaged no matter how hard you try.
>it's not worth the effort to micromanage things, plus, what looks like
>a mistake now can often be salvaged and worth keeping, even if it's
>less than ideal. this is particularly true with raw.
>
>copy everything to the computer, possibly deleting anything that can't
>be salvaged no matter how hard you try.
PeterN
Dec 3, 2015, 10:46:00 PM12/3/15
to
--
PeterN
Pete
Dec 3, 2015, 11:04:03 PM12/3/15
to
In article <80226bldjmklv6a72...@4ax.com>,
But I guess I'm used to thinking of all storage as a "drive", so the
term slipped in.
things on-card until I want to do something with them
-- Pete --
Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Dec 2015 20:28:05 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4up16b1okku3lm36v...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [....] Things are going to be bad enough as the
>On Thu, 03 Dec 2015 20:28:05 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4up16b1okku3lm36v...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> drive fills up!
>>> >
>>> >drives are cheap. 3 terabyte drives are under $100. that's a *lot* of
>>> >photos.
>>>
>>> Non sequitur. He's talking about reviewing the photos while still on
>>> the card in the camera. The "drive" he's referring to is the SD card.
>>
>>that's normally called a card, not a drive, but regardless, cards are
>>cheap too.
>
>I know, but he's announced that he's new at this.
... Probably not all that new (:-)) -- at least to tech in general.
>>> >
>>> >drives are cheap. 3 terabyte drives are under $100. that's a *lot* of
>>> >photos.
>>>
>>> Non sequitur. He's talking about reviewing the photos while still on
>>> the card in the camera. The "drive" he's referring to is the SD card.
>>
>>that's normally called a card, not a drive, but regardless, cards are
>>cheap too.
>
>I know, but he's announced that he's new at this.
But I guess I'm used to thinking of all storage as a "drive", so the
term slipped in.
>>
>>it's not worth the effort to micromanage things, plus, what looks like
>>a mistake now can often be salvaged and worth keeping, even if it's
>>less than ideal. this is particularly true with raw.
>>
>>copy everything to the computer, possibly deleting anything that can't
>>be salvaged no matter how hard you try.
I'm sure my working habits will develop, but I suspect I'll keep most
>>it's not worth the effort to micromanage things, plus, what looks like
>>a mistake now can often be salvaged and worth keeping, even if it's
>>less than ideal. this is particularly true with raw.
>>
>>copy everything to the computer, possibly deleting anything that can't
>>be salvaged no matter how hard you try.
things on-card until I want to do something with them
-- Pete --
Pete
Dec 3, 2015, 11:22:35 PM12/3/15
to
In article <v0q16bdn2qoup8b41...@4ax.com>,
stuff that is just bad composition and so on, but I usually know when
I've wasted a shot. [A different world from the Kodachrome days,
when I'd do my utmost to avoid *taking* a wasted shot!]
with it for my average photo jaunt, but I've already made some good use
of it. One of the first experiments I did was to copy an old slide
that was backlit with a very underexposed subject. With a couple of
dcraw conversions and some heavy GIMPing I have quite a tolerable
"Pseudo-HDR" result!
Thanks,
Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Follow your own instincts, but consider the alternatives.
>
>When you shoot a test series, you may want to delete from the card
>while in camera. However, when shooting in general, you may not want
>to delete what you think is a loser. When you see that image on your
>computer screen, you may see part of it that can be rescued as a good
>shot by cropping to a portion of it or working with it in post.
In general, I don't want to drown in images (:-/) I won't delete
>
>Follow your own instincts, but consider the alternatives.
>
>When you shoot a test series, you may want to delete from the card
>while in camera. However, when shooting in general, you may not want
>to delete what you think is a loser. When you see that image on your
>computer screen, you may see part of it that can be rescued as a good
>shot by cropping to a portion of it or working with it in post.
stuff that is just bad composition and so on, but I usually know when
I've wasted a shot. [A different world from the Kodachrome days,
when I'd do my utmost to avoid *taking* a wasted shot!]
