You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Photos are made with a camera in raw and JPG (both high resolution).
JPG files are uploaded to Immich for immediate sharing with the family.
Later, raw files are processed and new JPG files are generated for the processing result (JPG files have lower resolution - optimized for web/mobile sharing).
New JPG files are uploaded to Immich with intention to replace the previously uploaded ones.
Status Quo
When uploading processed JPG in step 4, they are skipped with message: "An asset with the same name:".." and date:".." but with bigger size:... exists on the server. No need to upload.".
The motivation to avoid quality downgrade by default is clear and reasonable.
Feature Request
Allows users to implement workflow as described above by supporting --force-update / --skip-quality-comparison or similar flag, which would cause photos to be re-uploaded even if server has a better quality of the asset.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Use Case
Please consider the following workflow:
Status Quo
When uploading processed JPG in step 4, they are skipped with message: "An asset with the same name:".." and date:".." but with bigger size:... exists on the server. No need to upload.".
The motivation to avoid quality downgrade by default is clear and reasonable.
Feature Request
Allows users to implement workflow as described above by supporting
--force-update
/--skip-quality-comparison
or similar flag, which would cause photos to be re-uploaded even if server has a better quality of the asset.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: