How to access my camera in a batch file?

nospam wrote:
In article , Fokke Nauta
wrote:

tl;dr - he needs to fix his batch file, or better yet, not use a batch
file at all since the apps do a much better job of copying and managing
photos.

You haven't got a clue as to why I need to use a batch file. And I'm not
going to be bothered to explain it to you.

if you're not going to explain exactly what you want to do and why a
batch file is the only acceptable solution, then the advice you get
won't be very useful.

1) Your lack of imagination isn't Fokke's or anybody else's problem.

2) Fokke already explained why he needs a batch file.

3) And no, nobody gives a toss for your usual "My way or the highway!"
non-advice.

VanguardLH wrote:
[...]

- You gave "This PC\D5100\Removable storage\DCIM\100D5100" as the UNC
path to the camera. That means the device was discoverable by the OS.
PTP doesn't assign a drive letter so you got a UNC path. However, you
don't want to use or cannot use UNC pathing to identify the target in
your batch file(s). Did you try using the net.exe program included in
Windows to assign a drive letter to the UNC path in your batch files,
as in:

net use t: "\\This PC\D5100\Removable storage\DCIM\100D5100"

where, in this case, t is the drive letter to associate to the UNC
path.

As Fokke has also reported, such a 'net use' command doesn't work and
fails with:

System error 53 has occurred.

The network path was not found.

If things were that simple, we would not have this frequently-asked-
but-never-resolved question in this and other groups.

Note that *if* this worked, we would also have an answer for the even
more FAQ of how to have Windows file access (note *access*, not just
transfer) to the file systems of Android devices.

N.B. If such an UNC path worked, one would not need to use a 'net use'
command, because the commands in the batch file could directly use the
UNC path, i.e.

copy "\\This PC\D5100\Removable storage\DCIM\100D5100\DSC_1234.JPG" \Users\Fokke\Pictures

[...]

(Despite not supporting his claim with how to facilitate accessing a
UNC path in a batch file, I'm sure now after showing how to do this
that nospam will use it as his argument that you didn't need to buy
more software.)

Not to worry. It doesn't work. I suspect that nospam knows that,
because he is already dodging and diverting even more.

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

tl;dr - he needs to fix his batch file, or better yet, not use a batch
file at all since the apps do a much better job of copying and managing
photos.

You haven't got a clue as to why I need to use a batch file. And I'm not
going to be bothered to explain it to you.

if you're not going to explain exactly what you want to do and why a
batch file is the only acceptable solution, then the advice you get
won't be very useful.

1) Your lack of imagination isn't Fokke's or anybody else's problem.

it's not me with the lack of imagination.

fokke only sees 'batch file'. anything else is immediately dismissed,
before even learning what it even is.

2) Fokke already explained why he needs a batch file.

actually, he didn't.

he described a solution he came up with, one which no longer works.

he didn't describe the actual goal, and copying photos is not a goal.
it's a step towards a goal.

3) And no, nobody gives a toss for your usual "My way or the highway!"
non-advice.

it's actually fokke's way or the highway, not me.

as i said, he is blindly rejecting anything *other* than a batch file.
he doesn't want to learn about any other options available.

Fokke Nauta wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

PTP doesn't assign a drive letter so you got a UNC path. However, you
don't want to use or cannot use UNC pathing to identify the target in
your batch file(s). Did you try using the net.exe program included in
Windows to assign a drive letter to the UNC path in your batch files,
as in:

net use t: "\\This PC\D5100\Removable storage\DCIM\100D5100"

It says: "System error 53 has occurred. The network path was not found."
This would have been too easy :-). If it worked I wouldn't have had to
purchase this package. Perhaps it will work this way with a little change?

I'd try backing up the UNC path a little bit. The 100D5100 might be a
subfolder. It's the DCIM folder you're after to get as a drive letter.
What happens if you use:

net use t: "\\This PC\D5100\Removable storage\DCIM\"

with or without the trailing backslash. Of course, if you installed
PTPdriver, it might interfere with accessing the camera from another
method.

https://engineering.purdue.edu/ECN/S...WinMapNetDrive

That mentions the magic of DNS and WINS. To avoid having to use those
services, see if replacing "\\This PC\" with "\\localhost\" (if the
localhost hostname is define in the 'hosts' file); else, replace "\\This
PC\" with "\\127.0.01\". That's localhost. If defined in the 'hosts'
file, you can used "localhost" in place of "127.0.0.1". If that fails,
run "ipconfig /all" to get the IP address of that host assigned by your
router's DHCP server (I'm assuming the host uses dynamic IP addressing).
Then replace 127.0.0.1 with whatever is the IP address of that host.

I haven't used "net use" in a long time; however, I don't use spaces in
the hostname. For the local host, I'm not you even have to specify the
host name. Does the following work?

net use t: "\\\D5100\Removable storage\DCIM\"
or
net use t: "\\127.0.0.1\D5100\Removable storage\DCIM\"

What do you see when you run:

net view \\127.0.01 /a

versus:

net view "\\This PC" /a

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/pre...0(v=technet.10)

Back then, an error 53 (on a ping command) meant there was a name
resolution failure. That's why I suggest trying localhost, 127.0.0.1,
or the dynamic IP address assigned by your router's DHCP server. When I
run:

net view \\localhost /a

the command fails with the 53 error. If I use:

net view localhost /a

that works. So I'm unsure if the "\\" prefix is needed for the
localhost. Both the following commands also work for me:

net view 127.0.0.1
net view \\127.0.0.1
net view 10.0.0.32 (my LAN-side IP address from DHCP server)
net view \\10.0.0.32

So using "localhost" gets into name resolution but "\\" seems iffy when
it's needed. I do have "127.0.0.1 localhost" in my 'hosts' file.

Also the following run okay (I'm not running a 3rd party firewall that
disabled ping traffic):

ping localhost
ping 127.0.0.1
ping ::ffff:10.0.0.1 (IPv6 equivalent of IPv4 address)
ping 10.0.0.32 (IPv4 address for my host)
ping fe80::d5ec:c831:f660:acd3 (IPv6 address for my host)

ping zodiac (my computer's NetBIOS name)

Can you run set okay? What happens when you run the last one, as in:

ping "This PC"

Because your NetBIOS hostname has a space, you need to encompass it in
double-quotes. When I ping my hostname, it returns the dynamic IP
address assigned to that host by my router's internal DHCP server.
Since I have IPv6 enabled, that's what gets listed by ping when
specifying a hostname. If I use the IPv4 address assigned by my router
to my host, well, that's what I see in ping (since there's no host
lookup). If your 'ping "This PC"' fails then are you sure that is the
name of your host? Or were you sliding in "This PC" as a placeholder to
hide the real name of your computer? "This PC" seems a little weird.

Frank Slootweg wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:
[...]

- You gave "This PC\D5100\Removable storage\DCIM\100D5100" as the UNC
path to the camera. That means the device was discoverable by the OS.
PTP doesn't assign a drive letter so you got a UNC path. However, you
don't want to use or cannot use UNC pathing to identify the target in
your batch file(s). Did you try using the net.exe program included in
Windows to assign a drive letter to the UNC path in your batch files,
as in:

net use t: "\\This PC\D5100\Removable storage\DCIM\100D5100"

where, in this case, t is the drive letter to associate to the UNC
path.

As Fokke has also reported, such a 'net use' command doesn't work and
fails with:

System error 53 has occurred.

Yes, he did ... AFTER my post and upon him replying to it. My crystal
ball is broke so I cannot see what Fokke might report in the future on
any proposed troubleshooting steps.

The network path was not found.

If things were that simple, we would not have this frequently-asked-
but-never-resolved question in this and other groups.

I ended my reply (to his "53" reply which was to my reply and not to
someone else) with just running 'ping "This PC"' to see if name
resolution is working on his computer and if that really is the NetBIOS
hostname of his computer.

I didn't compile my reply while assuming name resolution wasn't working
on his Windows host.

Not to worry. It doesn't work. I suspect that nospam knows that,
because he is already dodging and diverting even more.

