Versioning master folder etc?

[DigPeter]

Original raw & jpg files are in sub-folders with root folder "Originals". 
Processed files (jpg) are in sub-folders with root folder "Processed".

I adopt this structure because when I go live with IM5, all my originals will be on an external HDD and processed images will be on the internal drive.  At present for test purposes these root folders are in a top folder "Test 6".  So the folder structure is as follows:

Test 6
-Originals
--subfolders (3 levels)
-Processed
--subfolders (3 levels)

From reading File Relations Help, I am unclear about the following:

- If I use Master Folder>Specified folder only, where is the Specified folder defined?  Using this, no versions are created.

- In List Folders, which one should I select?  Is my reading of the Help correct that the folder is the on that contains the master files, which in my case should also be the originals?  If I select the "Originals" folder with direction "down" and levels "3", no versions are created.  If however I select the the top folder "Test 6", versions are created.  But in this case there can be some confusion over which jpg is master.

- Eventually, when the originals are on an external drive, how should this be specified (e.g. G\Originals\ to 3 levels)?

[DigPeter]

I would be very grateful for some help on this, please

[herman]

I am sorry, I apparently missed your question.

It seems to me that my directory structure is almost similar to yours.
I attach a screenshot of my version rule which works for me.
In that rule you can see where and how what directories are referenced.

Hope this helps, if it does not please post a screenshot of your settings.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[DigPeter]

@Herman
Thank you.  I will try this and might come back.  I am surprised that you have designated the Processs folder, because my reading of help is that the folder with the master files should be designated.  Or perhaps you want the process files to be the masters?

[sinus]

- If I use Master Folder>Specified folder only, where is the Specified folder defined?

I think, in this case, IM searches only in the specified folder, this means, in the master folder, no folder up or down. This would be for you not the correct choice, I think.

- In List Folders, which one should I select?  Is my reading of the Help correct that the folder is the on that contains the master files, which in my case should also be the originals?  If I select the "Originals" folder with direction "down" and levels "3", no versions are created.  If however I select the the top folder "Test 6", versions are created.  But in this case there can be some confusion over which jpg is master.

- Eventually, when the originals are on an external drive, how should this be specified (e.g. G\Originals\ to 3 levels)?

I am not sure. But in your example:

Test 6
-Originals
--subfolders (3 levels)
-Processed
--subfolders (3 levels)

are the Masters in Originals, and the version in "Processed" - "Subfolders", what means, that these are NOT subfolders of "Originals". But they are subfolders, if you choose the "Test 6" as the masters

I am not sure, why you do such a "complicated" folder-structure? I think (while I am not sure), if you would take

- Originals (raws and jpg as masters
--Processed
---Subfolders (versions)

you should get the correct results.

Your last question about having masters on an external HD, and the version on your internal HD, I guess, this is not working.

[DigPeter]

- If I use Master Folder>Specified folder only, where is the Specified folder defined?

I think, in this case, IM searches only in the specified folder, this means, in the master folder, no folder up or down. This would be for you not the correct choice, I think.

Thank you Sinus.  I cannot find how to define or specify the Master Folder.

- In List Folders, which one should I select?  Is my reading of the Help correct that the folder is the on that contains the master files, which in my case should also be the originals?  If I select the "Originals" folder with direction "down" and levels "3", no versions are created.  If however I select the the top folder "Test 6", versions are created.  But in this case there can be some confusion over which jpg is master.

- Eventually, when the originals are on an external drive, how should this be specified (e.g. G\Originals\ to 3 levels)?

I am not sure. But in your example:

Test 6
-Originals
--subfolders (3 levels)
-Processed
--subfolders (3 levels)

are the Masters in Originals, and the version in "Processed" - "Subfolders", what means, that these are NOT subfolders of "Originals". But they are subfolders, if you choose the "Test 6" as the masters

I am not sure, why you do such a "complicated" folder-structure? I think (while I am not sure), if you would take

- Originals (raws and jpg as masters
--Processed
---Subfolders (versions)

you should get the correct results.

Your last question about having masters on an external HD, and the version on your internal HD, I guess, this is not working.

I adopt this structure, because I want to keep my originals (both Raw & jpeg) on an external hard drive (as they are now).  In detail, for test purposes the structure is:

Test 6  (this level will not exist in the eventual working database)
-Originals  (G\Originals in the eventual working database)
--2010
---201001
----files
---201002
----files
---etc
--2011
---201101
---201102
---etc
--2012 etc
-Processed  (C\Processed in the eventual working database)
--2010
---201001
----files
---201002
----files
---etc
--2011
---201101
---201102
---etc
--2012 etc


If 'Originals' is selected in List folders, no versions are created.

If 'Test 6' or 'Processed' is selected in List folders, versions are created, but where there is jpg master in Originals, the jpg version in Processed is shown with the orange master colour.  In some instances a version is shown with both the orange, master colour and the blue version colour.  I have only one level activated in the File Relations - see attachment.

What setting is needed to have only files in the 'Originals' folder shown as master?
 




[attachment deleted by admin]

[herman]

I am surprised that you have designated the Processs folder, because my reading of help is that the folder with the master files should be designated.  Or perhaps you want the process files to be the masters?

Your understanding of the help file surprises me slightly....
It says

Where to Search
In this section of the dialog box you specify where IMatch is looking for buddy files and versions. IMatch can search only the folder containing the master file, include sub-folders of that folder in its search (one or more levels deep) and even look in selected folders or the entire database.

My understanding has always been that any file in the database can be a master file.
All you have to do is specify where the buddies and versions can be found.
So the "Where to search" in the lower part of the configuration screen specifies where IMatch should look for versions.

If you have read information in the help file which made you think it is different it might be a good idea to inform Mario about this, so he can change the help text to remove this ambiguity.

[DigPeter]

I am surprised that you have designated the Processs folder, because my reading of help is that the folder with the master files should be designated.  Or perhaps you want the process files to be the masters?

Your understanding of the help file surprises me slightly....
It says

Where to Search
In this section of the dialog box you specify where IMatch is looking for buddy files and versions. IMatch can search only the folder containing the master file, include sub-folders of that folder in its search (one or more levels deep) and even look in selected folders or the entire database.

My understanding has always been that any file in the database can be a master file.
All you have to do is specify where the buddies and versions can be found.
So the "Where to search" in the lower part of the configuration screen specifies where IMatch should look for versions.

If you have read information in the help file which made you think it is different it might be a good idea to inform Mario about this, so he can change the help text to remove this ambiguity.

Thanks -
Yes - I see that now.  I had read it, but I interpreted the phrase "IMatch can search only the folder containing the master file" wrongly. 

As you can see from my reply to Sinus, I have tried using 'Processed' in List folders.  This works fine when the raw is the master.  When a jpeg in 'Originals' is master, it is shown with the blue version colour code and the version in 'Processed'  is shown with orange colour code.  This is the wrong way round (I still trying to decide whether this matters  ), but I repeat the question:

What setting is needed to have only files in the 'Originals' folder shown as master?

[herman]

What setting is needed to have only files in the 'Originals' folder shown as master?

I see your problem.

I had exactly the same thing when I entered the early IMatch beta test phase.
It is documented in Mantis

So far it has not been solved, so the answer to your question is that it can not be done.

The only way around it is to have different filenames for master and version.

My work-around is to add suffixes to the filename.

For example: 12345.jpg in the master folder structure and 12345.jpg in the version folder structure will lead to this relation inconsistency.

To prevent this I add _DxO or _ASP to the version, the letters being the acronym of the program used to derive the version.
Anything will do, even _v1 or _mail or whatever, as long as the filename of the version is different from the master filename.

Fortunately IMatch has an excellent renamer which can take care of this 

[DigPeter]

@Herman
That is very interesting.  Thank you.  I will suggest to Mario that some mention of this is made in the Help page.  I will try you suffix idea.

[BenAW]

Is there a reason you're not Linking via the Exif timestamp?
I can have master and version files with the exact same filename and extension without any problem.

[DigPeter]

Is there a reason you're not Linking via the Exif timestamp?
I can have master and version files with the exact same filename and extension without any problem.

No    Are you saying that the ambiguity discussed above does not arise if you use timestamp?  I do not see why that should be so, if the master and vesion are the same time.

[Mario]

If you have read information in the help file which made you think it is different it might be a good idea to inform Mario about this, so he can change the help text to remove this ambiguity.

Definitely. Always a good idea. The help file is evolving rapidly with your feedback and I incorporate changes all the time.

[DigPeter]

If you have read information in the help file which made you think it is different it might be a good idea to inform Mario about this, so he can change the help text to remove this ambiguity.

Definitely. Always a good idea. The help file is evolving rapidly with your feedback and I incorporate changes all the time.

@Mario - it was my wrong interpretation.  I do not think that the wording can be materially improved.  But I have made some other suggestions regarding the Help page.

