In article , Anonymous wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
.... There is no downside to renaming the files to meet a desire
or need.

nospam:
yes there is. it's work that does not need to be done which is
*always* a downside. ....

How do you know that it doesn't need to be done? Or is that a
dictat from you?

When I export image files for the Web I always rename them. If it's
one file I just rename that, easily. If it's a bunch of files I use
a file renamer, either BulkFileRenamer or Fast File Renamer. I tend
more towards the former these days.

When I put images on the Web I have removed the EXIF data, and I
will need to know which file to set up where. Having files named
something like foobar_event_2015-07-31_0001.png will allow me to
get the image files into the Web page in the correct order without
any further hassle.

Really, all of this over a very simple question.

Indeed, and I don't care whether the OP really have a "valid" need to rename his
files or not, but I am replying to you to tell you that a modern asset manager
would do all that for you.

I.e. you have the photos in an asset manager. We'll use Lightroom as an example,
but this applies to many more than that one particularly.

When you choose photos to export and upload to the web, you can have a export
preset that sets the filename to something pertaining to the EXIF data (like
date, in your example) and also strip EXIF data, or add a water mark, and resize
the image etc etc.

The point nospam is making is one I agree with - whether or not that point is
relevant to the original poster is unknown, since there may be situations where
one wants to rename a bunch of photos without having to roundtrip them into an
asset manager.

But in your examples, if the photos *were* in a modern asset manager to begin
with, the steps you have to take to achieve your end result would be greatly
reduced.

I do this *all the time*. I have several user export presets set up. One for
exporting preview images for a client from a photo shoot, one for exporting blog
images, one for exporting originals, etc etc.

And if your photos are in an asset manager, the only thing you're deciding is
what exported image files should be named - whatever the files are called on disk
for the actual images in the asset manager is totally irrelevant to anyone.
Inside your asset manager you can view, list and sort them with a multitude of
parameters and the file name is just something that is necessary for file
systems, but unimportant to the asset manager (and thus, you).

--
Sandman