It's funny how nospam will say it is doable but then not bother saying
how to do.

In article , VanguardLH
wrote:

Not to worry. It doesn't work. I suspect that nospam knows that,
because he is already dodging and diverting even more.

It's funny how nospam will say it is doable but then not bother saying
how to do.

it's funny how people ignore the suggestions i made.

it's also funny how much effort people will put into trying to get what
is fundamentally a non-optimal solution to work.

A little earlier, I wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:
[...]
net use t: "\\This PC\D5100\Removable storage\DCIM\100D5100"

As Fokke has also reported, such a 'net use' command doesn't work and
fails with:

System error 53 has occurred.

The network path was not found.

See for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_(computing)#Uniform_Naming_Convention

as to *why* this is an invalid UNC path.

'This PC' isn't a ComputerName, nor a HostName, nor a Server and
'D5100' isn't a SharedFolder, nor a Volume.

[...]

VanguardLH wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:
[...]

- You gave "This PC\D5100\Removable storage\DCIM\100D5100" as the UNC
path to the camera. That means the device was discoverable by the OS.
PTP doesn't assign a drive letter so you got a UNC path. However, you
don't want to use or cannot use UNC pathing to identify the target in
your batch file(s). Did you try using the net.exe program included in
Windows to assign a drive letter to the UNC path in your batch files,
as in:

net use t: "\\This PC\D5100\Removable storage\DCIM\100D5100"

where, in this case, t is the drive letter to associate to the UNC
path.

As Fokke has also reported, such a 'net use' command doesn't work and
fails with:

System error 53 has occurred.

Yes, he did ... AFTER my post and upon him replying to it. My crystal
ball is broke so I cannot see what Fokke might report in the future on
any proposed troubleshooting steps.

FWIW, I didn't mean anything negative with my "As Fokke has also
reported". It was only an indication that I had seen his experience. And
I only gave my confirmation and then "added technical value to the
thread". :-)

The network path was not found.

If things were that simple, we would not have this frequently-asked-
but-never-resolved question in this and other groups.

I ended my reply (to his "53" reply which was to my reply and not to
someone else) with just running 'ping "This PC"' to see if name
resolution is working on his computer and if that really is the NetBIOS
hostname of his computer.

Yes, I've seen that post as well. Thanks.

I didn't compile my reply while assuming name resolution wasn't working
on his Windows host.

I don't think the error is related to name resolution. AFAIK,
'This PC' isn't a ComputerName, nor a Hostname (see my Wikipedia UNC
reference). AFAIK, 'This PC' isn't a normal Windows object. For example
when you do a right-click - Properties on 'This PC', Windows (8.1)
opens the 'System' Control Panel applet, not a normal 'Properties'
window.

I don't think this can be made to work, but I would *love* to be
proven wrong.

Not to worry. It doesn't work. I suspect that nospam knows that,
because he is already dodging and diverting even more.

It's funny how nospam will say it is doable but then not bother saying
how to do.

He's foot-stamping again like the proverbial 3-year old with his "it's
funny how people ignore the suggestions i made.", never mind that he
didn't make any, that is, no specific one(s).

And in his infinite wisdom, he has decided that Fokke's real world
need is "fundamentally a non-optimal solution", the dishonest obnoxious
pompous ****!

Well, we can only conclude that herring, egg and pie are his
favourites.

nospam wrote:
In article , VanguardLH
wrote:

Not to worry. It doesn't work. I suspect that nospam knows that,
because he is already dodging and diverting even more.

It's funny how nospam will say it is doable but then not bother saying
how to do.

it's funny how people ignore the suggestions i made.

You didn't make any (specific) suggestions. If you think you did, then
*cite* them. (Again not holding our breath, because you hardly ever
deliver on your claims.)

it's also funny how much effort people will put into trying to get what
is fundamentally a non-optimal solution to work.

What's 'non-optimal' for *you* is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

IOW, the rest of the world doesn't give a toss about your opinion(s).

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Not to worry. It doesn't work. I suspect that nospam knows that,
because he is already dodging and diverting even more.

