Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #16218 > unrolled thread

picture gallery programs that read cameras?

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11

Contents

  picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-11 23:17 -0800
    Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Hank Rogers <invalid@nospam.com> - 2025-01-12 08:50 +0000
      Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 01:38 -0800
        Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 03:12 -0800
    Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-12 11:36 +0000
      Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 12:42 -0800
        Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-12 22:34 +0000
        Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2025-01-13 09:53 -0700
          Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-13 15:32 -0800
    Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? mick <nospam@junk.mail> - 2025-01-12 13:16 +0000
      Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 13:34 -0800
        Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 14:31 -0800
          Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-12 21:34 -0500
            Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 19:58 -0800
              Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-12 23:16 -0500
    Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-12 08:29 -0500
      Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 12:43 -0800
    Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-12 08:56 -0500
      Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 12:48 -0800
    Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-12 16:31 +0000
      Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 12:47 -0800
        Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-12 21:11 +0000
          Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 13:28 -0800
            Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-13 15:33 +0000
              Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-13 15:34 -0800
                Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-13 16:17 -0800
                  Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-13 19:32 -0500
                    Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-13 16:45 -0800
                Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-14 15:06 +0000
                  Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-17 16:08 -0800
                    Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-18 13:25 +0000
                      Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-18 07:04 -0800
          Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 13:31 -0800
            Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-12 22:30 -0500
              Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 20:01 -0800
            Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-13 15:34 +0000
              Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-13 13:54 -0500
    Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Tony <noreply@ghtyhgfrt.com> - 2025-01-13 00:26 +0000
      Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 20:04 -0800
        Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-13 00:54 -0500
        Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-13 16:07 +0000
          Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-13 14:05 -0500
            Re: picture gallery programs that read cameras? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-13 20:31 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#16234

On 1/12/25 8:31 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> A customer was looking for a picture gallery program
>> to read his digital camera.
> 
>    As *he* looks for such a program for *his* camera (singular),  I
> suggest he or you does/do exactly that. Most if not all camera
> manufacturers have such programs for their cameras. I have them for my
> old Olympus cameras and for my current Nikon DSLR.
> 
>    Such programs are manufacturer specific and 'know' the camera, more
> than any general purpose program can.
> 
>    OTOH, if you are looking for a solution for multiple customers or/and
> multiple brands/models of cameras, a general purpose program is probably
> better.
> 
>> Windows Explorer reads his camera just fine.
>>
>> I tried Gigikam, Darktable, and Shotwell. They would
>> not read his camera properly.  Shotwell did not even try.
>> (Shotwell and cameras work like a dream in Linux.)
>> Gigikam, Darktable found the camera but would not
>> read it.
>>
>> Anyone have a recommendation for something that
>> actually works?
> 
>    Chris mentioned the Windows Photos app. That has a camera button/icon.
> I tried it with my smartphone acting as a PTP camera, but that was a bit
> messy because it did not only get photos from the camera (DCIM\Camera),
> but also all kinds of other images, screenshots, etc.. Can't be bothered
> to try it with an actual camera.


If it works from Windows Explorer, it should work
with everything else.

Shotwell states it does not support MTP devices
on Windows, but works seamlessly with them in
Linux.  I was surprised as it is usually the other
way around

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16236

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 1/12/25 8:31 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> A customer was looking for a picture gallery program
> >> to read his digital camera.
> > 
> >    As *he* looks for such a program for *his* camera (singular),  I
> > suggest he or you does/do exactly that. Most if not all camera
> > manufacturers have such programs for their cameras. I have them for my
> > old Olympus cameras and for my current Nikon DSLR.
> > 
> >    Such programs are manufacturer specific and 'know' the camera, more
> > than any general purpose program can.
> > 
> >    OTOH, if you are looking for a solution for multiple customers or/and
> > multiple brands/models of cameras, a general purpose program is probably
> > better.
> > 
> >> Windows Explorer reads his camera just fine.
> >>
> >> I tried Gigikam, Darktable, and Shotwell. They would
> >> not read his camera properly.  Shotwell did not even try.
> >> (Shotwell and cameras work like a dream in Linux.)
> >> Gigikam, Darktable found the camera but would not
> >> read it.
> >>
> >> Anyone have a recommendation for something that
> >> actually works?
> > 
> >    Chris mentioned the Windows Photos app. That has a camera button/icon.
> > I tried it with my smartphone acting as a PTP camera, but that was a bit
> > messy because it did not only get photos from the camera (DCIM\Camera),
> > but also all kinds of other images, screenshots, etc.. Can't be bothered
> > to try it with an actual camera.
> 
> 
> If it works from Windows Explorer, it should work
> with everything else.

  Not really, because File Explorer has built-in PTP and MTP support and
handles cameras, smartphones, etc. as special 'devices', not as part of
the file system. This is clear when you try to access such 'devices'
from a Command Prompt window, etc, you won't be able to, because they
have no drive letter (and aren't Network Shares either).

> Shotwell states it does not support MTP devices
> on Windows, but works seamlessly with them in
> Linux.  I was surprised as it is usually the other
> way around

  That proves my point: The program needs to have at least PTP support
built-in, so it does *not* "work  with everything else".

  Back to my original point: Why not let the customer use the software
of the manufacturer of his camera? (That is normally free - as in 'no
cost' - software.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16237

On 1/12/25 1:11 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Back to my original point: Why not let the customer use the software
> of the manufacturer of his camera? (That is normally free - as in 'no
> cost' - software.)

1) those softwares are typially s***.  And he wanted a gallery
package

2) he does not have access to it.  The camera is old.  XP software
does not run so well in W11 anyway.

3) there is no reason why the gallery programs should not work 
seamlessly.  Remember Picasa?  It was seamless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16253

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 1/12/25 1:11 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Back to my original point: Why not let the customer use the software
> > of the manufacturer of his camera? (That is normally free - as in 'no
> > cost' - software.)
> 
> 1) those softwares are typially s***.  And he wanted a gallery
> package

  IME, they're quite good and not 's***' by any stretch of the
imagination.

  And they *are* "gallery package"s, or you must mean something
completely different than what most people consider to be a "gallery
package".

> 2) he does not have access to it.  The camera is old.

  You only need to know the brand. Unless the camera manufacturer got
out of business, they'll probably have software which also works for
old(er) cameras.

  What *is* the brand (of the camera)?

>							 XP software
> does not run so well in W11 anyway.

  Well, this very post is brought to you by XP software running on
Windows 11. Works like a charm.

> 3) there is no reason why the gallery programs should not work 
> seamlessly.  Remember Picasa?  It was seamless.

  Well, they either have or don't have PTP/MTP support. "seamless[ly]"
has nothing to do with it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16273

On 1/13/25 7:33 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 1/12/25 1:11 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Back to my original point: Why not let the customer use the software
>>> of the manufacturer of his camera? (That is normally free - as in 'no
>>> cost' - software.)
>>
>> 1) those softwares are typially s***.  And he wanted a gallery
>> package
> 
>    IME, they're quite good and not 's***' by any stretch of the
> imagination.
> 
>    And they *are* "gallery package"s, or you must mean something
> completely different than what most people consider to be a "gallery
> package".
> 
>> 2) he does not have access to it.  The camera is old.
> 
>    You only need to know the brand. Unless the camera manufacturer got
> out of business, they'll probably have software which also works for
> old(er) cameras.
> 
>    What *is* the brand (of the camera)?
> 
>> 							 XP software
>> does not run so well in W11 anyway.
> 
>    Well, this very post is brought to you by XP software running on
> Windows 11. Works like a charm.
> 
>> 3) there is no reason why the gallery programs should not work
>> seamlessly.  Remember Picasa?  It was seamless.
> 
>    Well, they either have or don't have PTP/MTP support. "seamless[ly]"
> has nothing to do with it.


If it works in Windows Explorer, there is not reason it
should not work in other programs as well.  This is
just bad programming.

Do you know of an alternative that does work?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16274

On 1/13/25 3:34 PM, T wrote:
> 
> 
> If it works in Windows Explorer, there is not reason it
> should not work in other programs as well.  This is
> just bad programming.
> 
> Do you know of an alternative that does work?


