Backing-up lots of images + several image-handling softwares = chaos?

Hi

If one has several different image-handling softwares on one's computer
..... each with *all the same images* in their respective libraries ....
Does the hard-drive store multiple examples of the images? (one for
each software) Or does it store only one example of the image and use
multiple address tags (or whatever) depending on the software open at
the time?

It's long overdue that I backed-up several thousand images. Putting all
of them onto a single DVD might prove difficult if each software wants
to copy *exactly the same images* onto the DVD.

Any useful thoughts please?

Thanks
Chris.B

In article . com,
says...
Hi

If one has several different image-handling softwares on one's computer
.... each with *all the same images* in their respective libraries ....
Does the hard-drive store multiple examples of the images? (one for
each software) Or does it store only one example of the image and use
multiple address tags (or whatever) depending on the software open at
the time?

It's long overdue that I backed-up several thousand images. Putting all
of them onto a single DVD might prove difficult if each software wants
to copy *exactly the same images* onto the DVD.

I've used Picasa for this, one copy of each image but I suspect that if
you have different images saved with diff extensions, you'd save
multiple copies but worth looking at anyway.
--
Craig Oldfield

Craig Oldfield verbally sodomised in
news:MPG.1d31bdb59784cd7d989a4d@localhost:

In article . com,
says...
Hi

If one has several different image-handling softwares on one's computer
.... each with *all the same images* in their respective libraries ....
Does the hard-drive store multiple examples of the images? (one for
each software) Or does it store only one example of the image and use
multiple address tags (or whatever) depending on the software open at
the time?

It's long overdue that I backed-up several thousand images. Putting all
of them onto a single DVD might prove difficult if each software wants
to copy *exactly the same images* onto the DVD.

I've used Picasa for this, one copy of each image but I suspect that if
you have different images saved with diff extensions, you'd save
multiple copies but worth looking at anyway.


Thanks lard arse.

--
Phil Kyle™
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!

"Be very aware that my willingness
to continue to criticise your sig
is infinite." -- Neil Barker

In article . com,
says...
Hi

If one has several different image-handling softwares on one's computer
.... each with *all the same images* in their respective libraries ....
Does the hard-drive store multiple examples of the images? (one for
each software) Or does it store only one example of the image and use
multiple address tags (or whatever) depending on the software open at
the time?

Well, it's a filesystem-level issue : If program A saves M57.jpg and
program B also saves in JPG format and you save M57.jpg, then it will
overwrite program A's file if they're in the same directory. They can
coexist if they're in different directories. They will be both images of
the Ring Nebula, but not the same exact file. The basic rule is: Only
one file of a given name in a given directory. You can have the same
exact image with two different names in one directory or the same exact
image with the same exact name in two different directories, but you
can't have the same image with the same name twice in the same
directory.

Above that level, any given program is just going to open up a given
image from a given location. It will later just save it back somewhere.
Some programs actually can embed images in a larger library file that
contains many individual images, but at that point, they're no longer
"competing" for the filename as before.

Or, look at it another way: Let's say I open M57.jpg in Photoshop and
save it as a native Photoshop image, M57.psd. I later open M57.jpg in
The GIMP and save it as M57.xcf (GIMP's native format), all in the same
directory. We now have M57.jpg, M57.psd and M57.xcf together in the same
directory. They're all the same image, but different formats and
different filenames. If I open Photoshop, load M57.psd and save it again
as a JPG named M57.jpg, it will overwrite the original JPG we started
with. That doesn't necessarily make it "Photoshop's" JPG, it was just
saved by Photoshop. I could then open M57.jpg in The GIMP just like any
other JPG. There's nothing tying the JPG to either Photoshop or The
GIMP. To a degree, there IS something tying M57.psd to Photoshop and
M57.xcf to The GIMP, since those files are in those program's native
formats, respectively.

Many programs can open the native format of other programs (at least to
a degree), but that's just form cross-program compatibility. For
example, The GIMP can open some (but not all) Paint Shop Pro *.psp
images, but PSP is still Paint Shop Pro's native format.


It's long overdue that I backed-up several thousand images. Putting all
of them onto a single DVD might prove difficult if each software wants
to copy *exactly the same images* onto the DVD.

Any useful thoughts please?

Just preserve your existing directory structure - That way, you'll keep
exactly what you have currently when to copy it to DVD. In other words,
burn it to DVD exactly as it appears on your hard drive. Don't move
anything around, just copy your images filetree to the DVD. At least
that's what I'd do.

Thanks. The usual problem is auto-backup from (for example) Picasa to
My Pictures. I seem to end up with multiple image handling softwares
all having identical libraries. At least I can now auto-delete
duplicate downloaded images from my camera using Picasa to download
from the memory card. This does seem to be a grey area with digital
cameras and image software. Even removing duplicates is a terrifying
and time-consuming business once they exist in such vast numbers. It
doesn't help when all those funny little white blobs all look the same
as thumbnails and I daren't lose any. Just in case some clever free
software comes along that removes all the clearly visible disasters
which I so carefully added during exposure at the telescope! :-)

Regards
Chris.B

In article .com,
says...
cameras and image software. Even removing duplicates is a terrifying
and time-consuming business once they exist in such vast numbers. It
doesn't help when all those funny little white blobs all look the same
as thumbnails and I daren't lose any. Just in case some clever free

Yeah - That's always an issue, since you really can't even rely on
filenames to make a decision. You just have to view each one and take
notes, I guess. Sounds like you have a long winder's night task in front
of you... :-)

--

-- Len Philpot - --
------ ----- http://philpot.org/ --