It's funny how nospam will say it is doable but then not bother saying
how to do.

it's funny how people ignore the suggestions i made.

You didn't make any (specific) suggestions. If you think you did, then
*cite* them. (Again not holding our breath, because you hardly ever
deliver on your claims.)

yes i did. here it is again: just about any photo management app will
do what he claims to want to do without any hassles.

anyone who is passionate about photography, as he claims to be, would
already have at least one such app, likely several.

adobe, the most well known of the bunch, is facing some very strong
competition from other companies, which means better products for
everyone.

it's also funny how much effort people will put into trying to get what
is fundamentally a non-optimal solution to work.

What's 'non-optimal' for *you* is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

the method itself is non-optimal, no matter who it's for. using a batch
file to copy photos from a camera is about the most primitive and least
effective method possible.

IOW, the rest of the world doesn't give a toss about your opinion(s).

then they can continue trying to get a batch file to work while those
who are interested in results have finished editing and are now sharing
their photos.

computers are there to do work *for* the user.

i have *many* digital cameras going back nearly 20 years, including
several nikon slrs, p&s cameras and smartphones, and never once have i
needed to install any drivers write or a batch file to copy photos,
either automatically or manually. even my nas will automatically copy
photos from a connected camera or card (or manually if preferred).

nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Not to worry. It doesn't work. I suspect that nospam knows that,
because he is already dodging and diverting even more.

It's funny how nospam will say it is doable but then not bother saying
how to do.

it's funny how people ignore the suggestions i made.

You didn't make any (specific) suggestions. If you think you did, then
*cite* them. (Again not holding our breath, because you hardly ever
deliver on your claims.)

yes i did. here it is again: just about any photo management app will
do what he claims to want to do without any hassles.

Nope, *not* what he wants to do c.q. already does:



anyone who is passionate about photography, as he claims to be, would
already have at least one such app, likely several.

adobe, the most well known of the bunch, is facing some very strong
competition from other companies, which means better products for
everyone.

Ah, I/we see! He doesn't need any additional software, because in
nospam's parallel universe, he is supposed to already have the
additional software which nospam considers mandatory. Makes perfect
sense! NOT!

it's also funny how much effort people will put into trying to get what
is fundamentally a non-optimal solution to work.

What's 'non-optimal' for *you* is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

the method itself is non-optimal, no matter who it's for. using a batch
file to copy photos from a camera is about the most primitive and least
effective method possible.

Earth to nospam: OSs have tons of 'batch files'. You couldn't install,
configure, use, etc. your beloved devices without them.

There's nothing "primitive" or "least effective" about them, quite the
contrary.

IOW, the rest of the world doesn't give a toss about your opinion(s).

then they can continue trying to get a batch file to work while those
who are interested in results have finished editing and are now sharing
their photos.

Earth to nospam: Fokke does not need "to get a batch file to work",
because it *was* already working and now is *also* working for the
PTP-camera.

computers are there to do work *for* the user.

You don't say!?

i have *many* digital cameras going back nearly 20 years, including
several nikon slrs, p&s cameras and smartphones, and never once have i
needed to install any drivers write or a batch file to copy photos,
either automatically or manually. even my nas will automatically copy
photos from a connected camera or card (or manually if preferred).

And you use *additional* software which *you* selected, but Fokke
isn't allowed to use the additional software which *he* selected!?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You *really* should get out
more!

EOD.

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:


the method itself is non-optimal, no matter who it's for. using a batch
file to copy photos from a camera is about the most primitive and least
effective method possible.

Earth to nospam: OSs have tons of 'batch files'.

not all oses use batch files, and for those that do, they're internal
to the os, something end users don't normally see.

You couldn't install,
configure, use, etc. your beloved devices without them.

nonsense. it happens every day for billions of users worldwide.


There's nothing "primitive" or "least effective" about them, quite the
contrary.

everything about a batch file is primitive.