Here is the thing.  Everyone that programs in Windows,
including me, knows that Windows is a kluge.  You work
around them.  If you don't, get out of the business.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16275

On Mon, 1/13/2025 7:17 PM, T wrote:
> On 1/13/25 3:34 PM, T wrote:
>>
>>
>> If it works in Windows Explorer, there is not reason it
>> should not work in other programs as well.  This is
>> just bad programming.
>>
>> Do you know of an alternative that does work?
> 
> 
> Here is the thing.  Everyone that programs in Windows,
> including me, knows that Windows is a kluge.  You work
> around them.  If you don't, get out of the business.

I showed you a powershell script. That demonstrates
the namespace of the MTP device.

The developer community is unimpressed. The XNView developer
for example, he entered a thread in his forum and said MTP
is not supported. And he did not equivocate. He didn't
say "maybe". Nothing of the sort. He did also not address
in public, what he has against MTP. But of all the developer-speak
I have decoded, it leaves no question in my mind, he won't
lift a finger to change that.

Now, look in here.

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

   FastPictureViewer

   Native 32 and 64-bit, Tethered shooting (MTP/PTP over USB),
   Multicore-aware, DirectX accelerated, HD Photo / JPEG XR support.

That's the only one. Wiki lists are seldom complete, but the lack
of competition on the MTP issue should tell you something.

If a namespace exists in Powershell, then it should also exist
(somewhere) in places like .NET . But that does not translate
to "an easy time of it". It's still going to be a hundred lines
of code, to do anything, even if a library is available. And
that won't "mount" the thing, but it might grant enough access
to write a plugin.

Since I don't have an MTP device, I don't have an incentive to
carry the issue further. I couldn't, for example, test
a short program that attempts to dump the name of the phone or
camera.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16277

On 1/13/25 4:32 PM, Paul wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_image_viewers
> 
>     FastPictureViewer
> 
>     Native 32 and 64-bit, Tethered shooting (MTP/PTP over USB),
>     Multicore-aware, DirectX accelerated, HD Photo / JPEG XR support.


Thank you!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16291

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 1/13/25 7:33 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 1/12/25 1:11 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> Back to my original point: Why not let the customer use the software
> >>> of the manufacturer of his camera? (That is normally free - as in 'no
> >>> cost' - software.)
> >>
> >> 1) those softwares are typially s***.  And he wanted a gallery
> >> package
> > 
> >    IME, they're quite good and not 's***' by any stretch of the
> > imagination.
> > 
> >    And they *are* "gallery package"s, or you must mean something
> > completely different than what most people consider to be a "gallery
> > package".
> > 
> >> 2) he does not have access to it.  The camera is old.
> > 
> >    You only need to know the brand. Unless the camera manufacturer got
> > out of business, they'll probably have software which also works for
> > old(er) cameras.
> > 
> >    What *is* the brand (of the camera)?
> > 
> >>                                                       XP software
> >> does not run so well in W11 anyway.
> > 
> >    Well, this very post is brought to you by XP software running on
> > Windows 11. Works like a charm.
> > 
> >> 3) there is no reason why the gallery programs should not work
> >> seamlessly.  Remember Picasa?  It was seamless.
> > 
> >    Well, they either have or don't have PTP/MTP support. "seamless[ly]"
> > has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> If it works in Windows Explorer, there is not reason it
> should not work in other programs as well.  This is
> just bad programming.

  Continued footstamping is not a valid argument. It has been explained
multiple times *why* assuming that "it should work in other programs" is
wrong.

  If you don't understand the explanation, ask questions, but don't
repeat your incorrect argument over and over, after it already has been
debunked serveral times.

> Do you know of an alternative that does work?

  Yes, the software from camera manufacturers. But you reject that for
no good reason and can't be bothered to respond nor to answer my
question on the camera's brand. So remind us, exactly why again should
we try to help you!?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16369

On 1/14/25 7:06 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> Do you know of an alternative that does work?
> 
>    Yes, the software from camera manufacturers. But you reject that for
> no good reason and can't be bothered to respond nor to answer my
> question on the camera's brand. So remind us, exactly why again should
> we try to help you!?