>
>
>I do some review of images in-camera, but not much. The image you see
>on the camera's screen is not really indicative of what you will see
>when that image is uploaded and reviewed on your computer's screen.
>
>This is especially true if you're shooting RAW. The in-camera jpg you
>view of a RAW image may be terribly over- or under-exposed and you'll
>think it's not worth keeping. But, in the post-processing of a RAW
>image you can correct that and it may be a keeper.
Yep -- I understand the advantages of RAW (:-)) I expect I won't bother
>
>I do some review of images in-camera, but not much. The image you see
>on the camera's screen is not really indicative of what you will see
>when that image is uploaded and reviewed on your computer's screen.
>
>This is especially true if you're shooting RAW. The in-camera jpg you
>view of a RAW image may be terribly over- or under-exposed and you'll
>think it's not worth keeping. But, in the post-processing of a RAW
>image you can correct that and it may be a keeper.
with it for my average photo jaunt, but I've already made some good use
of it. One of the first experiments I did was to copy an old slide
that was backlit with a very underexposed subject. With a couple of
dcraw conversions and some heavy GIMPing I have quite a tolerable
"Pseudo-HDR" result!
Thanks,
Savageduck
Dec 4, 2015, 12:02:56 AM12/4/15
to
storage and achiving on HDD/SSD with an eye to some sort of backup. It
is always best to develop a protocol for transfering from card to your
computer storage.
Keeping your shots "on-card" will ensure that you will never get around
to wanting to do anything with them, and the card will inevitably fill.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Dec 4, 2015, 12:10:55 AM12/4/15
to
On 2015-12-04 04:22:30 +0000, neve...@GoodeveCa.net (Pete) said:
> In article <v0q16bdn2qoup8b41...@4ax.com>,
> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Follow your own instincts, but consider the alternatives.
>>
>> When you shoot a test series, you may want to delete from the card
>> while in camera. However, when shooting in general, you may not want
>> to delete what you think is a loser. When you see that image on your
>> computer screen, you may see part of it that can be rescued as a good
>> shot by cropping to a portion of it or working with it in post.
>
> In general, I don't want to drown in images (:-/) I won't delete
> stuff that is just bad composition and so on, but I usually know when
> I've wasted a shot. [A different world from the Kodachrome days,
> when I'd do my utmost to avoid *taking* a wasted shot!]
Bad composition can be revised in post processing given enough room
> In article <v0q16bdn2qoup8b41...@4ax.com>,
> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Follow your own instincts, but consider the alternatives.
>>
>> When you shoot a test series, you may want to delete from the card
>> while in camera. However, when shooting in general, you may not want
>> to delete what you think is a loser. When you see that image on your
>> computer screen, you may see part of it that can be rescued as a good
>> shot by cropping to a portion of it or working with it in post.
>
> In general, I don't want to drown in images (:-/) I won't delete
> stuff that is just bad composition and so on, but I usually know when
> I've wasted a shot. [A different world from the Kodachrome days,
> when I'd do my utmost to avoid *taking* a wasted shot!]
around the subject.
With digital and the capability of taking shots liberally, you have a
great advantage over the Kodachrome days with the opportunity to make
that fortuitous capture, the magnificent accident.
>>
>> I do some review of images in-camera, but not much. The image you see
>> on the camera's screen is not really indicative of what you will see
>> when that image is uploaded and reviewed on your computer's screen.
>>
>> This is especially true if you're shooting RAW. The in-camera jpg you
>> view of a RAW image may be terribly over- or under-exposed and you'll
>> think it's not worth keeping. But, in the post-processing of a RAW
>> image you can correct that and it may be a keeper.
>
> Yep -- I understand the advantages of RAW (:-)) I expect I won't bother
> with it for my average photo jaunt, but I've already made some good use
> of it. One of the first experiments I did was to copy an old slide
> that was backlit with a very underexposed subject. With a couple of
> dcraw conversions and some heavy GIMPing I have quite a tolerable
> "Pseudo-HDR" result!
