@platypus Thank you for your response that was what I was looking for @JoJu not a lot of work but some insight into a product that I don’t use from those that do!
Arguably that is what DxPL does with the “missing” images in the display and the “!” and you are free to ‘Remove’ them at that point regardless of whether you located the problem browsing directories or browsing ‘Projects’.
But when does LR “discover” that this issue has occurred?
Then we fall into the major difference between LR and DxPL with respect to how images “wind up” in the database.
With LR, images are imported when the user selects an image or images to be imported but with DxPL browsing or indexing imports all the images in a directory (or directories in the case of indexing) to be imported. While it could treat a lost image in a similar manner to an image in a ‘Project’ i.e. as an independent entity, rather than an item in a “collection” (directory) that is not the “normal” way that DxPL works but I cannot see a reason why it couldn’t, i.e. It would not be difficult for DxPL to offer an option on the “!” to ‘Delete’ or ‘Locate’ etc.
However, reconnecting database entries with the new image location would be a nightmare after a wholesale re-organization of directories, i.e. save the current database, and start afresh and use DOPs etc. to reconstruct the database (at the price of losing any ‘Projects’).
This is the removal from the database without removing from disk and you know that I fully support the requests for that feature.
I cannot understand why DxO went down the path that they did, i.e. incorporating an actual “delete from disk” into the ‘Remove’ command, ‘Remove’ should have been from the database and there should also have been a ‘Delete’ which would have done both!?
The item I suspected existed but had no easy way of verifying and yes it should also exist in DxPL and arguably could simply be added as an additional element in the ‘index’ feature.
I have seen the post Photo Browser Not Displaying All Images - #26 by platypus but need to re-read the earlier posts.
I am not sure I understand the issues that are being raised, i.e. I have been deliberately creating situations of “lost” images (changing the name of images, moving them to different directories and renaming directories) and have not experienced anything that I did not expect (DxPL being unable to show the image because its “pointers” are no longer valid) with only the images I expected causing “errors” hence I have not joined that discussion.
Agreed, it is possible that what I saw with iMatch, which was triggered by my moving of all my test images from F:\ to H:\ as part of a recent re-organisation of my disks, might have been “sanctioned” by a ‘Preferences’ option setting, something I need to check.
Anything that DxO implement (if) should be manually started and it should be possible to manually terminate before it is completed, with a “restart point” being the icing on the cake, if that cake is ever made!
@Guenterm A lot of “hot air” over nothing, but I did seriously consider buying a MAC Mini rather than upgrading an existing case and power supply (!) with a new motherboard, processor, cooler, memory, Graphics card etc. but decided that the MAC would give me a “one trick pony” machine (actually two - DxPL and Affinity) rather than a new PC which could utilise all the software I had, albeit some with Licence issues!
@Stenis thank you for your encouragement both before and after the @Joanna and @JoJu posts complaining about my overly long and apparently “incomprehensible” posts, it is much appreciated.
Agreed but we should still continue to apply pressure to the “absent landlord” and DxPL is not completely useless for basic searching.
Truly hurtful, you are definitely off my Christmas card list, but I just checked and you weren’t on it anyway, so that’s O.K.