Clever idea for marking thumbs?

[sinus]

Hi all
I do working a lot with stacking.
This does decluttering my windows greatly.

Although I have for example in August 3567 images, my windows ends with about 25 thumbs.
Each thumb has images stacked, say 15, 265, 150 or 537!

Each topstacked thumb represent an event.
Really great.

Now, when I am looking at my file window, I can see, like in the attachement, 21 thumbs.
I have marked them with text, icons, labels, categories (not showed all in the attachement).

All this if fine and helps a great deal to see, what thumbs are in what "state".

But when an thumb (means an event) is completely finished, I would like to have an even stronger visual clue.
When I am looking at the 21 thumbs, it should be very quickly and cleary visible, what thumbs are really finnished and what not.

At the moment I have no idea, how to realise this.
- If I use the label or relation color, then all thumbs would be affected. So this helps not really.

- The color of a stacking (in the attachement the green, small doubleline, for example the third from left) could be a solution for me. But if you look at the attachement, this visual clue is not strong enough.
Maybe, if this line would be visually stronger, it could be a way for me.

- I tried some individual icons (with the variables for the file window), but it is also not strong enough.

- If I could "mark" individually different thumbs with for example a color, this would be a good solution for me.
I tried this to show with the pink rounded thumb (the vegatable-farmer). With such a visual clue I could clearly and quickly show, this thumb (event) is completely finnished.
This would be great, I could then see, I guess, very quickly, if all is pink, ah, all thumbs are finnished.

So I know, Mario, we have a LOT of possibilities to visually mark the thumbs.
Of course the labels could be a way, but I have used them already for other stuff.

And if you look at the attachement, you will agree (I think), for example the category-bars are too small for quickly recognise somem differences.
The same is true for icons.
And for the stack-color (the green line).

The best way at the moment would be the labels. Why?
Because they are thick and prominent.

Therefore it would be even better, if we could make such a "mark" even more prominent, like I tried with a color, in this case the pink around the whole thumb.

So, I guess, you know, what I mean.

IMatch does offer such a lot of things, it is very well possible, that I forgot a possibility ot achieve this.

Does anybody has a good idea?
Or another way?
If I cannot find a way, maybe I will try to rearrage my labels, hm.
But maybe one of you has a great ideal! 

Of course this is not very important, but could help for some users also, I think.

BTW: I really love the stackings. They are simply great. One month (in my case) on one monitor with tousends of images, but represented by 25 thumbs! Great (I mean, when I see a cheese, and the number 537 there, I can remember or guess, that there are 537 other cheeses behind



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Mario]

Labels are usually the best way to track the current workflow stage of a file - most other software uses labels only for that purpose.

Stages like "new" over "editing" to "final" or "archived" are typical examples for using labels. Each label is represented by a color, IMatch has automatic collections associated with each label, you can use labels in formula-based categories and so on. I would always go for labels to handle workflow stages.

Tip: Did you know that you can tell IMatch to color the thumbnail background based on the label color? This produces a really prominent visual clue. It's explained in the file window help topic. In the file window layout settings you set the Panel Background to 'Fill with Label Color'.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[sinus]

Thanks, Mario

for your long answer.
Yes, I knew, that we can use the label-color for the background of each thumb. What is really great.

The problem is (for me), that then all thumbs are affected, and if I use 7 different label-colors, the file-window tend to be also looking a bit cluttered.

Say, in your example, what I was searching for, if I would like to "stress out" (herausheben) the second thumb of your green thumbs (...9.27), then I have no possibility as choosing another label, but then the green is not more there.
So I have to work with icons, categories or so, no problem and great, but I was searching another way.

But it seems the best way to do so, maybe I will reduce the using labels only on 2 colors like, "in progress" and "totally finished".

If so, then I could really use the color of these labels.

Hm, or I use a kind of special icons, hm, I have to think about it.