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Tony Cooper
Dec 4, 2015, 12:20:24 AM12/4/15
to
that habit. She'll keep using the same card until it's full, and then
switch to another card.
And, she's a high-volume shooter. I took her to a barrel racing event
when she was home for a weekend, and she shot about 800 frames. At
the same event, I shot just over 100. Both of us were shooting
continuous because that type of event requires continuous to get the
horse and rider in just the right position.
One major problem with this practice is that by the time the person
gets around to uploading, there are so many images that it becomes a
chore to go through them and post-process even though she has
Lightroom. Some good ones can be overlooked because there are so many
to go through.
I'm one of those people who shoot 100 frames at an event like this,
upload and go through them within 24 hours, and delete 70. Of the 30
left, there may be 10 that I'll spend some time on in post. I'll
leave the other 20 on the drive, though.
The above is for an action shoot, not static scenes.
On viewing the images in-camera, most of the time all I'm doing is
checking the histogram.
Tony Cooper
Dec 4, 2015, 12:29:55 AM12/4/15
to
RAW capable, but I saw the light.
Maybe it's the type of stuff I shoot, but I see no reason whatsoever
to use .jpg. Of course, with Lightroom, processing a RAW file and
exporting as a .jpg for web use is dead easy.
I post a lot of images to my SmugMug site, to the Zenfolio site my
camera club provides, or to Dropbox and I post .jpgs to these. (They
accept other formats, though, but I send .jpgs to keep the file size
down.)
nospam
Dec 4, 2015, 12:50:45 AM12/4/15
to
In article <n3r3bb$tha$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Pete
<neve...@GoodeveCa.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>it's not worth the effort to micromanage things, plus, what looks like
> >>a mistake now can often be salvaged and worth keeping, even if it's
> >>less than ideal. this is particularly true with raw.
> >>
> >>copy everything to the computer, possibly deleting anything that can't
> >>be salvaged no matter how hard you try.
>
> I'm sure my working habits will develop, but I suspect I'll keep most
> things on-card until I want to do something with them
bad idea. copy them to a computer and back it up.
> >>
> >>it's not worth the effort to micromanage things, plus, what looks like
> >>a mistake now can often be salvaged and worth keeping, even if it's
> >>less than ideal. this is particularly true with raw.
> >>
> >>copy everything to the computer, possibly deleting anything that can't
> >>be salvaged no matter how hard you try.
>
> I'm sure my working habits will develop, but I suspect I'll keep most
> things on-card until I want to do something with them
nospam
Dec 4, 2015, 12:50:46 AM12/4/15
to
In article <n3r4e6$vh5$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Pete
just because shooting digital is effectively free doesn't mean you
*have* to shoot a bazillion photos and hope for the best.
<neve...@GoodeveCa.net> wrote:
> In general, I don't want to drown in images (:-/) I won't delete
> stuff that is just bad composition and so on, but I usually know when
> I've wasted a shot. [A different world from the Kodachrome days,
> when I'd do my utmost to avoid *taking* a wasted shot!]
you can still do that.
> In general, I don't want to drown in images (:-/) I won't delete
> stuff that is just bad composition and so on, but I usually know when
> I've wasted a shot. [A different world from the Kodachrome days,
> when I'd do my utmost to avoid *taking* a wasted shot!]
just because shooting digital is effectively free doesn't mean you
*have* to shoot a bazillion photos and hope for the best.
Savageduck
Dec 4, 2015, 12:52:46 AM12/4/15
to
> And, she's a high-volume shooter. I took her to a barrel racing event
> when she was home for a weekend, and she shot about 800 frames. At
> the same event, I shot just over 100. Both of us were shooting
> continuous because that type of event requires continuous to get the
> horse and rider in just the right position.
action event. You just have to have a plan regarding what you are going
to do with them, otherwise there is little point in even carrying a
camera.
> One major problem with this practice is that by the time the person
> gets around to uploading, there are so many images that it becomes a
> chore to go through them and post-process even though she has
> Lightroom. Some good ones can be overlooked because there are so many
> to go through.
us to be totally anal over this sort of stuff.
