ukclique > comp.* > comp.sys.mac

RJH (18.07.2018, 13:24)
Photos app on my iMac has become clogged with Whatsapp photos. Is there
a way to search/find/filter these photos so I can delete/archive them?
They have no keyword, device or location data, and they tend to be quite
small.
Another John (18.07.2018, 17:19)
In article <pin81i$pop$1>, RJH <patchmoney>
wrote:

> Photos app on my iMac has become clogged with Whatsapp photos. Is there
> a way to search/find/filter these photos so I can delete/archive them?
> They have no keyword, device or location data, and they tend to be quite
> small.


Don't their names give them all away? e.g. IMG--yyyymmdd-WAxxxxx.jpg

Maybe I'm being naive -- I've stayed well away from Photos and iCloud
successfully *so far*!

John
RJH (18.07.2018, 17:33)
On 18/07/2018 16:19, Another John wrote:
> In article <pin81i$pop>, RJH <patchmoney>
> wrote:
> Don't their names give them all away? e.g. IMG--yyyymmdd-WAxxxxx.jpg


Alas no - the iPhone uses the IMG prefix for example.

> Maybe I'm being naive -- I've stayed well away from Photos and iCloud
> successfully *so far*!


There doesn't seem to be an 'advanced find', or a way to tuck the photos
away in a subfolder. I have a feeling this situation highlights one of
its limitations . . .
nospam (18.07.2018, 17:36)
In article <pinmks$o51$1>, RJH <patchmoney> wrote:

> There doesn't seem to be an 'advanced find', or a way to tuck the photos
> away in a subfolder. I have a feeling this situation highlights one of
> its limitations . . .


exif data
RJH (18.07.2018, 17:50)
On 18/07/2018 16:36, nospam wrote:
> In article <pinmks$o51$1>, RJH <patchmoney> wrote:
>> There doesn't seem to be an 'advanced find', or a way to tuck the photos
>> away in a subfolder. I have a feeling this situation highlights one of
>> its limitations . . .

> exif data


As I say, They have no keyword, device or location data, and they tend
to be quite small - although not uniform (between 50-300kb). If it was
possible to search by size it'd be a help.
nospam (18.07.2018, 18:14)
In article <pinnjm$tlr$1>, RJH <patchmoney> wrote:

> As I say, They have no keyword, device or location data, and they tend
> to be quite small - although not uniform (between 50-300kb). If it was
> possible to search by size it'd be a help.


iphone images have exif data, so if the whatsapp ones do not, it's even
*easier* to sort them. you don't even need to look at the contents,
only that it exists or not.
Jaimie Vandenbergh (18.07.2018, 19:21)
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 12:24:33 +0100, RJH <patchmoney> wrote:

>Photos app on my iMac has become clogged with Whatsapp photos. Is there
>a way to search/find/filter these photos so I can delete/archive them?
>They have no keyword, device or location data, and they tend to be quite
>small.


My Albums has a Whatsapp folder that it created itself, filled with all
the whatsapp pics. Does yours not?

Trying to do a smart folder with "camera model | is empty" and so on
leaves me with about 4000 pics, of which 557 are Whatsapp pics according
to the count of that magic folder. There's not enough identifying info
in the available fields to narrow it down fully, if you have other
exifless pics.

Cheers - Jaimie
Andy Hewitt (18.07.2018, 21:16)
On 18/07/18 16:50, RJH wrote:
> On 18/07/2018 16:36, nospam wrote:
> As I say,  They have no keyword, device or location data, and they tend
> to be quite small - although not uniform (between 50-300kb). If it was
> possible to search by size it'd be a help.


The Smart Album function in Photos is quite useable, have you tried that?

I just tested one, and used 'Camera Model' = 'is empty', which actually
seemed to find all the WhatsApp images in my library (it's a small one
anyway as I use Lightroom CC). Might be a start anyway.
Savageduck (19.07.2018, 02:40)
On Jul 18, 2018, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote
(in article<2itukdh7jg9gppl6jifarorc1l9dd70jbg>):

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 12:24:33 +0100, RJH<patchmoney> wrote:
> My Albums has a Whatsapp folder that it created itself, filled with all
> the whatsapp pics. Does yours not?


I just checked my iPhone Albums, and indeed there is a Whatsapp Album
containing the three WA images I have received. I do not use Apple *Photos* ,
so I have no cross check to see if *Photos* uses a similar Album/File
system.A check of EXIF data of those image files shows minimal data: Pixel
dimensions, 1024x614 @ 72; Color Profile, Display P3; Depth 8, and a jpg file
name that is an alpha numeric mess
(ef5cae73-be42-40f4-a434-c76bb6e0ef19.jpg).

