If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Photo file rename by to date and time taken
On 8/1/2015 6:53 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:56:38 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: I didn't portray LR as being harder to use than Windows because there are books on the subject. What I am saying is that there is more to learn about LR (especially in the Develop area) to become proficient in using it than there is about Windows. that's a flawed comparison since you can't develop images in windows. No, it's not a flawed comparison at all. When speaking about learning to use something, you learn to use the salient features of it. Lightroom isn't much better than the Adobe Element's Organizer if it was a stand-alone without the Develop module. the proper comparison is between manually managing photos in windows versus having lightroom manage them for you. since lightroom does most of the work, there's a *lot* less to learn. While it's possible, I suppose, to learn to use LR without ever opening a book, magazine or online tutorial, I doubt if very many people do. Very few people, however, need to read a book, magazine, or online tutorial to use Windows. nonsense. put someone who has never used windows before in front of a computer and watch them fumble. windows is *not* easy to use. that's one reason why macs are gaining in popularity. they're easier to use, even for seasoned windows users. Nonsense, yourself. I have no idea what you think is the complicated or difficult to learn aspect of Windows, but it's dead simple to use. When I took a class in photo restoration, I had to use a Mac. I fumbled around, but only because things weren't where I expected them to be and certain things were different. Macs are not more complicated, but changing from one enviornment to another takes some acclimation. I didn't see anything that was easier to do on the Mac. now put someone in front of lightroom. they might fumble a little because it's new, but nowhere near as much as they would windows. Absolute bull****. You don't work "in" Windows. You have a desktop with icons on it and open apps by clicking the icons or you open apps from the Start panel. You work in the app. I don't know what functions come with a Mac, but you aren't managing your photos with the Mac OS. You are using an app just like I am. You don't stumble around trying to open the app in Windows any more than you would stumble around opening the app in a Mac. Lightroom is an app that opens in Windows just as it would with a Mac. You are trying to compare the OS with an app. That's a stupid position. when you first launch lightroom, it says 'click import to begin'. if you attach a camera it automatically brings up the import window so you don't even need to click anything. it doesn't get much easier than that. lightroom is designed and optimized for managing photos, whereas windows is not. you 'can' manage photos in windows manually but it's always going to be more work and less efficient because it was never designed to do that. Idiot. You don't manage photos in Windows. You manage photos in whatever app you have downloaded to manage photos. It could be anything from the camera maker's app to Picasa to whatever app you chose to use, and that includes Lightroom. You haven't defined what "manage" means, so I have no idea what is in your mind, but all you would ever do strictly in a Windows-provided function is view, move, copy, or delete images. Those are all simple to do. Again, you are comparing an OS to an app. All the OS does is give you a means to house and access the app. You have launched some silly-ass defenses of some silly-ass statements of yours before, but this one is sillier than usual. Tony, You should have used OSX instead of Windows. It would have saved a lot of time. -- PeterN |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Photo file rename by to date and time taken
In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote: Sandman: With an asset manager, you never have to bother with "files" other than after having exported them. You import them directly from the camera/memory card and you have no reason to know, or change, the actual file name on disk, since the asset manager gives you a multitude to view, sort and find your photos that file names can not. The key point is "necessary vs desirable". It is not necessary to rename files in LR. It may be desirable to the user. Do you have any examples? Renaming does not in any way add any limitation to LR's ability to work with the files in the ways you've listed above. There is no downside to doing it. You're not reading it correctly. Depending on file names for sorting/finding your photos is limited, using an asset manager removes that limitations. The files can be called anything in an asset manager and it wouldn't matter. I feel it is desirable. I don't preach that others do it, but I prefer the files to be named in a date/number sequence and view them in Library sorted in ascending order. The Library module in Lightroom does not need the files to be named in any way, shape or form, for it to sort the photos in ascending date order. By renaming the files you're adding an unnecessary step to the workflow that Lightroom does not require. There are times that it is a distinct advantage. For example, I shoot the baseball and football season of the league in which my grandsons play. I post those images to a league website and, at the end of the season, provide each player with a disk of all the games. That's the export function I talked about in my post that you snipped. In the export dialog, you can tell Lightroom to name the files in a myriad of ways. The file names identify the game by date. I could do that on export as you do, but I find it's simpler to just select the photos to be used and do a straight export. Not earth-shatteringly more simple, but more simple. It's not "simpler" since you have already added the "renaming" step