> I'm one of those people who shoot 100 frames at an event like this,
> upload and go through them within 24 hours, and delete 70. Of the 30
> left, there may be 10 that I'll spend some time on in post. I'll
> leave the other 20 on the drive, though.
>
> The above is for an action shoot, not static scenes.
the race track or at an airshow ends up at 800-1200 shots with an
acceptable rate of 400-700, working keepers in the 80-200 range and
presention quality 15-50.
At an event where things can be a little more deliberate, those numbers
come down and result in far greater keeper and presentation quality
image numbers.
> On viewing the images in-camera, most of the time all I'm doing is
> checking the histogram.
histogram and that the capture is not a total failure.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Dec 4, 2015, 1:01:41 AM12/4/15
to
camera, but who don't want to embrace a RAW workflow.
> Maybe it's the type of stuff I shoot, but I see no reason whatsoever
> to use .jpg. Of course, with Lightroom, processing a RAW file and
> exporting as a .jpg for web use is dead easy.
are exports to DB or CC for sharing, or the occasional iPhone shot
synced to Lightroom.
> I post a lot of images to my SmugMug site, to the Zenfolio site my
> camera club provides, or to Dropbox and I post .jpgs to these. (They
> accept other formats, though, but I send .jpgs to keep the file size
> down.)
a Flickr account which has yet to have an image uploaded, and I have
been tempted by Smugmug, Zenfolio, and 500px, but have not made the
commitment.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Sandman
Dec 4, 2015, 1:29:13 AM12/4/15
to
In article <cmj16bpqchl8fodeo...@4ax.com>, Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:
> In my view, it's not a question of whether the card *must* be
> formatted in the camera or in the computer. It's a question of when
> to format the card.
> I would never allow my photo management software (Lightroom or
> Photoshop) to format the card automatically after upload.
Lightroom has no option to erase your card after import, unless they changed
something recently. It's something that has bugged me for a long time.
--
Sandman
wrote:
> In my view, it's not a question of whether the card *must* be
> formatted in the camera or in the computer. It's a question of when
> to format the card.
> I would never allow my photo management software (Lightroom or
> Photoshop) to format the card automatically after upload.
something recently. It's something that has bugged me for a long time.
--
Sandman
Tony Cooper
Dec 4, 2015, 9:46:00 AM12/4/15
to
comment:
"you can delete images from the computer or the camera. it makes
absolutely no difference. in fact, photo management software can do
that *for* you automatically after copying them."
everything and stick in those inane comments like "hahaha" or
"incorrect" a few times. Here, though, you snip to deceive.
PeterN
Dec 4, 2015, 10:05:36 AM12/4/15
to
Another complete agreement.
--
PeterN
Sandman
Dec 4, 2015, 10:24:33 AM12/4/15
to
In article <ii936bhe05makc6lc...@4ax.com>, Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:
> > > Andreas Skitsnack:
You said you wouldn't allow Lightroom to erase your memory card, and I just
replied to that to tell you that it won't do it for you even if you wanted to,
something I think it should be able to do.
So, "photo management software" can do it, but Lightroom can't, unfortunately.
And I think that sucks, because unlike you I would like LR to erase my card
after import.
I didn't post to correct you or to point out an error or anything. Since you
have no desire to erase after import, you wouldn't be expected to know whether
or not it was even possible in your software of choice, so it had nothing to do
with you.
--
Sandman
wrote:
> > > Andreas Skitsnack:
> > > In my view, it's not a question of whether the card *must* be
> > > formatted in the camera or in the computer. It's a question of
> > > when to format the card.
> >
> > > I would never allow my photo management software (Lightroom or
> > > Photoshop) to format the card automatically after upload.
> >
> > Sandman:
> > > formatted in the camera or in the computer. It's a question of
> > > when to format the card.
> >
> > > I would never allow my photo management software (Lightroom or
> > > Photoshop) to format the card automatically after upload.