And you use *additional* software which *you* selected, but Fokke
isn't allowed to use the additional software which *he* selected!?

he can use whatever software he wants. i don't give a **** what he uses.

the point is that he *didn't* need to spend money on a ptp driver.

nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Silently snipped and hence implicitly conceded points duly noted.

the method itself is non-optimal, no matter who it's for. using a batch
file to copy photos from a camera is about the most primitive and least
effective method possible.

Earth to nospam: OSs have tons of 'batch files'.

not all oses use batch files, and for those that do, they're internal
to the os, something end users don't normally see.

Note the scare quotes, i.e. it's not meant literally, i.e. not only
..bat files, but any and all 'scripts'. (Note: Again scare quotes.)

You couldn't install,
configure, use, etc. your beloved devices without them.

nonsense. it happens every day for billions of users worldwide.

See above. Any and all OSs use 'scripts'.

There's nothing "primitive" or "least effective" about them, quite the
contrary.

everything about a batch file is primitive.

See above. Any and all OSs use 'scripts'. Also those on your beloved
systems/devices.

And you use *additional* software which *you* selected, but Fokke
isn't allowed to use the additional software which *he* selected!?

he can use whatever software he wants. i don't give a **** what he uses.

the point is that he *didn't* need to spend money on a ptp driver.

He did *not* buy a PTP driver! He bought software which happens to be
*named* "PTP Drive" - note "Drive", not "Driver" [1] - which is "A drive
letter mapping solution for PTP cameras in Microsoft Windows.".

Bottom lines:

- Your claim that using a UNC path in the batch file would solve the
problem, was and is false.

- Fokke bought what *he* needed.

- 'batch files', 'scripts', etc. are *not* "primitive" nor "least
effective", and are used in/by all current OSs.

QED.

HTH. HAND. EOD. NK.

[1] Yes, Fokke misspelled the name a few times, but that does not matter
because he clearly described what the software does (map a drive
letter), which is *not* a PTP driver.

In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

You couldn't install,
configure, use, etc. your beloved devices without them.

nonsense. it happens every day for billions of users worldwide.

See above. Any and all OSs use 'scripts'.

you must have an unusual definition of script, one that's very
different from everyone else.

On 24/04/2018 15:51, Frank Slootweg wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Silently snipped and hence implicitly conceded points duly noted.

the method itself is non-optimal, no matter who it's for. using a batch
file to copy photos from a camera is about the most primitive and least
effective method possible.

Earth to nospam: OSs have tons of 'batch files'.

not all oses use batch files, and for those that do, they're internal
to the os, something end users don't normally see.

Note the scare quotes, i.e. it's not meant literally, i.e. not only
.bat files, but any and all 'scripts'. (Note: Again scare quotes.)

You couldn't install,
configure, use, etc. your beloved devices without them.

nonsense. it happens every day for billions of users worldwide.

See above. Any and all OSs use 'scripts'.

There's nothing "primitive" or "least effective" about them, quite the
contrary.

everything about a batch file is primitive.

See above. Any and all OSs use 'scripts'. Also those on your beloved
systems/devices.

And you use *additional* software which *you* selected, but Fokke
isn't allowed to use the additional software which *he* selected!?

he can use whatever software he wants. i don't give a **** what he uses.

the point is that he *didn't* need to spend money on a ptp driver.

He did *not* buy a PTP driver! He bought software which happens to be
*named* "PTP Drive" - note "Drive", not "Driver" [1] - which is "A drive
letter mapping solution for PTP cameras in Microsoft Windows.".

Bottom lines:

- Your claim that using a UNC path in the batch file would solve the
problem, was and is false.

- Fokke bought what *he* needed.

- 'batch files', 'scripts', etc. are *not* "primitive" nor "least
effective", and are used in/by all current OSs.

QED.

HTH. HAND. EOD. NK.

[1] Yes, Fokke misspelled the name a few times, but that does not matter
because he clearly described what the software does (map a drive
letter), which is *not* a PTP driver.


I do apologize for my misspellings. It is indeed PTPDrive which I use.
And it works flawlessly in my batch file, it maps my Nikon camera to a
drive letter. With just one batch file I now can get images off all my
camera's.

Fokke