prior to that. A step you seemingly add to all your photos, not only those that require it in the above example. Also, I admit to being a bit anal in the naming. I import the RAW files from my card using a date/number convention, and then go through the batch and delete the obvious non-keepers. The remaining files are then renumbered in LR so there are no gaps in the numbering. That's not necessary, but it is desirable to me. Renaming isn't necessary at all at any stage in your photo management. I will also add a few photos from each game to a SmugMug gallery. Links to that gallery are sent to certain relatives, and contain just those images in which the grandsons appear. Again, I like the idea of those files having a date/number name. And renaming the photos upon import isn't necessary to achieve this. Sandman: Well, it depends on what you're going to do with them. If you're sending them in to a photo contest, you may want to include your name or signature in the file names so when mixed with others, they sort under your name, and perhaps add the name of the context ("sandman_wildflowers-003.jpg etc etc), i Wow! In the photo contests I've entered, that would be prohibited. The judges are not supposed to know who is the submitter. It's an example to illustrate the point. -- Sandman |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Photo file rename by to date and time taken
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: it's about managing photos with lightroom versus doing it the hard way in windows explorer, manually renaming and moving files. What? Now it's about how to manually rename and move a file? it's always been about that. You want to rename a file in Windows Explorer? Hit the f2 key and type in the new name. How complicated was that? You want to move a file from one folder to another? Cut and paste. Is that too complicated for you? this isn't about me. Why would you move a file using LR anyway? You can, but why? LR doesn't care where the file is as long as you don't change the location outside of LR. exactly the point. lightroom manages all that stuff so you don't have to. .... What are all these "details" that LR takes care of for you? All the details I know about are those that the user directs LR to manage. i'm not kidding at all. lightroom does all the grunt work for you. there is no renaming or moving or identifying the people in them and creating specific folders based on date or event or who is in them or whatever else. What? That's not true. Where do you think your photos are when you upload them from a card or the camera? They are in a folder or folders, and you designate where they are to go when you import them using Lightroom. Some people do use date folders or sub-folders or event folders or sub-folders. it doesn't matter where they are. whatever the system default is works fine for most people. they could be local or on a server or in the cloud. it makes no difference. what matters is when the user clicks on a photo that the photo can be displayed, edited, emailed or whatever. You talk about folders as if they were nose boogers, but that's *exactly* what is used in Lightroom. Read Adobe's instructions on importing files from card or camera: they are nose boogers. they're nothing that users need to interact with directly. they do exist under the hood but so do a lot of things that the average user doesn't need to know about. someone writing the operating system might need to know, but that's very different. "When you import photos into Lightroom, you create a link between the photo itself and the record of the photo in the catalog. In the case of importing from a camera or card reader, Lightroom copies the photos to your hard drive and adds the links to the photos in the catalog. When importing, you work from left to right in the import window. First, on the left, identify what files you want to import (the source files). Then, in the middle of the window, choose how you want to import them into the catalog (when importing from a camera or card, you copy them). Finally, on the right, specify where you want to store the files (the destination folder) and other options for the imported files." You see that term "destination folder"? What you are doing in LR after import is working with the image that points to the file in the folder on the drive. so what? obviously the photos have to be *somewhere* but that doesn't matter and it doesn't normally change. many people pick the default and don't even worry about it at all. You have a hierarchy of folders in the drive. no. the *operating system* has a hierarchy of files and folders. users have collections, albums, etc. files and folders is an implementation detail that until recently the user had to deal with but technology has advanced to where that is no longer needed. lightroom and other asset managers abstract the underlying file system to go beyond its limitations. what happens under the hood makes no difference. users work within lightroom (or other asset manager) creating collections (or playlists for music or whatever is appropriate for the type of content). nothing needs to be renamed or moved. think of them as virtual folders. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Photo file rename by to date and time taken
