|
|
Hi Pix
As an afterthought I've imported some pics from a more recent folder. It has saved by capture date!
Me confused baffled feeling older by the minute.
Best wishes
Paul
Quote
Hello Paul,
Some other thoughts on your question about capture dates...
1. Are they original photos from the camera or have they been edited previously. In PhD, the default setting is to retain EXIF metadata but that can be changed in the Export settings.
2. I'm aware that some online photo storage facilities (like Google Photos) have been known to "not recognise" the date created/taken and insert "today's date" instead. I don't know if this may have been a factor in your case.
3. PhD, as you'd be aware, does recognise the date created & is displayed as Capture Date in the Metadata tab. That's what leads me to suspect something may have happened outside PhD.
4!!!  Paul, I've just discovered something disturbing. Still investigating so no conclusion yet.
Photos I'd exported from PhD which (a) previously imported showing the correct capture date) & (b) show the correct capture dates in Windows Properties, now get imported into PhD showing the WRONG capture date. When imported using "by Capture Date" th're filed under today's date. Importantly, I did not check the option to remove EXIF metadata om export.
There's something strange going on. I'll gather more evidence & report this to CL, even though it may not relate to your problem.
PIX
|
|
|
Good morning Pix.
I'm intrigued!
In answer to your first points if I may.
1.They have been loaded from the camera. If I import them to PhD and then hover over them in the file I've chosen to import them to the correct capture date is shown/appears.
2.I don't use online storage although some of my pics have appeared in Google Images.
3.I have the boxes ticked as in your pic.
4.Interesting.
A couple of additional comments.
I've started importing from the next folder and the capture date this time is 5 Sept 2022. PhD has imported it as 6 Sept 2022. Again if I hover over the picture in the import folder the capture date is the 5th.
Lastly (for now lol) I wanted to attach some screenshots to see if that would help but it says something about a URL. I probably don't need to say this but I haven't got a clue what that means or how to do it.
Best wishes
Paul
Quote
Hello Paul,
Some other thoughts on your question about capture dates...
1. Are they original photos from the camera or have they been edited previously. In PhD, the default setting is to retain EXIF metadata but that can be changed in the Export settings.
2. I'm aware that some online photo storage facilities (like Google Photos) have been known to "not recognise" the date created/taken and insert "today's date" instead. I don't know if this may have been a factor in your case.
3. PhD, as you'd be aware, does recognise the date created & is displayed as Capture Date in the Metadata tab. That's what leads me to suspect something may have happened outside PhD.
4!!! Paul, I've just discovered something disturbing. Still investigating so no conclusion yet.
Photos I'd exported from PhD which (a) previously imported showing the correct capture date) & (b) show the correct capture dates in Windows Properties, now get imported into PhD showing the WRONG capture date. When imported using "by Capture Date" th're filed under today's date. Importantly, I did not check the option to remove EXIF metadata om export.
There's something strange going on. I'll gather more evidence & report this to CL, even though it may not relate to your problem.
PIX
|
|
|
Hi
Just got PhD14. In previous versions I have imported photos by capture date. This appeared to work on the first photos I imported to this version however that seemed to change today and I can't work out why. I have deleted the previous version I had today so don't know if that would have affected anything.
When I started importing today the photos imported with todays date. I've followed the instructions in the help section to select capture by date but to no avail. I'm also having the same problem with renaming the files to include the date. It also ignores the capture date in favour of todays date. Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
papa d1
Just a little update in case it helps any one. Don't know if it's significant but the photos I'm importing are still showing the same date as above (ie 22092022). This is the date I purchased and installed PhD14. I have set imports to 'make extra copy' and organize 'by capture date'.
|
|
|
Hi Pix
Yet again I have to say a big thank you to you for all your help and advice which has meant so much to me.
I've actually changed my decision and I have now downloaded PhD14. I'm back in love with Cyberlink who have very quickly sorted things for me.
That's in no small way down to your input and I just wanted to say (once again) how much I've appreciated all that you've done.
Many many thanks and best wishes
Paul
Quote
Thanks Pix.
Did see this but after my experience with PhD8 which as you know became unusable I opted for 365.
Whilst PhD14 may be advertised as a lifetime license Cyberlink keep bringing out newer versions and once the software gives up the ghost as mine did you are faced with the same problem again.
Hopefully I've made the right decision. Only time will tell.
Best wishes
Paul
|
|
|
Thanks Pix.
Did see this but after my experience with PhD8 which as you know became unusable I opted for 365.
