Publication with iMatch

[tokumeino]

I'm currently studying several alternatives for a DAM to fit DXO. At this point, I think that I'll chose iMatch or PhotoSupreme. I'm still trying both software. I have to admit that I have the opposite problem for both : many options immediatly visible with iMatch (which is great and efficient when you know the software) and only a few for PS but sometimes "hidden".

There is one thing I like in PS : the versioning system that helps to publish developped pictures, and even sync changes. I cannot find a way to perform something equivalent with iMatch. So (without detailing everything), in which direction should I have a look so as to support a workflow like :

• From iMatch, open a set filtered RAW files in DXO
• Develop in DXO and generate JPEGS with a suffix like "screen" or "print" or both most likely
• Having iMatch manage the "screen" suffixed versions as published versions

Is there someting like this in iMatch ?

[Arthur]

What does "manage as published version" or "publish a developed version" mean? Do you mean publish to Facebook or Flickr, or is publish simply a term, that describes, that an image should be made known to IMatch?

There is a versioning system in IMatch which allows to attach a developed version from DxO to the raw the version was developed from. And the version is resynchronized on second development cycle.

There is a large topic on "File Relations" or "Versions" in the help (F1). See also "Buddy Files", "Version Stack" and "Version Stack Proxy". There is also a Version Panel which can show you all Versions without expanding a version stack.

[tokumeino]

Sorry for not beeing clear. I'm not english native

I'd actualy like DXO to add specifically suffixed JPEGs to the RAW folder, that iMatch understand that it is a variant, and that when asked to post to Flickr, or to a Hard Drive or FTP or whatever, iMatch knows what specific version (given the suffix) it has to post to any particular destination, according how I used to parameter the thing.

But thanks a lot, I'll try to investigate "File Relations" or "Versions" in the help (F1). The help is indeed qute comrehensive. I'd better read tat before tryning by myself, not succeeding and annoying people over here

[Arthur]

No problem, I am also evaluating IMatch and am about to figure out the best workflow. I am using Lightroom 6 currently as DAM and DxO for RAWs.
Most questions are answered and it is totally "mean" by Mario to put out a 20% discount right now, because I planed to budget IMatch for the next month :-P

[thrinn]

Just to mention it: Aside from the help you may also have a look at some of the Knowledge Base articles at https://www.photools.com/category/imatch5/dam-knowledge-base/. There are also some Youtube videos available.

I'd better read tat before tryning by myself, not succeeding and annoying people over her

Well, as a rule, we are not easily annoyed here. 
So don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions.

[Mario]

I'd actualy like DXO to add specifically suffixed JPEGs to the RAW folder, that iMatch understand that it is a variant,

This seems to be exactly what IMatch does using versions (as part of the file relations concept).

You can configure IMatch to 'know' that the files beach.psd and beach-web.jpg are a versions of the file beach.RAW.
And that the files beach.psd and beach-web.jpg are buddy files of the file beach.RAW.

IMatch keeps buddy files and their master file together when you copy, move or delete files.
And by telling IMatch that a specific file is a version of another file you enable metadata propagation, e.g., to automatically apply changes done to ratings, labels, keywords etc. on the master to its versions.

This concept also controls which files IMatch uses for display (visual proxy), batch processing, printing or features like email. It depends on which 'verb' you assign to the file relation ("This version is for printing").

I've explained this in great detail in the IMatch help, in the File Relations topic.
Different user consider different things as versions (or none at all). Hence IMatch has a very powerful and flexible concept in place which allows you to configure things the way you like them.


IMatch does not "publish" files to on-line services, if this is what you actually mean.

[tokumeino]

It sounds perfect. I read the doc, try, and probably buy this week
Just one thing regarding DXO's .dop file. They include a reference to the filename. In case of a renaming, will The Renamer be so smart that it changes the string inside the .dop file ?

EDIT : the "Folder Patterns" thing is just Amazing !!!! I indeed want to publish to online services but I think that I'll be able to do so by syncing rendered JPEG files one properly sorted with a folder pattern. IMatch is defenitely a great piece of software. It won't come witout a learning curve but it is very adaptable to fit a ustom workflow. Congrats. No the only question left for me is : will I buy Anywhere as well ?