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: The Library module in Lightroom does not need the files to be named in any way, shape or form, for it to sort the photos in ascending date order. By renaming the files you're adding an unnecessary step to the workflow that Lightroom does not require. The arguments proposed here against renaming are fascinating. The arguers throw logic, reasoning, and common sense out of the window in order to come up with claims that renumbering is wrong. nonsense. nothing is being thrown out the window. there is no need to **** around with file names. technology has moved beyond that. some people want to cling to the past and do things the old way. that's they're choice. however, trying to rationalize it and bashing others is bull****. The premise of Popinjay's argument here is that renumbering is an unneccesary step that Lightroom does not require. Well, the use of keywords is not required by Lightroom and is not a necessary step when using Lightroom. So, is the use of keywords also wrong? twist twist twist!! keywords goes beyond the limitations of the file system. there's no way you can do what keywords can do within the file system. nospam's premise is that renumbering is extra work. Using Control plus A to highlight all of the images in the imported files and then completing the box by typing in a few digits and using the Enter key is work? it's more work than not needing to do it at all. If that's "work", then nospam must be one of the laziest, most indolent people, I've heard of. He must have some disease or disability where a few finger twitches exhaust the poor boy. this isn't about me, no matter how much you try to make it so. The reason people use Lightroom or any other asset manager is to be able to work with their photos in a system that presents those images in the way the user wants them presented. exactly, and without the silly limitations of the file system. There is no requirement to use Lightroom or any other asset manager to manage the user's photos. Lightroom is available, at a cost to the user, to make things more convenient, more efficient, and easy to work with. there are alternate asset managers for no cost. which one to use is up to the user. But, Popinjay and nospam think that the user who tailors Lightroom to work the way the user wants it to work is doing something wrong. nobody said that. nospam is willing to take on the formidable job of extra work in typing post after post decrying the extra work required to renumber images. nospam has exerted more effort arguing against renumbering than any Lightroom user has in actually renumbering all of his photos. again, this is not about me. There are times that it is a distinct advantage. For example, I shoot the baseball and football season of the league in which my grandsons play. I post those images to a league website and, at the end of the season, provide each player with a disk of all the games. That's the export function I talked about in my post that you snipped. In the export dialog, you can tell Lightroom to name the files in a myriad of ways. Another illogical argument. The first argument is that renumbering is not necessary and an extra step. Now, the argument is that renumbering is not necessary because an unneccesary step can be added to the export dialog. Six of one, a half dozen of another. those are two *totally* different things. you clearly don't understand the points being made. Also, it ignore the problem that the exported files have a different file name than the retained files. If, for some reason, a recipient of the disk asks that images number 1,8,12, and 24 be sent to someone else in a Dropbox folder, the originator has figure out which files those are in LR. that's not a problem at all. why would it be? Can this be done? Sure, but it's an extra step and extra work that could have been avoided. there is no extra step. Renaming isn't necessary at all at any stage in your photo management. Oh, I agree completely. I do it because I desire to do it. I like it. Isn't that why I bought Lightroom in the first place? Because I can have the photos presented in a way that meets my desires? you're doing more work than you need to do. you're certainly welcome to do things any way you want but you should understand that there are much easier ways. if you don't want to do things the hard way, that's *your* choice but don't force it on others. It isn't necessary for me, or anyone else, to have Lightroom. It's purchased to make things easier. But, Popinjay and nospam think that the things that make it easier for me are wrong to do? If we would list all of the unneccesary steps we do in the area of photography, the list would run page after page. Crop? Not necessary. Adjust temperature, color, exposure, and presence? Not necessary. Do any post processing? Not necessary. Store our images on a computer? Not necessary. Print the photos? Not necessary. Take the photos? Not necessary. straw after straw man. Take nospam and Popinjay's arguments seriously? Not necessary. more bashing which means you have *absolutely* nothing to refute what was said. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Photo file rename by to date and time taken
In article , nospam
wrote: Renaming isn't necessary at all at any stage in your photo management. Oh, I agree completely. I do it because I desire to do it. I like it. Isn't that why I bought Lightroom in the first place? Because I can have the photos presented in a way that meets my desires? you're doing more work than you need to do. you're certainly welcome to do things any way you want but you should understand that there are much easier ways. if you don't want to do things the hard way, that's *your* choice but don't force it on others. eh.. i meant to say if you don't want to do things the easy way. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Photo file rename by to date and time taken
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: lightroom does all the grunt work for you. there is no renaming or moving or identifying the people in them and creating specific folders based on date or event or who is in them or whatever else. What? That's not true. Where do you think your photos are when you upload them from a card or the camera? They are in a folder or folders, and you designate where they are to go when you import them using Lightroom. Some people do use date folders or sub-folders or event folders or sub-folders. it doesn't matter where they are. whatever the system default is works fine for most people. they could be local or on a server or in the cloud. it makes no difference. Typical evasion when caught out to be wrong. nothing about what i said is wrong. You said "there is no...creating specific folders based on date or specific event". I pointed out that specific folders based on date and specific events is a common practice by Lightroom users. some people do things that aren't necessary and others don't. so what? You gave a nonsense reply about "it doesn't matter". it doesn't. Why not just admit that LR users often create specific folders? i never said they didn't. the point is that they don't have to do that. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Photo file rename by to date and time taken