Whilst PhD14 may be advertised as a lifetime license Cyberlink keep bringing out newer versions and once the software gives up the ghost as mine did you are faced with the same problem again.
Hopefully I've made the right decision. Only time will tell.
Best wishes
Paul
Quote
Hello Paul,
It is a little confusing when there are different versions available, but I think it's important to correct something.
PhD14 is NOT a trial of PhD365.
PhD14 has a lifetime license (i.e. you'll have it for life once you've paid for it).
PhD365 is a subscription for 1 year (i.e. you'll have it for 365 days, after which the subscription must be renewed)
I'd suggest you have a look at this comparison chart before making your final decision.
PIX
|
|
|
Many thanks Pix
Must admit thought you could buy PHD14 as an alternative to 365. Now read it that PHD14 is the trial version of 365.
I think I'm going to go for 365 as an early birthday present to myself (I'm 70 next month). Wife's gone to her sisters for a few days (who can blame her lol) so I'm going to be purchasing it on my own (what could possibly go wrong?). Fingers crossed I manage it. If not I might be back on the forums haha.
Best wishes
Paul
Quote
Hello Paul,
Ash is correct. PhD14 Essentials is (essentially) a trial version. You would have seen this screen when trying to export.
The idea is that you can try out all the features of PhD14 for a limited period, except for exporting 
PIX
|
|
|
Hi
Having run into a number of problems with PHD8 I took the decision to try the above today. However when I watermark my photos now there is a 'Design by Photodirector', watermark that I can't seem to remove. That will definitely be a factor in whether or not I go on to purchase the package. I supply photos to a UK organisation and they will not allow me to watermark the photos. Is there any way of removing the 'PhotoDirector' watermarks before saving. If not I may as well give up on PhotoDirector now and find an alternative. It's sad because PHD has been a great product up to now and I was sincerely hoping to continue with it. Hopefully I can but this is a major issue which may prevent me from doing so. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Paul
|
|
|
Many many thanks Pix it's been very kind of you to help.
I would never have come up with this myself and I'm certainly going to give it a try.
My very best wishes and gratitude to you.
Paul
Quote
Hello again Paul,
Firstly, thank you for attaching the photos. They've provided some useful information. Secondly, there's never any need to apologise for asking questions. It's a sign of intelligence & the best way to learn & improve what you're doing.
Both your Nikons (D7100 & D5000) output photos at 300PPI. There's absolutely no need to increase that when you're exporting. I'd leave that setting at 300.
When you get some spare time, & if you're inclined, you might like to have a read of this PPI explainer (which I think is very good!).
I understand your need to reduce file size to ~5MB to meet the requirements of the organisation.
The export settings you use will depend on (a) which camera you've used & (b) your camera settings.
(a) D7100 can output 6000 x 4000 px, which equates to 20 x 13.333 inches (300PPI)
(b) D7100 can output 4800 x 3200 px, which equates to 16 x 10.667 inches (300PPI)
(c) D5000 can output 4288 x 2848 px, which equates to 14.293 x 9.493 inches (300PPI)
For (a) I'd use the setting below, which will give you a 2850 x 1900 px image <5MB
For (b) & (c), I'd use the settings below, which will give you a 3000 px (wide) image <5MB
Hope that helps 
PIX
|
|
|
Hi Pix
Sorry I keep thinking of how any additional information might help.
I'm attaching one of my largest files in case it helps.
Best wishes
Paul
Quote
Many thanks again Pix
The UK organisation have requested pics at a max of 5mb. If they want larger ones for a different purpose they just ask for the them as I keep the originals. The reason I do it by adjusting the resolution is because I don't know any other way to reduce the files some of which can be over 25mb. If there is another way then I would be happy to try it. I do it this way because it works for me.
I mainly use my Nikon D7100 with a 150-500 lens. I also carry my trusty old D5000 with a short lens so I don't have to swap lens about. (Don't laugh but I often carry 6 cameras with me if you count the three on my phone).
My initial reaction to you carrying out tests was to think it has to be something my end. You have mentioned sending in a pic but as not all my pics are affected I thought sending you one that is actually causing a problem would be more beneficial. I don't keep a record of which ones I struggle with but I'll be happy to forward the next one if you think it will help.
In the meantime thank you again so much for caring to take all this trouble and apologies for any inconvenience this is causing.
Best wishes
Paul
|
|
|
Hi Pix
Suddenly thought you might need the original I was working from.
Paul
Quote
Many thanks again Pix
The UK organisation have requested pics at a max of 5mb. If they want larger ones for a different purpose they just ask for the them as I keep the originals. The reason I do it by adjusting the resolution is because I don't know any other way to reduce the files some of which can be over 25mb. If there is another way then I would be happy to try it. I do it this way because it works for me.