[BenAW]

Is there a reason you're not Linking via the Exif timestamp?
I can have master and version files with the exact same filename and extension without any problem.

No    Are you saying that the ambiguity discussed above does not arise if you use timestamp?  I do not see why that should be so, if the master and vesion are the same time.

I'm not convinced the ambiguity is solved by using timestamp.
How do you establish the relations when you have set the Versioning panel in preferences?

I've attached my versioning setup. Simplicity itself 

[attachment deleted by admin]

[DigPeter]

How do you establish the relations when you have set the Versioning panel in preferences?

I've attached my versioning setup. Simplicity itself 

My setup is attached ot reply 5.

[BenAW]

How do you establish the relations when you have set the Versioning panel in preferences?

I've attached my versioning setup. Simplicity itself 

My setup is attached ot reply 5.

The question was how you establish the relations AFTER you have set the Versioning panel in Preferences.

[DigPeter]

How do you establish the relations when you have set the Versioning panel in preferences?

I've attached my versioning setup. Simplicity itself 

My setup is attached ot reply 5.

The question was how you establish the relations AFTER you have set the Versioning panel in Preferences.

I am not with you.  I do not do anything after setting File Relations.  Just let it happen and do the occasional F4,R.

[BenAW]

I am not with you.  I do not do anything after setting File Relations.  Just let it happen and do the occasional F4,R.

And what files have you selected when you do F4,R?

[DigPeter]

I am not with you.  I do not do anything after setting File Relations.  Just let it happen and do the occasional F4,R.

And what files have you selected when you do F4,R?

Top of the tree = Database

[BenAW]

Which includes the files you consider versions. They are now a master. When looking in the dirs you indicate they find "themselves" and become a version of itself.

[DigPeter]

Which includes the files you consider versions. They are now a master. When looking in the dirs you indicate they find "themselves" and become a version of itself.

Not from where I am sitting - see attached: one master, two versions

[attachment deleted by admin]

[BenAW]

OK then back to your question: "What setting is needed to have only files in the 'Originals' folder shown as master?"
Only select files in the Originals folder when you do F4,R.
With the correct settings IM should only look in the Processed collection for matches.

[DigPeter]

OK then back to your question: "What setting is needed to have only files in the 'Originals' folder shown as master?"
Only select files in the Originals folder when you do F4,R.
With the correct settings IM should only look in the Processed collection for matches.

Thanks for your interest Ben.
The question was answered in relpy #8 and mantis issue 565 - it is apparently not possible, if the the file names are identical.  I have added characters to the end of the versions and this has solved it.  It just remains now to make sure that I remember to this as part of the process of rendering my master jpegs.  I know that you like versions, but I am going off them! 

[BenAW]

it is apparently not possible, if the file names are identical.

Of course it is possible, only not when you include the versions in the set of masters IM has to check for versions.

[herman]

Of course it is possible, only not when you include the versions in the set of masters IM has to check for versions.

Of course this will work too, but IMO it is just another work-around.

Your solution implIes that the user has to know where the masters are.
Using a folder structure like Peter and I do the user wil know this.
The problem now is that you can not select all masters from the M&F view in one go as there are subdirectories.

What it boils dowun to is that you may have to make a formula-driven category which contains all images in the master folder tree.
From this category all master images can be selected and then a rebuild relations can be initiated which will produce the correct result.

When you enforce version filenames which are slightly different from the master filenames you can just select the entire database and do the relation refresh

Both work-arounds just work, I guess it is a matter of preference.


PS: excuse me when I am responding slowly or when I make a silly typo's.
I had a cataract extraction yesterday, sitting in front of a screen right now is not what it used to be with one eye out of focus

[DigPeter]

it is apparently not possible, if the file names are identical.

Of course it is possible, only not when you include the versions in the set of masters IM has to check for versions.

Hmm... ?  Not sure what you are suggesting.

My Set-up is:

4 images: Master in Originals, Image.jpg;  Versions in Processed:  Image.jpg, Image_v1.jpg, Image_v2

F4,R on Processed:  In Originals, Image.jpg is master to Image.jpg in Processed, which is also master of Image_v1 and Image_v2.jpg.  Not a tidy result, IMO.

[BenAW]

I'm suggesting that you select the images you consider to be MASTERS and do F4,R.
This is assuming you have the preferences set for IM to look only in the directories that contain VERSIONS

If you do F4,R on the VERSIONS it's no surprise you get nonsense as result.

