Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Categories

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Categories

    Hi
    I have previously used Lightroom and I have tagged my files in a far too detailed way so now I thought I’d stick to a limited number of categories, but will those categories be present in the file/photo if I change to another software some day.
    Categories seem a lot more convenient and faster to deal with than tags or have I misunderstood something?
    I would be grateful if somebody could answer my two questions

  • #2
    So will categories still be present if I decide to go back to Photoshop one day?

    Comment


    • #3
      I just bought ACDSee and actually the proprietarydatabase is not readable by other programs as far as I have searched. But if you let ACDSee embed the categories the open source freeware digiKam can read the categories (tried that, just a mouse click) and then you should be able to export to MS or Adobe database format (didn't try that).

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by AC77 View Post
        I just bought ACDSee and actually the proprietarydatabase is not readable by other programs as far as I have searched. But if you let ACDSee embed the categories the open source freeware digiKam can read the categories (tried that, just a mouse click) and then you should be able to export to MS or Adobe database format (didn't try that).

        ACDSee database is easily accessible with OpenOffice/LibreOffice's Base component. You need to use Open existing dBase database option afair.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Xyzzy View Post
          ACDSee database is easily accessible with OpenOffice/LibreOffice's Base component. You need to use Open existing dBase database option afair.
          Please describe how to gather use full information with this procedure :-)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Emil View Post

            Please describe how to gather use full information with this procedure :-)

            You mean how to do it?

            - Run LO launcher, select Create> Database on the left
            - Click Connect to existing database radio button
            - Select dBase from this dropdown
            - Click Next
            - Click Browse... button
            - Select directory containing ACDSee database (.dbf files)
            - Click Next
            - Select Open database for editing checkbox
            - Click Create
            - Select some name and save.

            Now when you edit, changes will be saved to .dbf files.

            Comment


            • #7
              Warning to all! Don't follow this procedure, it's very easy to damage your db.

              There's nothing use full in these tables for users.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Emil View Post
                Warning to all! Don't follow this procedure, it's very easy to damage your db.

                There's nothing use full in these tables for users.

                Eh, what?

                Sure it's easy to damage you db - the same way as when you mess with your car's engine with no idea what you are doing.

                And, contrary to your information, there's lot of interesting information there - it's literally THE ACDSee database.

                And, by the way, you asked about it, right?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I did open in LibreOffice to see what there is to see. I found over 80% of the fields were filled with "overflow" values. Further, the schema was not apparent.

                  As I would not trust overflow data... and I am definitely NOT sure on the schema interactions, I would agree with Emil's advice to stay away from direct access the dbf files.


                  It seems the dB behind ACD may be FoxPro. Yikes! If this is the case, it explains a lot of things.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GusPanella View Post
                    I did open in LibreOffice to see what there is to see. I found over 80% of the fields were filled with "overflow" values. Further, the schema was not apparent.

                    As I would not trust overflow data... and I am definitely NOT sure on the schema interactions, I would agree with Emil's advice to stay away from direct access the dbf files.


                    It seems the dB behind ACD may be FoxPro. Yikes! If this is the case, it explains a lot of things.
                    Yikes as well!!! What issues does the use of FoxPro explain??? Not sure I want to use software that is using an discontinued DB (1994)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Please note...
                      I do NOT know if the back-end is FoxPro or not... I am trying to figure it our from the database file formats (that tend to indicate FoxPro). The run-times are a better indicator but have now way of knowing for sure yet. FWIW, I think FoxPro carried on to 2012 (well past 1994). Of course, we also see Directx9 runtimes from 2012 in Ult2018, but I am not sure where those are used, so they may not make a difference in my workflow..

                      I would be concerned because a discontinued database engine from a while ago could be a performance limiting factor that some have seen in the past. Certainly a modern SQL code set would have optimizations that would make it better than older year old code. (Note: I have not noticed any performance degradation personally)

                      I would also be concerned on the ability to actually upgrade the back-end.
                      Transferring existing databases over to new instance/schema is rarely easy. I would worry about the poor developers that would have this task on their plate along with the amount of regression testing that would have to be done when the major surgery eventually has to take place. This is not nearly excited as making new features that can earn new users. It is always much more fun to hang party decorations than it is to clean the house.

                      In any case, my previous support of Emil's recommendation still stands.... Direct editing of the database files would not be something I would do.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yes, that seems to be the case in the software world- party decorations. And the move to software subscriptions solidifies the masquerade of software development. At least AcdSee gives you the option to buy or subscribe. But I'll have to consider what is under the hood more.

                        Microsoft Office dropped the option about 5 years ago to directly import dbf files. Seems like in a past life I worked with the cdx files (but that might be.sbx) and the fpt rings a faint bell.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X