Pictures in Gallery showing the date the picture was taken

[Xenboy]

Right now, if the pictures you post have a "taken on" date in the EXIF data, Gallery does not show that date. You have to view the raw EXIF data to see it.

It would be really nice if you could have the date and time pulled from the EXIF data and displayed in a friendly format automatically in the sidebar of the picture.

Bonus points if you could also set pictures to be sorted by the day/time they were taken.

[The Old Man]

On 5/6/2018 at 5:33 PM, Xenboy said:

Bonus points if you could also set pictures to be sorted by the day/time they were taken.

I've been asking and waiting patiently for this for years since IPB 2, with all hopes for it finally being available again in IPS 4.3 Gallery. 

I just tried uploading the first 12 photos as a test from a batch of over 340 event photos I need to upload, I have already batch resized them in Photoshop from 16 megapixels to 1920x1080, and they are captioned image_(1), image_(2), image_(3), through to image_(12)  but yet again, its a total, frustrating, time consuming, nonsensical mess. 

The images appear in the uploader modal the correct order I selected them, which is the correct order shown in Windows Explorer, but after importing is completed they are all displayed in the exact reverse order to what I selected:

image_(12), image_(11), image_(10), through to image_(1)

so in order words, the end of the event appears before the start of the event, or put another way, when you open a category, you see the end of the race/parade before the start!

If I set to sort by Caption, I get:

image_(1), image_(10), image_(11), image_(12), image_(2), image_(3), (4), image_(5), image_(6), image_(7), through to image_(9).

If I set the sort order to Recently Updated or Start Date (shouldn't it be Start Date/Time) I end with what I first had, which is what the category is set to, to be fair, but where are the reverse sort options, so you can set A-Z, Z-A, 1-10, 10-1 sort? 

I'm unsure why IPS can't seem to get this to work or why leave out the reverse sort options? I even tried selecting the same sort order twice to see if it reverses, but sadly no.

It must surely be possible, after all search results are capable of being sorted by date, the order is correct in Windows, etc.

You can't really be expected to reorder hundreds of images in the uploader, but the thing is, they appear as selected in the uploader, so you don't know they are going to be displayed the opposite of what you have selected!

Weird. 

According to Wikipedia, its solvable by using leading zeros:

Quote

Ascending order of numbers differs from alphabetical order, e.g. 11 comes alphabetically before 2. This can be fixed with leading zeros: 02 comes alphabetically before 11. See e.g. ISO 8601.

Collation

Leading zeros are used to make ascending order of numbers correspond with alphabetical order: e.g., 11 comes alphabetically before 2, but after 02. (See, e.g., ISO 8601.) This does not work with negative numbers, though, whether leading zeroes are used or not: −23 comes alphabetically after −01, −1, and −22, although it is less than all of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collation#Issues_with_numbers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_zero

 

 

So. I'm going to try 1-9 with leading zeros and sort by caption to see if that works.

 

On 5/6/2018 at 5:33 PM, Xenboy said:

Right now, if the pictures you post have a "taken on" date in the EXIF data, Gallery does not show that date. You have to view the raw EXIF data to see it.

It would be really nice if you could have the date and time pulled from the EXIF data and displayed in a friendly format automatically in the sidebar of the picture

Yes, this is a bit odd, because it shows the aperture, focus, shutter speed etc pulled from the EXIF. I would have thought the date taken would be the first thing you'd pull, especially for a professional photo portfolio site. There are hardly any options in the Gallery Settings beyond the basics.

It would be great if you could select in AdminCP which EXIF tags you want to display nicely by the side of the image.

[The Old Man]

Well, I gave it a shot!

I tried changing using a leading 0, sorting by caption and it worked for the first 10 images but I got:

image_(01), image_(02), image_(03), to image_(09), image_(10), then image_(100), (101), image_(102), image_(198), image_(199),  image_(20), image_(201), image_(202), image_(203), and so on.

That said, I uploaded 340+ images in 1 go, which was a lot easier than in the past breaking up into <99 groups, only 1 image failed.

[Joel R]

I do the same thing with my images.  Learned this lesson a long time ago (even before IPS).  If you're up to XXX images, then you need to make sure youe file captions include up to the hundreds position. ("000").  I use a free file utility called Bulk Rename Utility to autorename.  