Maybe you have also had in the (analog) past a situation like this:
You have 30 slides on a lightbox.
Each slide is "cluttered" with red and green dots (these small dots for sticking), and there are some notes on the slides written. And some numbers.
A bit like a file window in IMatch. 

Now all looks a bit "chaotic", cluttered on your lightbox.
3 people stands around there, for choosing.
Now you chooses finally 3 slides to print. But sticking another dot or writing something on the slide would not really help.

You want, that all people can quickly see, what 3 slides are (at the moment) choosen.
So you did simply turn the 3 slides to make them really quickly visible.
Or you sticked a really big paper on the slides.
Or you did something else, but finally you wanted, that you could see very quickly, what slides have been choosen.

Me at least has quite often had such a situation.
And I am searching somehing like this. That I could simply do something with a thumb, that it does stand out clearly from all others.

But we cannot have the old days back    and I am sure, I will find a way to do something equal in IMatch.

I have to think about it still ...

I am glad, that IMatch gives us so much possibilities, I think, no other DAM does this!

[Mario]

Maybe you have also had in the (analog) past a situation like this:

No, never. And at least the pro's and agencies I work with get by with a lot less data per file.

It seems to me that you try to associate an awful lot of information which each file, and that even the fact that IMatch has an unprecedented amount of options to mark files in the file window (flags, dots, pins, bookmark, label color, rating, category colors), it is not sufficient for your very peculiar workflow. You are even using XAML to add custom icons on top of what is already there. Probably some of the things you are currently expressing via collections or labels rather belongs into metadata, making room for more important stuff in file window panels.

And you can easily use filters to get quick different views on the files in a file window, e.g all files final, all files which need work. Save these filters and you can apply them with a single mouse click. Can't be easier. I prefer to quickly apply a filter over cluttering the file window with all possible icons. Too much information is less information...

[sinus]

You are even using XAML to add custom icons on top of what is already there. 

Well, I do only, what IMatch gives us.  If it would make no sense, you would not offer it to us, not?

I would not do so, if I would not think, it is better. At least, some users has asked here, if the category bar could be bigger. Or if the icons could be bigger (what you did) or this and that.

This shows simply, that the requirements are different.
At least you have introduced a lot of icons.   What I like!
But I guess you have introduced them with good reasons. Icons are (mostly) quicker visible then text. Big icons are better visible than small ones.
Your red "HR" in your example above is very quickly visible. And the other icons.
The pixels are not that quickly visible in your example. That is why I replace some pixel-numbers with some icons, so I can see a difference much quicker than comparing numbers.

So we have a lot of possibilities. The only danger is, that we could use too many of them, that is true.
In my case, I think, it is still not the case.
I see really very quickly, when I look at 20 thumbs, what is there. I see all important information (for me!) around the thumbs.

And after all, we have additionally different file window layouts to use, you gave us this possibility. 
If I want look only the thumbs, no icons: no problem, switching the layout and that's it. 

So, as I wrote, I will think about this, and finally, most of the stuff, what I asking for, are minor things and mostly not important.

A short note:
The colored double-line above and on the right side of a thumb, what you offer to add to a stack.
I mean, why you did this? There must be a reason. Maybe a user has asked for it or you did simply think by yourself, that this could be better to distinguish to "normal" thumbs.

And this was a clever idea, I think. Maybe I will use this, the lines are for me only a bit too gently, but with a strong color maybe this is a good way for me.

You wrote once ... "this ever demanding users" ... true, true 

[Mario]

I mean, why you did this? There must be a reason. Maybe a user has asked for it or you did simply think by yourself, that this could be better to distinguish to "normal" thumbs.

Justs a way to visualize a stacked file.

[sinus]

I think (at the moment), using the label-colors as the background could be an idea, like you wrote.
It is specialy an easy solution, I have only to change my label-management, what is not that bad.

