So I'm looking for a decent program to organize my shit ton of pictures.
I want to find duplicates, move shit around to new folders, change dates, add locations, etc
I saw this thing systweak photo organizer, looks ok but I assumed Sup Forums will know better
Other urls found in this thread:
softpedia.com
twitter.com
softpedia.com
Google retired it, but it should still work with your files locally.
Switch to hydrus.
No more shitty file- and foldernames, it's hash and tag-based and the tags can be pulled from various sources.
Also has a deduplication UI builtin even for approximately identical files (exactly identical is handled by the hash).
You better ask /p/
The obvious answer is lightroom and the mac one (forgot name)
*stops maintaining hydrus*
enjoy being stuck with a million pictures in one folder
looking into it seems fine, will it let me then grab by tags and put them in a folder do this tags go into the file too?
I guess my ideal workflow will that, tag the shit, move to a folder, check for duplicates.
I really want to avoid the program forcing me to create folders to put my pics in
Irrelevant.
Not only can you export the files and/or tags in half a dozen ways (by which you can then switch to a successor application), Hydrus is also open sauce and can be maintained by you if needed.
Never mind it probably won't need to be maintained much for a longer while even when it's discontinued.
>irrelevant
lmfao you are so clueless
> will it let me then grab by tags
It can download from various websites that have tags.
It can parse companion .txt files that contain tags.
It can associate tags from a database with your files such as the ones people scraped from various *boorus, or the synchronizable "public tag repository" database that hydrus users maintain.
> and put them in a folder
It'll put them in a filename+folder based on the file's hash.
> tag the shit, move to a folder, check for duplicates
Yup. It'll do that.
> I really want to avoid the program forcing me to create folders to put my pics in
Hydrus will manage its folders, you can only tell it between which locations to distribute it's files.
Again, apart from it being open sauce and obviously won't even cease to work just because it is discontinued (even if somehow no one else continues maintaining it, which seems unlikely), you can trivially export both the files and tags elsewhere in a lot of ways if you need to.
That's why it is irrelevant.
Think I will give Lightroom a go, the Collections thing seems to do what I want easily.
If that doesn't go as planned then I´m trying the Hydrus
Lightroom is a slow Adobe subscription trap.
Yea, it's better for working iwth RAW formats from your own DSLR/MILC camera than hydrus is (... worse for media you find on the internet, though).
But even then I'd seriously consider if you want to be in Adobe's suscription trap rather than paying upfront for one of the competitors.
...
darktable
Hydrus is what you're looking for, Lightroom is a photography software, not an image organizer. You can do it with Lightroom too ofc, but Hydrus is better for organizing your stuff.
If I could have this built right into Explorer/Nautilus, it would be my favorite thing ever. All of the rare pepes and smug animu grills at my fingertips for rapid shitposting.
I wanted to ask, where did you get WIndows 10 theme for KDE, until I scrolled down...
Now I know the power of QT.
Google Photos, free, cloud based, drag&drop and your shit are done.
>inb4 muh tinfoil
This are my own pictures and I have a few RAWs here and there.
>2017
>paying for software
I have the pixel so even my dick pics get uploaded, fun times. I´'m doing that but just uploading the free one for my other pics and not everything just things I want to show.
Plus I want to have a proper local organization so I can keep track of this shit
Classification is total crap when you have a few thousand photos. The JS interface can't handle large operations and putting everything in albums would take weeks, not to mention that the homepage's behavior is stupid.
The app is arguably better but yes it becomes hellish when you have a couple hundred pictures with no dates/any tags. It is great when the metadata of the pictures is fine
ACDsee Ultimate. Just torrent and pirate it off 1337x.to
Thank me later, op
>Use paid(pirated) ACDsee Ultimate version
>select image folder
>freezes
>slow downs
>several hours to build up a database and load up folder
>finally finishes
>select an image
>freezes
>slow downs
>uninstall
Jesus, is it that hard to make an image viwer that doesn't shit itself when having too many images in one folder?
Yeah no, still running a 2009 laptop. Not even going to try
>Jesus, is it that hard to make an image viwer that doesn't shit itself when having too many images in one folder?
To a good extent it is, yes. Partly because 95% of GUI libs SUCK at handling long lists, possibly with images.
Only Picasa and a few more had this somewhat right. Hydrus and Explorer (/ your preferred Linux file manager) may also work okay, though even these have some bottlenecks with a few million already.
BTW, another part of this is also that many *filesystems* suck with some millions of files (sometimes it's only if they are in a single folder, sometimes it's in total).
You might want to move your data to suitable Linux filesystems even just for that reason.
Does anyone know a good program to sort porn?
I found this ancient abandoned software that creates a wall of images and sort them by color, but I'd like something more.
is there any program using AI or neuronal network to detect and classify images and automatically apply tags, and that would also encrypt and hide the files?
> is there any program using AI or neuronal network to detect and classify images
Not anything production ready, you can just grab and use, no.
Hydrus is as good as it gets.
> and that would also encrypt and hide the files?
Completely useless. You can encrypt your drive under Linux or whatever, but is there even any reason to bother? Just show and share your porn.
Encryption is better handled by specialized time-proofed systems. Use BitLocker for that.
>2017
No it isn't. It's unstable, buggy, takes up twice the amount of memory as old Firefox, distributed under a joke license, is authored by an anonymous developer, and isn't even in fucking pip.
Your complaint is about as valid as "enjoy having a million picutres on one filesystem". What if someone stops maintaining ext4, btrfs or whatever shit your using?