I mainly use my Nikon D7100 with a 150-500 lens. I also carry my trusty old D5000 with a short lens so I don't have to swap lens about. (Don't laugh but I often carry 6 cameras with me if you count the three on my phone).
My initial reaction to you carrying out tests was to think it has to be something my end. You have mentioned sending in a pic but as not all my pics are affected I thought sending you one that is actually causing a problem would be more beneficial. I don't keep a record of which ones I struggle with but I'll be happy to forward the next one if you think it will help.
In the meantime thank you again so much for caring to take all this trouble and apologies for any inconvenience this is causing.
Best wishes
Paul
|
|
|
Hi Pix sorry it's me again.
I've had a look at some more photos today from a recent visit to Filey and I've got an example of the problem I'm experiencing with using resolutions of 457 and 458 pixels.
Hopefully I've attached them ok. I should say this is my third attempt at this. (I did say I'm not a technical person lol.)
Please bear in mind I'm now thinking this is a problem my end nevertheless I would love to hear back from you even if you can't find a solution. At least I will know someone tried and for that I can't thank you enough.
Best wishes
Paul
Quote
Thank you Paul. It's nice to be appreciated. You're doing good work there.
I don't think reinstalling PhD is likely to make any difference.
Questions:
- The UK organisation you're providing photos for - is their requirement simply file size (5MB or less) or have they requested a certain pixel resolution?
- Which Nikon camera are you using? e.g. a Nikon D5600 (also a 24MP camera) outputs photos 6000x4000 at 300PPI. I can't see any point in increasing the PPI setting for export.
- Could you please attach 1 photo for checking here? That's the only purpose for which it will be used.
PIX
|
|
|
Many thanks again Pix
The UK organisation have requested pics at a max of 5mb. If they want larger ones for a different purpose they just ask for the them as I keep the originals. The reason I do it by adjusting the resolution is because I don't know any other way to reduce the files some of which can be over 25mb. If there is another way then I would be happy to try it. I do it this way because it works for me.
I mainly use my Nikon D7100 with a 150-500 lens. I also carry my trusty old D5000 with a short lens so I don't have to swap lens about. (Don't laugh but I often carry 6 cameras with me if you count the three on my phone).
My initial reaction to you carrying out tests was to think it has to be something my end. You have mentioned sending in a pic but as not all my pics are affected I thought sending you one that is actually causing a problem would be more beneficial. I don't keep a record of which ones I struggle with but I'll be happy to forward the next one if you think it will help.
In the meantime thank you again so much for caring to take all this trouble and apologies for any inconvenience this is causing.
Best wishes
Paul
Quote
Thank you Paul. It's nice to be appreciated. You're doing good work there.
I don't think reinstalling PhD is likely to make any difference.
Questions:
- The UK organisation you're providing photos for - is their requirement simply file size (5MB or less) or have they requested a certain pixel resolution?
- Which Nikon camera are you using? e.g. a Nikon D5600 (also a 24MP camera) outputs photos 6000x4000 at 300PPI. I can't see any point in increasing the PPI setting for export.
- Could you please attach 1 photo for checking here? That's the only purpose for which it will be used.
PIX
|
|
|
Hi Pix
Many thanks for trying to help however and, there's no easy way to say it I'm elderly and not a technical person. I took up photography at a late age in order to try and overcome severe depression. Turns out I'm not bad at it and my pictures have been used in newspapers and magazines all over the UK. They have appeared on TV here and in Australia (my Aunt saw them). I've also found them on internet pages in the UK and America (checked on Google). Nevertheless I'm self taught and I struggle with the technicalities of these things.
I have my Nikon set on the large setting which, reading from the manual gives me a 6000x4000 size (pixels). When I use the 1.3x in camera crop it gives me a size of 4800x3200 (pixels). I have no idea what that means I just set the camera to large.
The figures you are quoting below for 457 and 458 are exactly what I would expect for a difference of 1 pixel to make. They bear out the results I get when using other pixel settings. I can easily estimate the adjustment I need to make because I know roughly what difference a certain number of pixels will make.
It is not the same if I have to use 457 or 458 on my programme and I have to make adjustments elsewhere in order to obtain the size I need. My thinking now is, given that you can achieve the figures I would expect, I'm now thinking it's a glitch/corruption? in my programme or my computer.