> >
> > Lightroom has no option to erase your card after import, unless
> > they changed something recently. It's something that has bugged
> > me for a long time.
>
> Why have you snipped what I replied to? I replied to nospam's
> comment:
> "you can delete images from the computer or the camera. it makes
> absolutely no difference. in fact, photo management software can do
> that *for* you automatically after copying them."
> Normally, you go for these long, interleaved, replies where you
> quote everything and stick in those inane comments like "hahaha" or
> "incorrect" a few times. Here, though, you snip to deceive.
Who did I deceive and in what way?
> > they changed something recently. It's something that has bugged
> > me for a long time.
>
> Why have you snipped what I replied to? I replied to nospam's
> comment:
> "you can delete images from the computer or the camera. it makes
> absolutely no difference. in fact, photo management software can do
> that *for* you automatically after copying them."
> Normally, you go for these long, interleaved, replies where you
> quote everything and stick in those inane comments like "hahaha" or
> "incorrect" a few times. Here, though, you snip to deceive.
You said you wouldn't allow Lightroom to erase your memory card, and I just
replied to that to tell you that it won't do it for you even if you wanted to,
something I think it should be able to do.
So, "photo management software" can do it, but Lightroom can't, unfortunately.
And I think that sucks, because unlike you I would like LR to erase my card
after import.
I didn't post to correct you or to point out an error or anything. Since you
have no desire to erase after import, you wouldn't be expected to know whether
or not it was even possible in your software of choice, so it had nothing to do
with you.
--
Sandman
Tony Cooper
Dec 4, 2015, 10:34:24 AM12/4/15
to
On 4 Dec 2015 15:24:27 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>In article <ii936bhe05makc6lc...@4ax.com>, Andreas Skitsnack
>wrote:
>
>> > > Andreas Skitsnack:
>> > > In my view, it's not a question of whether the card *must* be
>> > > formatted in the camera or in the computer. It's a question of
>> > > when to format the card.
>> >
>> > > I would never allow my photo management software (Lightroom or
>> > > Photoshop) to format the card automatically after upload.
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > Lightroom has no option to erase your card after import, unless
>> > they changed something recently. It's something that has bugged
>> > me for a long time.
>>
>> Why have you snipped what I replied to? I replied to nospam's
>> comment:
>
>> "you can delete images from the computer or the camera. it makes
>> absolutely no difference. in fact, photo management software can do
>> that *for* you automatically after copying them."
>
>> Normally, you go for these long, interleaved, replies where you
>> quote everything and stick in those inane comments like "hahaha" or
>> "incorrect" a few times. Here, though, you snip to deceive.
>
>Who did I deceive and in what way?
>
>You said you wouldn't allow Lightroom to erase your memory card,
No, I said that I would not allow my photo management software to
>In article <ii936bhe05makc6lc...@4ax.com>, Andreas Skitsnack
>wrote:
>
>> > > Andreas Skitsnack:
>> > > In my view, it's not a question of whether the card *must* be
>> > > formatted in the camera or in the computer. It's a question of
>> > > when to format the card.
>> >
>> > > I would never allow my photo management software (Lightroom or
>> > > Photoshop) to format the card automatically after upload.
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > Lightroom has no option to erase your card after import, unless
>> > they changed something recently. It's something that has bugged
>> > me for a long time.
>>
>> Why have you snipped what I replied to? I replied to nospam's
>> comment:
>
>> "you can delete images from the computer or the camera. it makes
>> absolutely no difference. in fact, photo management software can do
>> that *for* you automatically after copying them."
>
>> Normally, you go for these long, interleaved, replies where you
>> quote everything and stick in those inane comments like "hahaha" or
>> "incorrect" a few times. Here, though, you snip to deceive.
>
>Who did I deceive and in what way?
>
>You said you wouldn't allow Lightroom to erase your memory card,
format automatically. I currently import using LR, but if LR adds
that undesirable feature I wouldn't use it. Since I don't currently
use Photoshop (CS 2015) to upload, I don't remember if it has that
"feature", but I wouldn't allow that either. I think it does because
I remember declining that option at some time.