Hi Frank,

No where did I ask for help with this camera.  The customer
is happy with the work around I came up with and it is about
5 times easier to do what he want to do with his camera
than a gallery program.

And I NEVER told you what it was he wanted to do because it
was not the question I was asking.

I am simply looking for a gallery program that works with
MTP devices, such as cameras.  I like to install a gallery
program on new installs.  Not this customer.

Why do you not just say you do not know of an alternative
instead of acting like an ass?  Or just not respond?


-T

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16384

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 1/14/25 7:06 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >> Do you know of an alternative that does work?
> > 
> >    Yes, the software from camera manufacturers. But you reject that for
> > no good reason and can't be bothered to respond nor to answer my
> > question on the camera's brand. So remind us, exactly why again should
> > we try to help you!?
> 
> Hi Frank,
> 
> No where did I ask for help with this camera.

  It's probably best to re-read yout OP, because you mentioned this
customer's camera, not anybody else's (at that time).

>						 The customer
> is happy with the work around I came up with and it is about
> 5 times easier to do what he want to do with his camera
> than a gallery program.

  Yes you mentioned that you have a workaround, but AFAIK you didn't
mention *what* that workaround is.

> And I NEVER told you what it was he wanted to do because it
> was not the question I was asking.

  Well, you *actually* said:

"A customer was looking for a picture gallery program
 to read his digital camera."

   Quite clear, I would say.

> I am simply looking for a gallery program that works with
> MTP devices, such as cameras.  I like to install a gallery
> program on new installs.  Not this customer.

  The "Not this customer." comment came *later*. Don't rewrite history.
That doesn't work on Usenet.

> Why do you not just say you do not know of an alternative
> instead of acting like an ass?  Or just not respond?

  I mentioned several (IrfanView and Photos) and we pointed you to the
(only) one on the Wikipedia page (FastPictureViewer). It took three
posts for you to see/acknowledge it.

  As to "acting like an ass": That would be you, because you don't
accept facts presented by *multiple* people (mainly Paul and me, or
actually me and Paul) and keep on blaming everything and everybody
("This is just bad programming.", "That is no excuse for the gallery
packages not to also work seamlessly.", etc.), just because you don't
accept (understand?) the facts.

  As to the not understanding aspect, I repeat the part you dishonestly
silently snipped:

<me>

  If you don't understand the explanation, ask questions, but don't
repeat your incorrect argument over and over, after it already has been
debunked serveral times.

</me>

  Bottom line: Can't do the time, ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16388

On 1/18/25 5:25 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>    Bottom line: Can't do the time, ...

Welcome to my kill file ass hole

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16238

On 1/12/25 1:11 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Not really, because File Explorer has built-in PTP and MTP support and
> handles cameras, smartphones, etc. as special 'devices', not as part of
> the file system. 

That is no excuse for the gallery packages not to
also work seamlessly. especially when they can
find the camera, but can't import picture from it.

This is just bad programming.  That is why I am
asking for an alternatives.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16244

On Sun, 1/12/2025 4:31 PM, T wrote:
> On 1/12/25 1:11 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Not really, because File Explorer has built-in PTP and MTP support and
>> handles cameras, smartphones, etc. as special 'devices', not as part of
>> the file system. 
> 
> That is no excuse for the gallery packages not to
> also work seamlessly. especially when they can
> find the camera, but can't import picture from it.
> 
> This is just bad programming.  That is why I am
> asking for an alternatives.

Go here.

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

Now, search for the word "MTP". How many image viewer support MTP ?

Strange, isn't it.

In another thread, I could find complaints about how DCIM
works on Android, and that it's not a simple file tree.
Apparent, OSes up to Windows 7, didn't seem to have a
problem transferring MTP content, but after that,
things changed. And MTP was invented by Microsoft, too.