I supply pictures on a voluntary basis to a major organisation in the UK. I'm adjusting the PPI in order to meet their requirements for a maximum of 5mb. I visit once a month and take on average 500 to 600 pics per visit. Ideally they want pics no later than the following day (on one occasion I got a phone call and I had just 1 hour and forty minutes to get some publicity pics on their desk. It takes me twnty minutes to get to them!) so any thing that delays me is,at best, frustrating That they requested I reduce them to make them more usable for them (press releases, Twitter etc.) adds greatly to the pressure. As I clearly want to see them used I am nevertheless happy to oblige.
It's someones law (I'm trying not to swear lol) that a percentage of these photos are for some reason falling around 457/458 and that is time consuming especially given the number of photos I'm working with. To add to that I've recently taken on a project for a local business. Seems my fame is spreading but that adds to pressure on my time.
I had hoped that there was a simple solution to the problem with those two settings on my system as it could save me a lot of precious time.
Can I just say I really appreciate your efforts Pix and you taking the time to try and solve this. The figures you got are ,I feel, the figures I should be getting. Sadly I'm not. As a matter of interest do you think re-installing the programme might help.
Best wishes
Paul
PS sorry it's so long winded.
Quote
Hello again Paul,
I've been wrestling with this, trying to replicate your observations about exported file size from PhD8, & I've been unable to.
I've tested a variety of images, even some with insanely high resolutions. As you can see in the examples below, there is little difference in file size when exported at 457PPI or 458PPI. These images were exported with Long Edge set to 7inches & PPI set as shown.
I'm not sure why you're modifying the PPI in any case. Of course it affects file size, but what is the PPI of your original photos/scans?
Perhaps you could post an example of one of your originals as an attachment.
PIX
|
|
|
Hi Pix
After sending my last reply it suddenly dawned on me that only people using the same product could reprduce the problem. Given that Cyberlink would be unlikely to do any upgrade if it was the product at fault I feel I should thank you for trying to help and advise you that I'll just carry on with my workarounds. I actually take aound 600 photos that need resizing hence me looking for an answer to the issue.
Again many thanks for taking the time to try and help this old pensioner (think the term is silver surfer.
Best wishes
Paul
Ps I did note you quoted settings using a D5300. My first DSLR was a D5000.
Quote
Hello again Paul,
A couple of things:
- When you mention 457pixels = 4.71mb, are you referring to the Resolution setting under Image Sizing? (Pixels per inch/cm) or something else?
2. Later versions of PhD have an exported file size estimator built in (which would be helpful for your purposes).
PIX
|
|
|
Hi Pix
Many thanks again for your reply.
I am indeed referring to the resolution number for pixels in image sizing.
I can appreciate that newer versions have a built-in estimater however as a pensioner I have to justify additional expense to myself.
I can easily estimate what adjustment I need to make except when it comes to using a pixel number of 457 and I cannot understand how increasing that pixel number by 1 causes such an increase in size.
I guess the only way to explain the problem would be for someone to take one of their own photos and try to resize it. If you were to kindly do so it would at least demonstrate the problem. If you were to resize a photo at 7x300 and 7x301 you should see a slight variation in the final figure. If you did the same again but at 7x457 and 7x458 you should, if its not my computer causing the problem see a much greater difference. If the difference is the same for both of the above trial pictures then that would suggest its a gltch in my computer and not the program as I suspect.
Please do not feel oblged to try this as I feel I'm already taking up too much of your time. Your assistance is I should add much appreciated.
Best wishes
Paul.
Hello again Paul,
A couple of things:
- When you mention 457pixels = 4.71mb, are you referring to the Resolution setting under Image Sizing? (Pixels per inch/cm) or something else?
2. Later versions of PhD have an exported file size estimator built in (which would be helpful for your purposes).
PIX
|
|
|
Hi Pix
Many thanks for your reply.
I am exporting to JPEG as you quite rightly assume. The figures I am referring to are the inches (7) and the number of pixels in the section Image sizing. Whilst I also keep larger files for myself I supply pictures for other people who need the smaller (i.e 5mb maximum) size. I've agreed with them that I will reduce them so they don't have to.
I work on a 4.95 to 5.00 mb tolerance for their photos. In the vast majority of cases I can reliably predict what adjustment I need to make to the number of pixels in order to achieve that figure (i.e. 5MB).
What I'm trying to work out is why a difference of one pixel can increase/decrease the resulting picture by so much (457pixels = 4.71mb, 458 = 5.93mb) when using other pixel sizes does not. I can easily calculate how many pixels I need to increase/decrease in order to achieve the 5mb maximum I need, except when I use 457 or 458 pixels. No other pixel resolution appears to create this problem. I have a workaround but it's a little frustrating and time consuming with the number of pictures I work with that require this reduction to 5mb.