My "wouldn't" applies to any and all photo management software
programs.
Sandman
Dec 4, 2015, 11:38:41 AM12/4/15
to
In article <v7c36b1t2gu80k97d...@4ax.com>, Andreas Skitsnack
> I currently import using LR, but if LR adds that undesirable feature
> I wouldn't use it.
Indeed, and I never said you should. I just correctly pointed out that it
doesn't have that, to you, undesirable feature.
> Since I don't currently use Photoshop (CS 2015) to upload, I don't
> remember if it has that "feature", but I wouldn't allow that either.
I was not even aware that Photoshop could import photos from a card, so I
didn't comment on that.
> I think it does because I remember declining that option at some
> time.
Seeing how Photoshop isn't even a photo management application, I didn't
comment on it. And I'm not aware of Photoshop even having an import function
akin to that in Lightroom, much less a function to erase the memory card. Of
course, I could be mistaken, having never used Photoshop for this purpose.
> My "wouldn't" applies to any and all photo management software
> programs.
And my comment applied only to the one you explicitly mentioned. Not sure why
you're getting so riled up. You snipped away the part of my message where I
explicitly stated that I didn't post to point out something you did wrong, or
to correct some misinformation
--
Sandman
wrote:
> > > > > Andreas Skitsnack:
> > > > > In my view, it's not a question of
> > > > > whether the card *must* be formatted in the camera or in the
> > > > > computer. It's a question of when to format the card.
> > > >
> > > > > I would never allow my photo management software (Lightroom
> > > > > or Photoshop) to format the card automatically after upload.
> > > >
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > Lightroom has no option to erase your card after
> > > > import, unless they changed something recently. It's
> > > > something that has bugged me for a long time.
> > >
> > > Andreas Skitsnack:
> > > > > Andreas Skitsnack:
> > > > > In my view, it's not a question of
> > > > > whether the card *must* be formatted in the camera or in the
> > > > > computer. It's a question of when to format the card.
> > > >
> > > > > I would never allow my photo management software (Lightroom
> > > > > or Photoshop) to format the card automatically after upload.
> > > >
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > Lightroom has no option to erase your card after
> > > > import, unless they changed something recently. It's
> > > > something that has bugged me for a long time.
> > >
> > > Why have you snipped what I replied to? I replied to nospam's
> > > comment:
> >
> > > "you can delete images from the computer or the camera. it makes
> > > absolutely no difference. in fact, photo management software can
> > > do that *for* you automatically after copying them."
> >
> > > Normally, you go for these long, interleaved, replies where you
> > > quote everything and stick in those inane comments like "hahaha"
> > > or "incorrect" a few times. Here, though, you snip to deceive.
> >
> > Sandman:
> > > comment:
> >
> > > "you can delete images from the computer or the camera. it makes
> > > absolutely no difference. in fact, photo management software can
> > > do that *for* you automatically after copying them."
> >
> > > Normally, you go for these long, interleaved, replies where you
> > > quote everything and stick in those inane comments like "hahaha"
> > > or "incorrect" a few times. Here, though, you snip to deceive.
> >
> > Who did I deceive and in what way?
>
> > You said you wouldn't allow Lightroom to erase your memory card,
>
> No, I said that I would not allow my photo management software to
> format automatically.
Yes, that's what I was in reference to, as the text you snipped made clear.
>
> > You said you wouldn't allow Lightroom to erase your memory card,
>
> No, I said that I would not allow my photo management software to
> format automatically.
> I currently import using LR, but if LR adds that undesirable feature
> I wouldn't use it.
doesn't have that, to you, undesirable feature.
> Since I don't currently use Photoshop (CS 2015) to upload, I don't
> remember if it has that "feature", but I wouldn't allow that either.
didn't comment on that.