[DigPeter]

PS: excuse me when I am responding slowly or when I make a silly typo's.
I had a cataract extraction yesterday, sitting in front of a screen right now is not what it used to be with one eye out of focus

OT
I had this earlier this year.  I had an huge and early improved vision, so I am sure you sight will settle down.  Good luck.

[BenAW]

Of course this will work too, but IMO it is just another work-around.

Your solution implIes that the user has to know where the masters are.
Using a folder structure like Peter and I do the user wil know this.
The problem now is that you can not select all masters from the M&F view in one go as there are subdirectories.

IMO this is how we are supposed to use versioning.
You do not have to know were the masters are, you have to know were the versions are.
They are in the place you used in the versioning setup in preferences.

You can select the masters in M&F using Show Hierarchy All levels.
Simpler is to select @All and filter out the same folder(s) with versions as you used in the versioning setup.

Good luck with your eye.

[DigPeter]

If all masters are in one folder and its sub-folders, then it is easy to select that in M&F. I have just done this and it works for me, without giving ambiguities. 

File Relations Help states:
Refreshing Relations
Whenever you make a change in your File Relations, IMatch needs to refresh the relation data in the database. This operation updates links between master and versions, updates proxies etc. You start this process via the Commands > Relations > Refresh Relations command.

This command works on the selected object(s) and its children in the Media & Folders view: a folder, a media, drive or the entire database.

You can speed up the process by refreshing only the relations in certain folders. If you are unsure, select the Database node and refresh the relations in your entire database.


The quote is not entirely clear and does not specifically say that the refresh should be on the masters or the folders/subfolders coontaining them.  I will send Mario feedback on this.

[herman]

IMO this is how we are supposed to use versioning.
You do not have to know were the masters are, you have to know were the versions are.
They are in the place you used in the versioning setup in preferences.

Sure.
The way Peter and myself have setup the folder structure it is basically same thing.
Versions have their own folder tree, masters too.
They are completely separated, may be even on different disks.
My understanding has always been that a version refresh could be done on the entire database, where IMatch would figure out what masters are and what versions.
Apparently that does not work when master and version have exactly the same filename.

You can select the masters in M&F using Show Hierarchy All levels.

A big THANk YOU!
I hardly ever use the Hierarchy options other than default, so I tend to forget about it.
I just played with my entire "originals" folder tree, setting "Show Hierarchy", "Show All Levels" and "Don't group by folder".
This gives me a nice "flat" view of all masters in the database.
When I do a relation refresh from here (select all files, f4, R) it does not matter anymore when versions have exactly the same name as masters.
I hope DigiPeter is reading this too, perhaps it is useful for him as well.

@DigiPeter and BenAW
[OT] It seems I gained at least two stops exposure after the extraction.
I will probably need a new color profile though, the white balance is way off and colors are different too
[/OT]

[DigPeter]

I hope DigiPeter is reading this too, perhaps it is useful for him as well.

@DigiPeter and BenAW
[OT] It seems I gained at least two stops exposure after the extraction.
I will probably need a new color profile though, the white balance is way off and colors are different too
[/OT]

I will investigate.  After an initial look in the pre-B, I could not see how it would help.

OT
LoL - yes, colour is amazingly better.  This is important for me, as I do a lot of flower photography

[BenAW]

You can speed up the process by refreshing only the relations in certain folders. If you are unsure, select the Database node and refresh the relations in your entire database.
[/i]

The quote is not entirely clear and does not specifically say that the refresh should be on the masters or the folders/subfolders coontaining them.  I will send Mario feedback on this.

Refreshing the entire dbase only works when you have a very simple master / version setup like all raw images are master and all jpg's are version or similar.
This might be enough for a lot of users.
Help could be clearer pehaps.

[BenAW]

@DigiPeter and BenAW
[OT] It seems I gained at least two stops exposure after the extraction.

Should help a bit to get you through the "dark" season 

[herman]

I will investigate.  After an initial look in the pre-B, I could not see how it would help.

I think it should.....

From your opening post:

Test 6  (this level will not exist in the eventual working database)
-Originals  (G\Originals in the eventual working database)
--2010
---201001
----files
---201002
----files
---etc
--2011
---201101
---201102
---etc
--2012 etc
[...]
If 'Originals' is selected in List folders, no versions are created.

What I did is to go to the Media & Folders view, select "Originals".
Next select "Show Hierarchy", "Show All Levels", "Don't group by folders" (see screenshot).
This brings all files from your "Originals" folder tree into view in the file window, but not the versions from their folder structure.
Select all these originals and let the relations rebuild.