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: The premise of Popinjay's argument here is that renumbering is an unneccesary step that Lightroom does not require. Well, the use of keywords is not required by Lightroom and is not a necessary step when using Lightroom. So, is the use of keywords also wrong? twist twist twist!! keywords goes beyond the limitations of the file system. there's no way you can do what keywords can do within the file system. Is it, or is it not, a requirement to use keywords? Yes or no? i never said it was a requirement. what ever gave you that ridiculous idea? If no, then the user is doing an unnecessary step when he assigns a keyword. No twisting. Just stating facts. that is absolutely twisting things. the point which you keep missing is that keywords go well beyond the limitations of the file system. there is no downside. anything you can do in the file system can be done more easily via keywords. that alone is a benefit but you can also do a *lot* more. Try to provide a straight answer for a change. everything i've said is very straightforward. you fail to understand what i wrote and instead of asking to clarify the parts that aren't clear to you, you twist it into something never said and then go off on a rant. But, Popinjay and nospam think that the user who tailors Lightroom to work the way the user wants it to work is doing something wrong. nobody said that. Oh, yes you have. The very basis of this exchange is your claim that renumbering is doing something wrong. renaming, what you're now calling renumbering, is definitely the wrong way. there is no question about that. what's also clear is that you don't understand *why* it's wrong. That's the export function I talked about in my post that you snipped. In the export dialog, you can tell Lightroom to name the files in a myriad of ways. Another illogical argument. The first argument is that renumbering is not necessary and an extra step. Now, the argument is that renumbering is not necessary because an unneccesary step can be added to the export dialog. Six of one, a half dozen of another. those are two *totally* different things. Oh? An extra step that is required is a different thing from an extra step that is required? they're two totally different things and comparing them makes no sense. again, you don't understand the concepts being discussed. you clearly don't understand the points being made. every post you make reinforces this. Also, it ignore the problem that the exported files have a different file name than the retained files. If, for some reason, a recipient of the disk asks that images number 1,8,12, and 24 be sent to someone else in a Dropbox folder, the originator has figure out which files those are in LR. that's not a problem at all. why would it be? Can this be done? Sure, but it's an extra step and extra work that could have been avoided. there is no extra step. Of course it is. You look foolish denying it. i'm not the one who looks foolish. you haven't a clue what you're even arguing about! you have agreed that lightroom is easier than manually managing photos, but yet you argue anyway. you twist things just so that you can argue. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Photo file rename by to date and time taken
In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote: Andreas Skitsnack: I feel it is desirable. I don't preach that others do it, but I prefer the files to be named in a date/number sequence and view them in Library sorted in ascending order. Sandman: The Library module in Lightroom does not need the files to be named in any way, shape or form, for it to sort the photos in ascending date order. By renaming the files you're adding an unnecessary step to the workflow that Lightroom does not require. The arguments proposed here against renaming are fascinating. Not sure where you're reading any such "argument", however. I'm just here to tell you how it works. If you want to rename files as an extra step, go right ahead. If someone reads your posts they may come away with the impression that file renaming is a necessary step in order to achieve the sorting you describe, and I am just letting them (and you) know that this isn't the case. The arguers throw logic, reasoning, and common sense out of the window in order to come up with claims that renumbering is wrong. Not sure who these "arguers" are, or who has claimed anything is "wrong". For most or all the examples cited, it has been an unnecessary step. The premise of Popinjay's argument here is that renumbering is an unneccesary step that Lightroom does not require. Well, the use of keywords is not required by Lightroom and is not a necessary step when using Lightroom. So, is the use of keywords also wrong? False logic. File renaming to achieve date sorting is an unnecessary step that is not required by Lightroom to sort your files by date. Keywording is an unnecessary step if you never use them. Lightroom doesn't require it. But if you want to find your photos based on keywords, you still need to (still) manually add those keywords. Sort by date: No manual step required Find by keyword: Manual step required. nospam's premise is that renumbering is extra work. And that's certainly something we can all agree on - that it is in fact extra work. Using Control plus A to highlight all of the images in the