> I think it does because I remember declining that option at some
> time.
comment on it. And I'm not aware of Photoshop even having an import function
akin to that in Lightroom, much less a function to erase the memory card. Of
course, I could be mistaken, having never used Photoshop for this purpose.
> My "wouldn't" applies to any and all photo management software
> programs.
you're getting so riled up. You snipped away the part of my message where I
explicitly stated that I didn't post to point out something you did wrong, or
to correct some misinformation
--
Sandman
Savageduck
Dec 4, 2015, 12:11:53 PM12/4/15
to
"Adobe Bridge CC - Photo Downloader" which facilitates downloading from
a camera or card to a designated location on your computer.
It also gives you various options which include conversion to DNG,
deletion of original files (that isn't the same as formatting in
camera, but will free up card space), saving aditional copies to other
locations, etc.
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_408.jpg>
>> I think it does because I remember declining that option at some
>> time.
>
> Seeing how Photoshop isn't even a photo management application, I didn't
> comment on it. And I'm not aware of Photoshop even having an import function
> akin to that in Lightroom, much less a function to erase the memory card. Of
> course, I could be mistaken, having never used Photoshop for this purpose.
...and Bridge is still very functional and provides an additional link
to connect CC applications, and another way to access your Creative
Cloud assets folder.
<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_410.jpg>
>> My "wouldn't" applies to any and all photo management software
>> programs.
>
> And my comment applied only to the one you explicitly mentioned. Not sure why
> you're getting so riled up. You snipped away the part of my message where I
> explicitly stated that I didn't post to point out something you did wrong, or
> to correct some misinformation
--
Savageduck
Sandman
Dec 4, 2015, 1:40:50 PM12/4/15
to
In article <2015120409114547317-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck wrote:
> > Sandman:
> > Sandman:
at least it didn't back when I used it. It's more of a souped up file browser
that interacts nicely with the other Adobe apps.
I remember using Bridge back when Version Cue was a neat way to sync file
versions across machines. I used it for my digital Myst book:
<http://mystbook.net>
--
Sandman
> > Sandman:
> > I was not even aware that Photoshop could import photos from a
> > card, so I didn't comment on that.
>
> It doesn't. However, Bridge does by opening the auxillary program,
> "Adobe Bridge CC - Photo Downloader" which facilitates downloading
> from a camera or card to a designated location on your computer. It
> also gives you various options which include conversion to DNG,
> deletion of original files (that isn't the same as formatting in
> camera, but will free up card space), saving aditional copies to
> other locations, etc.
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_408.jpg>
Yeah, I would have guessed that Bridge would have had such a functionality.
> > card, so I didn't comment on that.
>
> It doesn't. However, Bridge does by opening the auxillary program,
> "Adobe Bridge CC - Photo Downloader" which facilitates downloading
> from a camera or card to a designated location on your computer. It
> also gives you various options which include conversion to DNG,
> deletion of original files (that isn't the same as formatting in
> camera, but will free up card space), saving aditional copies to
> other locations, etc.
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_408.jpg>
> > Sandman:
> > Seeing how Photoshop isn't even a photo management application, I
> > didn't comment on it. And I'm not aware of Photoshop even having
> > an import function akin to that in Lightroom, much less a function
> > to erase the memory card. Of course, I could be mistaken, having
> > never used Photoshop for this purpose.
>
> That is what Bridge is for, Lightroom is Bridge on steroids. ...and
> Bridge is still very functional and provides an additional link to
> connect CC applications, and another way to access your Creative
> Cloud assets folder.
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_410.jpg>
Indeed. Also, Bridge doesn't have much of photo editing functionality either,
> > didn't comment on it. And I'm not aware of Photoshop even having
> > an import function akin to that in Lightroom, much less a function
> > to erase the memory card. Of course, I could be mistaken, having
> > never used Photoshop for this purpose.
>
> That is what Bridge is for, Lightroom is Bridge on steroids. ...and
> Bridge is still very functional and provides an additional link to
> connect CC applications, and another way to access your Creative
> Cloud assets folder.