*******

There is the possibility of a FUSE path in Windows. Windows
has its own notion of a FUSE. Someone here, claims to have
got mtpmount and libmtp to work.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64910317/mount-mtp-device-on-windows

Even the links to other articles in that thread are helpful. This
helps veer away from unsupported Dokan projects :-)

https://superuser.com/questions/369959/how-do-i-access-mtp-devices-on-the-command-line-in-windows/1724634#1724634

Apparently Powershell can access the phone namespace through File Explorer.
There are a couple Powershell scripts in the tree here. This isn't mtpFS
nice, but it is better than nothing for copying the phone DCIM. And
is better than a jam-up while unknown functions flail away
beneath the surface. You can at least see your attempts
to copy files, are not flummoxed by some stupid code
generating thumbnails.

https://github.com/nosalan/powershell-mtp-file-transfer/

I hope the Android device or camera, has high enough
I/O speed for this sort of transfer. The customer might
not be overjoyed, if an attempt at a backup of DCIM
takes half an hour. I know my little camera with its
10MB/sec SD card, the USB on it can't go faster than the card.
And there is no obvious option for faster SD on it (old camera).

I think image viewer people, don't want anything to do with MTP.
Imagine the bug filings that would result L-)

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16246

On 1/12/25 7:30 PM, Paul wrote:
> On Sun, 1/12/2025 4:31 PM, T wrote:
>> On 1/12/25 1:11 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Not really, because File Explorer has built-in PTP and MTP support and
>>> handles cameras, smartphones, etc. as special 'devices', not as part of
>>> the file system.
>>
>> That is no excuse for the gallery packages not to
>> also work seamlessly. especially when they can
>> find the camera, but can't import picture from it.
>>
>> This is just bad programming.  That is why I am
>> asking for an alternatives.
> 
> Go here.
> 
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_image_viewers
> 
> Now, search for the word "MTP". How many image viewer support MTP ?
> 
> Strange, isn't it.
> 
> In another thread, I could find complaints about how DCIM
> works on Android, and that it's not a simple file tree.
> Apparent, OSes up to Windows 7, didn't seem to have a
> problem transferring MTP content, but after that,
> things changed. And MTP was invented by Microsoft, too.
> 
> *******
> 
> There is the possibility of a FUSE path in Windows. Windows
> has its own notion of a FUSE. Someone here, claims to have
> got mtpmount and libmtp to work.
> 
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64910317/mount-mtp-device-on-windows
> 
> Even the links to other articles in that thread are helpful. This
> helps veer away from unsupported Dokan projects :-)
> 
> https://superuser.com/questions/369959/how-do-i-access-mtp-devices-on-the-command-line-in-windows/1724634#1724634
> 
> Apparently Powershell can access the phone namespace through File Explorer.
> There are a couple Powershell scripts in the tree here. This isn't mtpFS
> nice, but it is better than nothing for copying the phone DCIM. And
> is better than a jam-up while unknown functions flail away
> beneath the surface. You can at least see your attempts
> to copy files, are not flummoxed by some stupid code
> generating thumbnails.
> 
> https://github.com/nosalan/powershell-mtp-file-transfer/
> 
> I hope the Android device or camera, has high enough
> I/O speed for this sort of transfer. The customer might
> not be overjoyed, if an attempt at a backup of DCIM
> takes half an hour. I know my little camera with its
> 10MB/sec SD card, the USB on it can't go faster than the card.
> And there is no obvious option for faster SD on it (old camera).
> 
> I think image viewer people, don't want anything to do with MTP.
> Imagine the bug filings that would result L-)
> 
>     Paul


Wow.  Thank you!

I think I am spoiled by Linux.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16254

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 1/12/25 1:11 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Not really, because File Explorer has built-in PTP and MTP support and
> > handles cameras, smartphones, etc. as special 'devices', not as part of
> > the file system. 
> 
> That is no excuse for the gallery packages not to
> also work seamlessly. especially when they can
> find the camera, but can't import picture from it.
> 
> This is just bad programming.  That is why I am
> asking for an alternatives.