I tested this with identical filenames (no suffixes for the versions) in my "Originals" folder tree and "Processed" folder tree.

Works like a charm here.

I may even rename my versions again, as I don't like the suffixes creating long filenames 


[attachment deleted by admin]

[DigPeter]

Thank you, Herman.  I will try this.

[sinus]

I tested this with identical filenames (no suffixes for the versions) in my "Originals" folder tree and "Processed" folder tree.

Works like a charm here.

I may even rename my versions again, as I don't like the suffixes creating long filenames 

I think, add suffixes for versions are always a very good idea. It gives you, maybe later, possibilities, what you think not not at it now.
Identical filenames are (MY opinion, must not be true) not a realy good idea, I think.

Good workflows starts with first a good folder structure (as easy as possible) and second with a good filenaming. The big rest (of course renaming also), working with files, can be done with DAMs or/and image-editors.

For workflows, specialy when versions are there also, users has a lot of different solutions. I think, at least, hold it as simple as possible is a very good point and another, do not use equal filenames or also folders.

If I have finished my workflow, I will post it here, in the proper section. But, as said, there are a lot of (good) workflows out there, as long as it fits your wishes and follows some simple rules ... go ahead.

IF you are VERY sure, equal filenames will give you never problems, well, then go ahead.

[BenAW]

What I did is to go to the Media & Folders view, select "Originals".
Next select "Show Hierarchy", "Show All Levels", "Don't group by folders" (see screenshot).
This brings all files from your "Originals" folder tree into view in the file window, but not the versions from their folder structure.
Select all these originals and let the relations rebuild.

A simpler solution imo is to create a Folder filter with the Processed directory including subdirs selected (--).
Save this as eg. "Version Filter"
Anytime you want to (re-)build relations, just select the images you want (@All or a smaller selection of new files for instance),
have the "Version Filter" active and do F4,R.

[herman]

Anytime you want to (re-)build relations, just select the images you want (@All or a smaller selection of new files for instance), have the "Version Filter" active and do F4,R.

Sure, that works.

I am afraid though that we are losing track of the original question posted by DigiPeter.
What we have so far are means to establish a correct versioning manually by selecting the masters and invoking a relation rebuild.
That certainly works.

However, IMatch also performs automatic versioning when new files are ingested.
When master and version have the same filename the automagic versioning routines get confused.
Please see the attached screenshot, where I show a minimalistic setup created just for testing.
It is the same as discussed in Mantis 565 and similar to what DigiPeter is using.

My workflow would be (and I just tested this):
1. ingest masters in IMatch
2. send masters to an external application (raw processor, editor, whatever)
3. the external application stores output in Versions\Developed
4. IMatch automatically ingest these files and establishes the relation
5. send the developed versions to an external application to prepare them for the web (resize / sharpen / watermark / ....)
6. the external application stores output in Versions\Web
7. IMatch automatically ingest these files and establishes the relation

Now the relations are as shown in the attached screenshot, i.e. the web version becomes the master and the real master has no versions anymore.

This can be corrected by rebuilding the relations as discussed above.
It can be prevented by using different filenames for the versions, e.g. the addition of suffixes.

May I ask how you do this?
I seem to recall that you have identical filenames for versions derived from a .jpg?

[edit]
Oops, forgot to attach the second screenshot 
[/edit]


[attachment deleted by admin]

[BenAW]

May I ask how you do this?

In Preferences > Backgroundprocessing I deselected "Automatically refresh relations" 

I only manually refresh relations. It is logically not possible to decide whether a new image is a master or a version in complicated directory structures like when your versions are in directories below the master directories. In automatic IM then treats new versions as master, with illogical results of course.
After adding new images I just select the new masters and do F4,R.

[edit]
I just tried some scenarios, and it seems IM still does some versioning for (new ? ) images even when the Backgroundprocessing has been deselected. If you can confirm this we have a bug that needs squashing 

[Ferdinand]

In detail, for test purposes the structure is:

Test 6  (this level will not exist in the eventual working database)
-Originals  (G\Originals in the eventual working database)
--2010
---201001
----files
---201002
----files
---etc
--2011
---201101
---201102
---etc
--2012 etc
-Processed  (C\Processed in the eventual working database)
--2010
---201001
----files
---201002
----files
---etc
--2011
---201101
---201102
---etc
--2012 etc

What setting is needed to have only files in the 'Originals' folder shown as master?

I have been trying to find time for several days to reply to this.  I used to have a folder structure similar to this.  In the period before even the alpha, Mario introduced an option to deal with situations like this, if I remember correctly. I've since changed to a situation where all versions are in subfolders, so I haven't tested it.