[Arthur]

Hey,

the renaming is not "Smart" enough, I have tested it. But it does not break anything. DxO manages to assign the renamed dop to the renamed RAW and repairs the dop content to the new name. The edits are still there.

EDIT: At a closer look it seems to cause problems, because the number of virtual copies is growing in DxO when the outer file name changes. What a stupid decission to put the outer filename into the file. This happens also if I rename both files in the windows explorer...

EDIT 2: Even if you adapt the inner names inside the dop file before opening the raw in DxO, the problem is still there.

EDIT 3: I have opened a support ticket at DxO, but I know the response: "Thank you very much, your problem has been forwarded to the development for their consideration". There is no public bug tracking possible as far as I know.

[David_H]

EDIT 2: Even if you adapt the inner names inside the dop file before opening the raw in DxO, the problem is still there.

EDIT 3: I have opened a support ticket at DxO, but I know the response: "Thank you very much, your problem has been forwarded to the development for their consideration". There is no public bug tracking possible as far as I know.

I remember now why my setup is such that I do all renames before working on the images in DxO; and any outputs that DxO generate if I want them tracked by IMatch go to a separate subfolder (eg Altered\Prints\8x10) down from where the original is rather than cluttering up the main folder.

[Mario]

Just one thing regarding DXO's .dop file. They include a reference to the filename. In case of a renaming, will The Renamer be so smart that it changes the string inside the .dop file ?

No, sorry. IMatch does not know about the proprietary C1 .DOP files or what they contain. And it definitely does not open and update any 3rd party settings files or anything.
If C1 is so stupid to encode the original file name in their setting files, the only option I see is to rename the files in IMatch before you access them in C1 or to use whatever renaming feature is included in C1.

[tokumeino]

I agree but I don'tthink that it is completely stupid.

I think that this reference to raw file name inside a .dop file is primarily motivated by the fact that DXO not being exclusively database centered, yet offering the possibility to have variants of the same file, they needed to have several variant .dop files, each beeing another way of developping a single raw file. With several .dop files for the same RAW files, .dop files need to have different names, and thus different names from the raw file.

They could have removed this reference by having only one .dop file per raw file, but with .dop files contaning informations for multiple variants. The only drawback I can see is that you cannot anymore open one specific variant and not the other ones. So they had a tradeoff years ago and with current evolutions, they probably made the bad choice.

I'll post a feature request to DXO.

[Mario]

C1 seems to use a particularly strange schema to manage their settings.
They could just do all that in XMP, without spreading dozens of files and folders on your disk.
Or manage it in their database like other RAW processors do. Or a mix of database with backup in XMP, like Lightroom.

For the time being, if renaming files outside of C1 breaks their setting file contraption, I recommend you limit yourself to rename only in C1.

[Arthur]

I agree but I don'tthink that it is completely stupid.

I think that this reference to raw file name inside a .dop file is primarily motivated by the fact that DXO not being exclusively database centered, yet offering the possibility to have variants of the same file, they needed to have several variant .dop files, each beeing another way of developping a single raw file. With several .dop files for the same RAW files, .dop files need to have different names, and thus different names from the raw file.

They could have removed this reference by having only one .dop file per raw file, but with .dop files contaning informations for multiple variants. The only drawback I can see is that you cannot anymore open one specific variant and not the other ones. So they had a tradeoff years ago and with current evolutions, they probably made the bad choice.

I'll post a feature request to DXO.

My experiences are that DxO always creates exactly one DOP per raw and that all virtual copies are encoded there. I have never seen a second dop for the same raw file and have used virtual copies several times. So if there is a 1 to 1 relationship, there is no need to encode the raw file name in dop. The raw called <name> should belong to <name>.dop and thats it. dops contain UUIDs/GUIDs to indentify the counterpart in the database. If the user opens a raw with a dop after a renaming action, the new name must be synchronized back into the database by the GUID. The data base should only be used as fallback, if there is no dop file available, because it was lost.

[tokumeino]

You are totally right. I've opened a feature request here : http://forum.dxo.com/index.php/topic,13654.0.html

Feel free to +