<https://www.dropbox.com/s/aqc3opghufswrk1/IMG_2559.JPG>

I do use iCloud Drive, some iOS and macOS apps, such as Pixelmator, Pages,
Preview, and Artstudio Pro have automatically added folders to my iCloud
Drive, and I have added a few of my own folders to facilitate Tx between iOS
devices and my iMac. There is no Whatsapp folder, and I have no reason to add
one.
> Trying to do a smart folder with "camera model | is empty" and so on
> leaves me with about 4000 pics, of which 557 are Whatsapp pics according
> to the count of that magic folder. There's not enough identifying info
> in the available fields to narrow it down fully, if you have other
> exifless pics.


That might be the best approach, but it sounds as if he has a tedious task
ahead of him.
Savageduck (19.07.2018, 02:43)
On Jul 18, 2018, Andy Hewitt wrote
(in article <pio3mu$ib5$1>):

> On 18/07/18 16:50, RJH wrote:
> The Smart Album function in Photos is quite useable, have you tried that?
> I just tested one, and used 'Camera Model' = 'is empty', which actually
> seemed to find all the WhatsApp images in my library (it's a small one
> anyway as I use Lightroom CC). Might be a start anyway.


That seems to be the best solution. Personally I also use an LR CC/LR CCC/PS
CC workflow, and do not use Apple *Photos*.
Paul Sture (19.07.2018, 11:41)
On 2018-07-19, Savageduck <savageduck1> wrote:
> I just checked my iPhone Albums, and indeed there is a Whatsapp Album
> containing the three WA images I have received. I do not use Apple *Photos* ,
> so I have no cross check to see if *Photos* uses a similar Album/File
> system.A check of EXIF data of those image files shows minimal data: Pixel
> dimensions, 1024x614 @ 72; Color Profile, Display P3; Depth 8, and a jpg file
> name that is an alpha numeric mess
> (ef5cae73-be42-40f4-a434-c76bb6e0ef19.jpg).


That "alphanumeric mess" is what is known as a GUID, which stands for
"Globally Unique Id".

The idea is that it should never ever clash with another GUID, ensuring
you don't get name collisions with files (or other things that should
be unique).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_unique_identifier>

How it's made up:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_unique_identifier#Format>
Andy Hewitt (19.07.2018, 23:07)
On 19/07/18 01:43, Savageduck wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2018, Andy Hewitt wrote
> (in article <pio3mu$ib5>):
> That seems to be the best solution. Personally I also use an LR CC/LR CCC/PS
> CC workflow, and do not use Apple *Photos*.


I've just completely migrated to Lightroom CC with 1TB of cloud. It's
rather more limited than I'd like, but I'm keen on the online storage
facility, hoping to save me some backup storage at home.

However, IMHO, Photos actually has much better search functions than LR
CC at the moment, as it's pretty feature poor in its early life. But,
it's stable and the database appears to be more robust. I'm keeping my
Classic library intact for the time being.

Photos is actually pretty good when it works, editing is reasonably
good, and the connection with external editors is powerful. But, it's
unreliable database/library is a major flaw for me, so I don't trust it
to look after my 60,000 photos.
Elliott Roper (19.07.2018, 23:44)
On 19 Jul 2018, Andy Hewitt wrote
(in article <piquiu$imu$1>):

[..]
> good, and the connection with external editors is powerful. But, it's
> unreliable database/library is a major flaw for me, so I don't trust it
> to look after my 60,000 photos.


Drifting OT a bit...
I am happy to report that Aperture is still working perfectly under 10.13.6
on my shiny new iMac Pro. It is a huge improvement upon its successors.
RJH (20.07.2018, 10:25)
On 18/07/2018 20:16, Andy Hewitt wrote:
> On 18/07/18 16:50, RJH wrote:
> The Smart Album function in Photos is quite useable, have you tried that?


I hadn't - but I have now, thanks very much! That's really broken the
back of it.

> I just tested one, and used 'Camera Model' = 'is empty', which actually
> seemed to find all the WhatsApp images in my library (it's a small one
> anyway as I use Lightroom CC). Might be a start anyway.


Strangely, that throws up some false positives, just for an Olympus camera.
RJH (20.07.2018, 10:38)
On 18/07/2018 18:21, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 12:24:33 +0100, RJH <patchmoney> wrote:
> My Albums has a Whatsapp folder that it created itself, filled with all
> the whatsapp pics. Does yours not?


Good grief - yes, just noticed it, thanks, they're there.

It would be nice if the photos on the fly (I see they can be hidden
manually) could be hidden from any 'normal' views. They're the sort of
photos I don't really have any interest in (most seem to be of beer
bottles . . .), have little meaning without context, but at the same
time I'm loathed to delete them 'just in case'.

> Trying to do a smart folder with "camera model | is empty" and so on
> leaves me with about 4000 pics, of which 557 are Whatsapp pics according
> to the count of that magic folder. There's not enough identifying info
> in the available fields to narrow it down fully, if you have other
> exifless pics.


Thanks, yes - as my commetn up thread, I've created a smart folder and
that sorted them quite well.

Just an Olympus camera is picked up for some reason - in the 'Get info'
dialogue the camera is listed as 'E-M10', then a new line with 'Olympus
M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ'. Presumably that little lot
confuses the filter.

Similar Threads