In what follows, I assume that the master files are in folders like xxx\Originals\2010\201001 and versions are in xxx\Processed\2010\201001.  I assume that there are no files in higher level folders.

In your file relations preferences, in the detection tab for your versioning relations definitions, for "where to search", choose "list of folders".   I'm not sure about "direction" and "levels", as it will depend on your precise setup, but if my assumption above is correct you can probably choose "specified folder only".

Now you want to click the "+" button on the right and "add pattern".  I haven't tested this, but I think that in your case the pattern you want is "{p3}\Processed\{d1}\{d0}".  See the help file under File Relations \ Configuring Relations and also Reference | Folder Pattern.

Does this solve your problem?  I think that this will work from even the database node, unless I've missed something.

As a general comment, I think that suffixes to give unique file names is good practice even if they're in different folders, although it's a bit of work to maintain it.  I do this, but my setup doesn't rely on it.

[DigPeter]

@Ferdinand
Thanks for this input.  I will try this approach in a couple of days when I return from a trip.

[Ferdinand]

I thought it best to test this while I had a few minutes.  I created a folder structure like yours and populated it with some test images you have sent me.  They all JPGs, and I put one set in the Originals tree and a duplicate set of the same files in the Processed tree.  I.e. the masters and versions are identical.

In short, it worked!  Attached is a screen shot.  If it doesn't match your setup, tell me what the issue is.

(Note that there are some hangovers in the dialog from the fact that this is a duplicate of one of my test databases which I didn't bother to clean up.  You link expression may not need to be this complex.)


[attachment deleted by admin]

[herman]

In Preferences > Backgroundprocessing I deselected "Automatically refresh relations" 

Thanks, that explains.

I just tried some scenarios, and it seems IM still does some versioning for (new ? ) images even when the Backgroundprocessing has been deselected. If you can confirm this we have a bug that needs squashing 

Confirmed, it seems like another little critter.

Are you going to file the bug report?

I need some time to revisit versioning.
I don't grok why IMatch can not detect if a new file is a version or a master in some conditions but it can in other conditions.
That probably is just me.
I will come back later when I have figured out exactly what I don't understand now.
Putting on my thinking cap now....

[BenAW]

Are you going to file the bug report?

I'll file the bug report.

[Ferdinand]

@Ferdinand
Thanks for this input.  I will try this approach in a couple of days when I return from a trip.

I've read this thread again more carefully and also looked at Mantis 565.  Based on this, it may be that my test of and solution to your case worked because I was lucky about the order in which folders were processed.  Then again, maybe you will be lucky too.

Herman - have I read this right?  Did my test work because I was lucky?  Because on closer inspection of 565, it looks like I was attempting essentially the same thing.

[Ferdinand]

P.s. - yes, I see the problem, or I think I do.  If I take Peter's structure and make another set of copies of the images and put them in an "Early Versions" parent folder (so there are three parents:  Early Versions, Originals, and Processed) then the Early Versions are the masters because they're scanned first, the Processed are versions, and the Originals are nothing - since there can't be two masters and they're not in the right folder for versions.  However it seems to work correctly if there are only two parent folders, i.e. if there is only one master and one version.

[Ferdinand]

P.p.s - not, I'm not so sure I do see the problem.  I can deal with the Early Versions folder by adding another pattern:  "{p3}\Early Versions\{d1}\{d0}".  The files in the Early Versions folders were initially regarded as masters when ingested, but if I select the entire DB and F4,R to rebuild the relations, then it works.

[DigPeter]

I thought it best to test this while I had a few minutes.  I created a folder structure like yours and populated it with some test images you have sent me.  They all JPGs, and I put one set in the Originals tree and a duplicate set of the same files in the Processed tree.  I.e. the masters and versions are identical.

@Ferdinand
Yes- for the folder structure quoted above, the pattern works, but (despite reading all the relevant help topics), I do not understand why!  However in the case where the originals and the processed version are on the same drive, patterns are not needed:  the full path C:\Test 6\Processed suffices, provided that the Originals & Processed folders do not lie directly beneath the C:\ drive.  That is, the following will not work using full path:

C:
-Originals/
-Processed/

With the Originals in an an external (G) drive, I cannot make versioning work by any method.  I assume that a pettern is necessary. This is the folder structure I used:

C:
-Test 7
--Processed\ ....
G:
-Test 7
--Originals\....
Otherwise the structure is as quoted in my earlier post.

Could you kindly advise?