> <https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_410.jpg>
at least it didn't back when I used it. It's more of a souped up file browser
that interacts nicely with the other Adobe apps.
I remember using Bridge back when Version Cue was a neat way to sync file
versions across machines. I used it for my digital Myst book:
<http://mystbook.net>
--
Sandman
goo...@ctlow.ca
Dec 19, 2016, 4:10:09 PM12/19/16
to
Pete, I wonder if it has anything to do with OIShare, the app which let your smart-device and camera talk with each other over WiFi.
Soes the EM10 Mk II have that? Have you used it?
Charles
====
On Thursday, 3 December 2015 17:46:26 UTC-5, Pete wrote:
> Hi,
Soes the EM10 Mk II have that? Have you used it?
Charles
====
On Thursday, 3 December 2015 17:46:26 UTC-5, Pete wrote:
> Hi,
> ...
> Anyway, I'm curious if anybody knows anything about the 'extra'
> directories on the SD. I understand about DCIM and its contents
> of course, but the card has two other root-level folders: 'ALBM'
> and 'IMGSHARE'...
> Anyway, I'm curious if anybody knows anything about the 'extra'
> directories on the SD. I understand about DCIM and its contents
> of course, but the card has two other root-level folders: 'ALBM'
maste...@mypillow.com
Dec 20, 2016, 6:39:15 AM12/20/16
to
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 13:10:06 -0800 (PST), goo...@ctlow.ca wrote:
>Pete, I wonder if it has anything to do with OIShare, the app which let your
> smart-device and camera talk with each other over WiFi.
More worthless toys to play with while driving.....
>Pete, I wonder if it has anything to do with OIShare, the app which let your
> smart-device and camera talk with each other over WiFi.
RichA
Dec 21, 2016, 11:15:31 PM12/21/16
to
On Thursday, 3 December 2015 18:34:53 UTC-5, Pete wrote:
> In article <vvi16b5cgsubdse7o...@4ax.com>,
> charles <ckr...@west.net> wrote:
> >lets the camera exchange files with a smartphone.
> >
> >Something about it here:
> >https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/olympus-image-share/id561896860?ls=1&mt=8
> >
> >I don't really know, just something I found on the web.
>
> Ah, thanks! That's obviously it. That note talks about building an
> "import list", which undoubtedly goes there. [You did a better web
> search than I did... (:-)) I see my manual also talks about it, but as
> I don't have a smartphone...]
>
> -- Pete --
Consider yourself lucky. The current wifi system in Olympus an most cameras doesn't quite work as well or as seamlessly as it should. You can also share with other wifi-enabled devices.
> In article <vvi16b5cgsubdse7o...@4ax.com>,
> charles <ckr...@west.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 22:46:19 +0000 (UTC), neve...@GoodeveCa.net
> >(Pete) wrote:
> >
> >>Anyway, I'm curious if anybody knows anything about the 'extra'
> >>directories on the SD. I understand about DCIM and its contents
> >>of course, but the card has two other root-level folders: 'ALBM'
> >>and 'IMGSHARE'.
> >>
> >
> >I wonder if the imageshare could be related to the Olympus APP that
> >(Pete) wrote:
> >
> >>Anyway, I'm curious if anybody knows anything about the 'extra'
> >>directories on the SD. I understand about DCIM and its contents
> >>of course, but the card has two other root-level folders: 'ALBM'
> >>and 'IMGSHARE'.
> >>
> >
> >lets the camera exchange files with a smartphone.
> >
> >Something about it here:
> >https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/olympus-image-share/id561896860?ls=1&mt=8
> >
> >I don't really know, just something I found on the web.
>
> Ah, thanks! That's obviously it. That note talks about building an
> "import list", which undoubtedly goes there. [You did a better web
> search than I did... (:-)) I see my manual also talks about it, but as
> I don't have a smartphone...]
>
> -- Pete --
Consider yourself lucky. The current wifi system in Olympus an most cameras doesn't quite work as well or as seamlessly as it should. You can also share with other wifi-enabled devices.
0 new messages