[sinus]

It seems to me that you try to associate an awful lot of information which each file, and that even the fact that IMatch has an unprecedented amount of options to mark files in the file window (flags, dots, pins, bookmark, label color, rating, category colors), it is not sufficient for your very peculiar workflow. You are even using XAML to add custom icons on top of what is already there. Probably some of the things you are currently expressing via collections or labels rather belongs into metadata, making room for more important stuff in file window panels.

Thought about this.
Well, holding a system simple is a good thing. But if would be a "simple typ", then I guess, I would not using IMatch.
Then I could use easy another DAM with success (I knot such people, who does this).

And if you would love to have things easy, clean, proper and not with whistle and bells, well, then you made the wrong software, called IMatch. 

IMatch offers such "whistle and bells", tons of possibilities and a super support, where one have even a chance, that a personal wish will be integrated!

That is why a lot of users does user IMatch, what are "complicated" people (not meant negative), who wants not only a simple software.
And if you have such a sophisticated software like IMatch, then users work and play a lot with it and they gets some more ideas.
Such ideas you do sometimes use, sometimes not.

I think, some of the possibilites of IMatch comes from some users.
If I have collections, say labels, I can use them in different ways. I can use it like the mainstream, or I can use in another way.
Same with stars and so on.

But sometimes, even with IMatch, I think, oh, that would be nice to have. Also does other users, as you can see in the feature requests.  (the long list) 

I think, as long as a user has not problems and is happy, then this workflow is fine.
If he has problems, then he/she should think about it.

In my case I have no problems at all.
In the last monthes all my wishes has been "minor things", what does not affect the workflow really.
My workflow words smoothly.

IMatch is perfectly for me, except some minor points. Some of them I asked here, some you have solved, some not. But I have mostly not wrote a FR, because they are minor for me and because I think, you have enough to do, what is more important.
If I recall correct, I have only 1 FR, what is still open, what I would call "a bit important for me".

The really most important thing with IMatch is speed. That is why I have lately splitted my DB into two.
But still I have some problems with speed, specialy when IMatch does metadata reads metadata.

But this "problem" is not that huge and I know, I must look into this, if I have more time. And I am sure, I will solve it (a problem of my preferences) or you will solve it. With your great support. 

So IMatch is fine for me, a great piece of software, with only very minor, mostly visual, wishes for make it even better. But better only visually.

That is why I posted this thread here. Not important, no problems, simply asked for some ideas.
I have some ideas myself, but need a bit time for them. 

Thanks for your answers.

[Mario]

But still I have some problems with speed, specialy when IMatch does metadata reads metadata.

This all depends on your files, how much metadata you import, how long ExifTool needs to read the data from the file. And then it depends on how many other of the advanced features in IMatch you employ...

Metadata Templates which run when files are added.
Data-driven categories need to be updated when files are added.
Collections need to be updated when files are added
All formula-based categories need to be updated when files are added

And since you use categories and collections in your file window layouts (and variables!) IMatch cannot 'delay' many of these steps and has to perform them right at the time when you add files to your database. If the information is needed to display the file window, IMatch cannot calculate it later, it has to calculate all the info immediately. And this may slow down your system. I cannot say more without you giving me additional details, a debug log file etc.

And of course it also depends on whether your computer has 2 or 16 processor cores, whether the database is on a normal disk, a SSD or even a remote NAS system etc.

[sinus]

Yep, Mario, thanks for your input.
Exactly, it depends on different things, including my computer, what is not that new.

As soon as I have more time, I will looking into this and will asking you and give you more information. 
But as I pointed out, IMatch is great and I could nearly not work without it.

[Mario]

Exactly, it depends on different things, including my computer, what is not that new.

IMatch does not expect a new computer. I always test releases on a five year old computer - but I've added a SSD to this old box which improved a lot.
I also test IMatch in virtualized Windows evironments, which are a lot slower than even a standard computer which is three years old.

I also use the log files proved to me to further identify hot spots and to improve performance of IMatch - but there are limits. IMatch cannot process data faster than the hard disk delivers it. So many operations are what we call I/O bound. Metadata Processing, data-driven categories, filters etc. all use all available processors in your system. But if they cannot read the data fast enough from the disk, the processors won't help that much. Like every database system, IMatch stands and falls with disk speed.