I agree with you, however, that IPS needs to help us with file ordering.  You don't watch a parade backwards, you don't flip through magazine backwards.  IPS tends to follow the descending order, but there are instances when you need ascending order too.  

[The Old Man]

Very true @Joel R! ?

Can I ask, on your Gallery, are the category images on the main index blurred? Mine are and they look awful, but the rest of the images in the new images and featured images sections look lovely and crisp. May be on my 4k monitor, I will check on my ipad.

[Joel R]

Umm, I don't have blurred images on my Category covers but I do on my album thumbnails.  It might have something to do with your 4k HD monitor.  You may also want to right click to find out the size of images.  

I created my own Category covers to make it look nicer in one of my gallery categories, so maybe you can test that as well.  

[The Old Man]

Thanks Joel, interesting. The thumbs at the top are using a small version it seems.

[Joel R]

At least in your screenshot they look sharp to me.  

For the ones that are blurry, try switching to another category cover and then switch back.  

[bfarber]

Yes, when sorting by date we sort DESC (most people entering a container want to see the newest stuff first), but I can understand the use case for wanting to sort ASC too here and we can look into that in a future release.

[Xenboy]

Thanks! 

However, it’s not just sorting (though that is certainly part of it). It’s about being able to display information pulled from EXIF data in a user-controllable way (per the feedback above, which I agree with). Is there some way to submit this request formally so we can get it added to the roadmap for a future version?

[The Old Man]

On 5/14/2018 at 5:57 PM, Joel R said:

At least in your screenshot they look sharp to me.  

For the ones that are blurry, try switching to another category cover and then switch back.  

Thanks Joel, the category/album images are still horribly blurry after changing the cover image.

They seem to be stretched 260px or wide thumbs, but looking at my other sites Galleries, they are all pin sharp crisp images, so I don't get it. I haven't found any custom.css yet that could account for it. They are also still blurry in the default IPS theme.

Heres a hi-res screenshot from my iPad (2017 model) and they are blurry as they were on my 4K PC monitor. Again the latest and featured images are crisp by comparison.

 

 

 

[The Old Man]

22 hours ago, bfarber said:

Yes, when sorting by date we sort DESC (most people entering a container want to see the newest stuff first), but I can understand the use case for wanting to sort ASC too here and we can look into that in a future release.

Thanks Brandon, in fairness I was told that years ago! Would be awesome to have that flexibility. I don't see how photography sites would be happy with the current restrictions.

14 hours ago, Xenboy said:

Thanks! 

However, it’s not just sorting (though that is certainly part of it). It’s about being able to display information pulled from EXIF data in a user-controllable way (per the feedback above, which I agree with). Is there some way to submit this request formally so we can get it added to the roadmap for a future version?

Apologies for taking over your thread. Totally agree that we should be able to display much more of the EXIF data but especially the time and date should be optionally displayed clearly. 

[bfarber]

Take a look at your image sizes in the AdminCP. In 4.3, Gallery thumbnails should be 600x600 px (to account for retina displays). You can adjust your thumbnail dimensions and then rebuild all of your images after (when you save you will be prompted to rebuild images and you can choose yes). This will likely clear up the blurriness you are seeing with category covers.

[The Old Man]

4 hours ago, bfarber said:

Take a look at your image sizes in the AdminCP. In 4.3, Gallery thumbnails should be 600x600 px (to account for retina displays). You can adjust your thumbnail dimensions and then rebuild all of your images after (when you save you will be prompted to rebuild images and you can choose yes). This will likely clear up the blurriness you are seeing with category covers.

Thanks, will do!

 

[The Old Man]

6 hours ago, bfarber said:

Take a look at your image sizes in the AdminCP. In 4.3, Gallery thumbnails should be 600x600 px (to account for retina displays). You can adjust your thumbnail dimensions and then rebuild all of your images after (when you save you will be prompted to rebuild images and you can choose yes). This will likely clear up the blurriness you are seeing with category covers.

Thanks for this, they were set to 240x240. I'll reset to 600x600.

Does anyone know if they are set to square by default on 4.3?

I'm a dumbass, 600x600 is probably still a square.