Unfortunately as previously mentioned I'm not a technical person so apologies if I have confused the matter. To date I haven't come across this 'anomaly' with other pixel settings and as I've said I can reliably make adjustments from one picture to another except at 457/458 number of pixels.
Hope that makes a bit more sense.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Hi. I'm using Phd8. I try and resize most of my photos down to around 5mb for a variety of reasons and I do this by adjusting the resolution up and down accordingly. I've noticed recently that there appears to be quite a big difference between two settings. The best way I can describe it is to give you details of those settings. In both cases I'm using a setting of 7 inches. On a recent pic when I used a resolution of 457 it has produced a pic of 4.71mb. The same pic using a resolution of 458 produced a pic of 5.93mb. I have to say I'm not a technical person but it does seem to be a big difference. I don't seem to have the same problem with other resolutions it's just when I'm using a resolution of 457 and 458. At other resolutions I can quickly work out what adjustment I need to make to the resolution and often hit exactly 5.00mb first time I adjust. Just a bit frustrating that I can't seem to do it with these particular resolutions. Any advice would be appreciated. Best wishes.Paul
|
|
|
Quote
Hello again Paul,
Screenshots will certainly help unlock the riddle.
It's looking more & more like something related to your Nikon camera & its interaction with PhD8. What is your camera model? Could you possibly share a photo from your Nikon xxxxx for testing?
PIX
Thanks PIX. I was thinking the same until I decided to have another look. PD8 help again pointed me to Edit - Preferences which it did before. I went back in there first. I have to admit I've no idea what I've done but it's now naming the file with the correct date. I'm sure it used to name the folder with the date taken as well but that hasn't changed (date is still date uploaded to computer) however thats not an issue.
Can I just personally thank you for your patience, help and advice which is greatly appreciated. Fingers crossed I've got there in the end and I've learnt somethings along the way. If my short term memory loss recovers and I can remember what I did I'll let you know in case someone else has the same issue.
Best wishes and thank you again.
Paul
|
|
|
Quote
Hello again Paul,
Thank you for your positive feedback about our forum 
With help from my friends at CL, I've resolved my PhD8 activation issue.
Here, as with other versions of PhD8, the capture date displayed under the Metadata tab is accurate. i.e. it's the same as the capture date shown in EXIF tool, Windows Properties, Lightroom & various other apps.
Unfortunately, that does not explain (or give any clues about) what might be happening with your PhD8.
Could you please download this photo & import it into PhD8. Capture date should display as 2019/05/18. In Windows Properties it's listed as "Date Taken".
PIX
Hi PIX
Apologies it's me again. Took pics yesterday and downloaded them from my camera today. These appear in the same format (ie the folder and file name use todays date - 20210525 - even though the EXIF has the correct capture date - 20210524). I've taken screenshots in case this might help but I don't know how to upload them to this post. Copy and paste doesn't appear to work and the insert image requests a URL? Sorry to be a pain but this old head is definitely having problems with this technology! Any help greatly appreciated.
Paul
|
|
|
Quote
Hello again Paul,
Thank you for your positive feedback about our forum
With help from my friends at CL, I've resolved my PhD8 activation issue.
Here, as with other versions of PhD8, the capture date displayed under the Metadata tab is accurate. i.e. it's the same as the capture date shown in EXIF tool, Windows Properties, Lightroom & various other apps.
Unfortunately, that does not explain (or give any clues about) what might be happening with your PhD8.
Could you please download this photo & import it into PhD8. Capture date should display as 2019/05/18. In Windows Properties it's listed as "Date Taken".
PIX
Hi Pix.
Again many thanks for this.
The photo you provided does indeed work as mine did previously (ie it imports/displays them in a folder and with a file name displaying the capture date). I hope my limited knowledge/ability hasn't confused matters. However just to re-iterate my latest downloads from my camera when I import them in to PD8 appear in a folder with the date I transferred them from my camera and part of the file name is also the date of transfer not the capture date. EXIF does shows the correct capture date. Photos taken by myself and my wife on our phones correctly display the date captured. It is only my latest download from my Nikon camera that has thrown up this situation
I have managed a workaround for now so I can get on with the ones I've taken during a short break we took last week.
In the meantime I'm checking my camera and Nikon Transfer settings in case I've changed something in them. I'll let you know if I solve it as it may help others if I do.
Best wishes
Paul
|