There is no free lunch. If you want to drive fast, you need to invest in a bigger engine 
Or at least a tune-up, e.g. in the form of a SSD.

[P.Jones]

Exactly, it depends on different things, including my computer, what is not that new.

There is no free lunch. If you want to drive fast, you need to invest in a bigger engine 
Or at least a tune-up, e.g. in the form of a SSD.

Hi Mario

At the moment I have 3 SSDs on my system each one at the moment contains a Windows OS.

In your experience would it be better to have IMatch, Imatch Database, and the Photos run from

1 partition on one SSD

3 separate partitions on one SSD

or

IMatch on one SSD

Imatch DataBase on one SSD

and Photos on one SSD

[Ted]

Sinus,
I offer the following as a possible solution - I've not tried it, but in reading your post, it might help.

Create a transparent check mark or other icon that you could add to your top image when it is finished.  In that way you could see the image, although not as clearly as now, but you would also know that it was finished.

[Mario]

1 partition on one SSD
3 separate partitions on one SSD
or
IMatch on one SSD
Imatch DataBase on one SSD
and Photos on one SSD

That's all a bit theoretical, especially with SSD's connected via a 6G bus. In theory, you get best performance during indexing when the files and the database are on separate disks. But seek times on SSD are nearly 0 and how much concurring accesses to different sections of a SDD (e.g. reading metadata in one thread and writing to the database from another thread) affects a SDD, I cannot say. I have never partitioned a SSD, no sense in that, they are so small anyway...

[sinus]

Sinus,
I offer the following as a possible solution - I've not tried it, but in reading your post, it might help.

Create a transparent check mark or other icon that you could add to your top image when it is finished.  In that way you could see the image, although not as clearly as now, but you would also know that it was finished.

Hi Ted
This is interesting, thanks a lot.
I am not quite sure, what you mean exactly, sorry. If you can explain it a bit more, would be great.

For your information: I work now a lot with stacks, well, finally, only with stacks.
Every event (photo-session) has a stack. This can be 5 images, but also 500 images.
It works great.

So, even with 8000 images a month (I have montly folders) I get a clearly, sorted and cleaned up file window.
Usually I know, what images are "behind" a stack, so it is not necessary 500 images form a church, when I am heading through my images.
If I want see it, then I can simply expand the stack (mostly I do this with a script, it appends the stack to a special category and IMatch goes there).

That is why the top-stacked image is important for me to show a lot of details and information about the stack.
No else image has such a lot information like the top-stack, I call it for me "info-master".

First I use (mostly) icons instead of text or numbers, it is simply quicker to distinguish.
On this way I can see a lot of information really quickly.

Then I can see with the info-master:

original info from IMatch:
- how many stackmembers
- rating
- pins (for me means them, choosen, really used, delivered)
- dots (are there behind the stack interesting images or not)

with my icons:
- Meta finnished?
- size
- format
- stacked
- keywords (how many)
- must be billed (Attributes)
- is billed (a bill is made and sent)

With all current information with the info-master I can see now all this and I can see, if a stack is finnished or not.
But I have lerned for me that I can quicker realise, what an icon means, instead use text or numbers.
And I can quicker realise bigger differences then smaller.
So for example I can quicker realise a label then a color category simply on the fact, because a label is bigger.

And I can quicker realise, if for example the background-color of a thumb is different.
So, if I have 10 thumbs for example with a grey background and 2 with dark-red background, I can see this difference very quickly, even quicker than different labels or icons (true, the more images are on screen).

So that is why I am looking for an idea to "mark" single thumbs.
Your idea could be one. Annotations would be a possibility, but they do not appear in the thumbs, "only" as an icon, what is great, but not that quick distinguishable that I am looking for.

I am sure, I will find such a possibility, because IMach offers so much.

Thanks, Ted, for your idea!