  That may well be, but your argument was "If it works from Windows
Explorer, it should work with everything else.", which - as I explained
- is incorrect.

  So just ask for what you want, but don't blame those 'gallery
packages' for the wrong reasons.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16263

On Mon, 1/13/2025 10:34 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 1/12/25 1:11 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Not really, because File Explorer has built-in PTP and MTP support and
>>> handles cameras, smartphones, etc. as special 'devices', not as part of
>>> the file system. 
>>
>> That is no excuse for the gallery packages not to
>> also work seamlessly. especially when they can
>> find the camera, but can't import picture from it.
>>
>> This is just bad programming.  That is why I am
>> asking for an alternatives.
> 
>   That may well be, but your argument was "If it works from Windows
> Explorer, it should work with everything else.", which - as I explained
> - is incorrect.
> 
>   So just ask for what you want, but don't blame those 'gallery
> packages' for the wrong reasons.
> 

What I found strange, is the author of XNView responded to
questions about MTP, by saying the program had no support for
it, but there was no indication whatsoever, of any interest
in the subject.

There must be a story behind this, and the fact MTP has rubbish
behavior, is not helping matters.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16242

On 12/01/2025 07:17, T wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> A customer was looking for a picture gallery program
> to read his digital camera.
> 
> Windows Explorer reads his camera just fine.
> 
> I tried Gigikam, Darktable, and Shotwell. They would
> not read his camera properly.  Shotwell did not even try.
> (Shotwell and cameras work like a dream in Linux.)
> Gigikam, Darktable found the camera but would not
> read it.
> 
> Anyone have a recommendation for something that
> actually works?
> 
> Many thanks,
> -T
> 

Adobe bridge free version:

https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/bridge.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16247

On 1/12/25 4:26 PM, Tony wrote:
> On 12/01/2025 07:17, T wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> A customer was looking for a picture gallery program
>> to read his digital camera.
>>
>> Windows Explorer reads his camera just fine.
>>
>> I tried Gigikam, Darktable, and Shotwell. They would
>> not read his camera properly.  Shotwell did not even try.
>> (Shotwell and cameras work like a dream in Linux.)
>> Gigikam, Darktable found the camera but would not
>> read it.
>>
>> Anyone have a recommendation for something that
>> actually works?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>> -T
>>
> 
> Adobe bridge free version:
> 
> https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/bridge.html
> 


That looks like overkill.

Be nice if IrfanView would do it.  Don't
suppose they have a plug in for MTP?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16249

On Sun, 1/12/2025 11:04 PM, T wrote:
> On 1/12/25 4:26 PM, Tony wrote:
>> On 12/01/2025 07:17, T wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> A customer was looking for a picture gallery program
>>> to read his digital camera.
>>>
>>> Windows Explorer reads his camera just fine.
>>>
>>> I tried Gigikam, Darktable, and Shotwell. They would
>>> not read his camera properly.  Shotwell did not even try.
>>> (Shotwell and cameras work like a dream in Linux.)
>>> Gigikam, Darktable found the camera but would not
>>> read it.
>>>
>>> Anyone have a recommendation for something that
>>> actually works?
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>> -T
>>>
>>
>> Adobe bridge free version:
>>
>> https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/bridge.html
>>
> 
> 
> That looks like overkill.
> 
> Be nice if IrfanView would do it.  Don't
> suppose they have a plug in for MTP?

And then a miracle happens.

There are two FUSE filesystems in Windows.
Dokan/Dokany (with multiple versions and some
softwares version-locked to a particular library
version). And the Microsoft IFS (Installable file system)
of which EXT2IFS was an example. I'm not aware of any IFS
efforts recently.

A very few number of peripheral devices, support
both protocols. For example, a camera doesn't need
MTP, because it can just dismount the file system
and stop taking pictures, and connect the media as
a USB Mass Storage device, to the USB port. Then
sit there and wait until all transfers are finished.
That's how my camera behaves - USB Mass Storage only,
and the screen goes off while it is in that mode.

On my camera, you can also pop the SD and access
the data at that level.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11

csiph-web