* 2 Future enhancement requests

[ColinMc]

When adding an image in AS, a dialog box always appears saying "Do you want to copy the selected image into your project folder">

I manage ALL (ie non genealogy - the vast majority - as well as the small percentage used for genealogy) my many thousands of photos in Lightroom with storage on a separate disk, I choose not to copy/move them into the project folder. My backups are managed independently of FH using Acronis. I suspect I am not alone in not using the project folder, although I suspect the vast majority probably do. There probably is a small (? tiny) but significant minority who choose not to use it however.

The result is that in 100% of cases, I never want to answer that dialog box with a yes. I suspect that others who do not store in the project folder will have a similar % of non-use. As a (low priority) future enhancement would it be possible to have a preference setting to suppress that question?



On the same (add image) screen with the image viewer showing, at the foot, we have a Save and a Cancel Button. Again as a low priority issue, would it be an option to include a "Save & Close" button. My guess is that in probably 95%+ of cases, I select Save followed immediately by Close, as a single image is being added. Again I suspect this would apply to many others.

[Mark1834]

Adopting the FH method of remembering the previous location is probably the way to do it.

Personally, I’ve never understood the strong FH (and therefore long term FHUG contributors) preference for storing in the project folder. It makes offering support to newbies easier, but I suspect a lot of users (particularly those who are more confident PC users or have come to FH from other apps) link rather than copy.

[davidf]

Now that disk capacity is so much greater and cheaper than before (my first "PC" with 10M Hard disk cost £1000), there is much to be said for keeping an "FH Copy" so that if you do "outside FH" photo management you do not end up with broken links or accidental deletions.

As mentioned elsewhere I also find it useful to save all downloaded images direct into my project media folder (one big folder - no sub folders), because then the "image exists - do you want to over-write" system message is significant! It means you have been here before - so if dealing with say a census schedule, you are either about to duplicate a family or you have discovered significant neighbours.

That said a bit of software that could accurately find duplicate images (or even part matches due to cropping of basic image adjustment) and just catalogue that fact would be useful.

[tatewise]

Mark, it is the improvements in recent FH versions that make it easier to keep Media outside the Project folder, as long as the user understands that those Media are NEVER included in FH Project Backups and alternative backups are used.
Migrating to another PC, or moving the external Media folder, needs changes to the Media record File Link paths.
That is now automatically resolved by the Tools > External File Links... > Auto Repair Links button (assuming all filenames are unique), whereas previously it was a rather more complicated task for the user.
Those complications were avoided if the Media was kept inside the Project folder and thus was the recommended method.

David, the Check for Possible Duplicated Media plugin finds duplicated files linked to Media records.
I suspect it could be extended to check all media files.
Checking partial image matches is much more complex and would require comparing every possible pixel-cropped sub-image and I guess would be extremely time-consuming.

[davidf]

David, the Check for Possible Duplicated Media plugin finds duplicated files linked to Media records.
I suspect it could be extended to check all media files.
Checking partial image matches is much more complex and would require comparing every possible pixel-cropped sub-image and I guess would be extremely time-consuming.

Mike

Duplicates within my media folder (which is flat and one per project) are very rare for me - partly because downloaded files retain their name (once they are attached to a media record, the "meaning of the file name" ceases to have any relevance).

Duplicates across projects occasionally happen and when they do they are of interest.

It is the duplicates outside the FH eco-system that I may want to "manage". I might have a scanned version of an old album (which I keep separately from FH - so that I retain the integrity of the album and do not fill my FH media folder with possibly irrelevant photographs without media records). Then I might have a photo in that album that I might say try and tweak to see who is in a shadow of a group photograph and then realise that it is a family member. It is then that I want to be able to say "OK do I have a copy of this photo from this album that I have just tweaked in my FH system and if so do I want to update it".

Likewise I have had a relative in Canada send me a photograph of an old Golden Wedding celebration. Simple visual examination enable me to see that this was the same photo and further confirm that my correspondent was indeed a relative. Sometimes it is not that easy - particularly if there has been a crop.

I do realise that identifying partial matches is a very far from easy exercise (if in my example I have already written back my "tweaks" to the album image file). I think some of the photo anti-plagiarism tools do however claim to have this functionality - but probably at a price.

[tatewise]

OK, so you are not talking about exact literal byte-by-byte duplicates, which is what the plugin finds, but 'similar' images and that needs a whole different approach probably involving AI as used in face recognition apps.

[davidf]

Face recognition has an element of "knowledge" - what a face is, how the aspect has an impact etc.

For crops, downloads at different resolutions, and possibly contrast and allied changes, where the photographs are "more than similar", it is probably possible "knowledge free" to spot patterns:
2 pixels then darker, 4 pixels then lighter etc. may be the same as
1 pixel then darker, 2 pixels then lighter etc.
Sufficient similarities then become strongly indicative.

I think music anti-plagiarism software tries to do something similar.