imported files and then completing the box by typing in a few digits and using the Enter key is work? As opposed to not doing it - sure it is. Not a lot of extra work, but it certainly adds an extra (and unnecessary) step to the import process. If that's "work", then nospam must be one of the laziest, most indolent people, I've heard of. He must have some disease or disability where a few finger twitches exhaust the poor boy. Ah, insults instead of an argument. When you're shooting a lot and spending a lot of time in an asset manager, any time saved is worth something. For instance, it bothered me a *lot* that you couldn't assign imported images in LR to a collection, but had to add that as an extra step. With the latest version, you can, so they fixed that. And again, this isn't about how much work and/or time a specific step takes, it's about whether it is even a necessary step - and as it is, it isn't. The reason people use Lightroom or any other asset manager is to be able to work with their photos in a system that presents those images in the way the user wants them presented. And the "way" you expressed earlier was by date, and to achieve that you renamed the files to include the date and then sorted by file name in spite of "capture time" exif data being the default sorting of LR and no file renaming is necessary to achieve that. There is no requirement to use Lightroom or any other asset manager to manage the user's photos. Of course, but if you're shooting more than a few photos, it's highly recommended. Lightroom is available, at a cost to the user, to make things more convenient, more efficient, and easy to work with. But, Popinjay and nospam think that the user who tailors Lightroom to work the way the user wants it to work is doing something wrong. Since no one has said that, this is yet another non sequitur. We're talking about an example where a LR user adds an extra step to his workflow to achieve a result that would have been available to him without that extra step. Andreas Skitsnack: There are times that it is a distinct advantage. For example, I shoot the baseball and football season of the league in which my grandsons play. I post those images to a league website and, at the end of the season, provide each player with a disk of all the games. Sandman: That's the export function I talked about in my post that you snipped. In the export dialog, you can tell Lightroom to name the files in a myriad of ways. Another illogical argument. The first argument is that renumbering is not necessary and an extra step. Which is a correct claim. Now, the argument is that renumbering is not necessary because an unneccesary step can be added to the export dialog. Six of one, a half dozen of another. Unless you always export every single photo you've ever taken, your logic is flawed. Your workflow contains a step that applies to every photo imported, my workflow contains a step that executes different export settings based on different needs when exporting only. Also, it ignore the problem that the exported files have a different file name than the retained files. Which, of course, needn't be a problem at all. If, for some reason, a recipient of the disk asks that images number 1,8,12, and 24 be sent to someone else in a Dropbox folder, the originator has figure out which files those are in LR. I've already responded to this, and you snipped it. Can this be done? Sure, but it's an extra step and extra work that could have been avoided. It isn't for me, for the reasons I stated in the post where you snipped most of my text away. Sandman: Renaming isn't necessary at all at any stage in your photo management. Oh, I agree completely. I do it because I desire to do it. I like it. Isn't that why I bought Lightroom in the first place? Because I can have the photos presented in a way that meets my desires? Of course - I'm just telling you that for the photos to be presented in that way, no renaming is necessary. If we would list all of the unneccesary steps we do in the area of photography, the list would run page after page. Crop? Not necessary. Adjust temperature, color, exposure, and presence? Not necessary. Do any post processing? Not necessary. False logic. Crop is a necessary step to achieve a desired framing of a subject in the image. Renaming *isn't* necessary to achieve the desired sorting result stated by you. There's a difference. snip more trolling -- Sandman |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Photo file rename by to date and time taken
In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:
Andreas Skitsnack: The premise of Popinjay's argument here is that renumbering is an unneccesary step that Lightroom does not require. Well, the use of keywords is not required by Lightroom and is not a necessary step when using Lightroom. So, is the use of keywords also wrong? nospam: twist twist twist!! keywords goes beyond the limitations of the file system. there's no way you can do what keywords can do within the file system. Is it, or is it not, a requirement to use keywords? Yes or no? It is, if you want to benefit from the functionality they provide. If no, then the user is doing an unnecessary step when he assigns a keyword. No twisting. Just stating facts. It's false logic. It's like saying that it's not necessary for you to go to work, but it is, if you want your salary in order to pay your bills. That's the thing here. You have stated a desired result and your method of achieving that result is performing a task upon import of images. We're telling you that that step is *not necessary* to achieve your desired result. Using Keywords is the same, if you want to achieve a desired result (i.e. find images related to arbitrary information) then adding one or more keywords is required, but if you have no such desire, then it is not. In short - renaming the actual files is only ever important if or when you interact with the files directly. Using an asset manager, you never ever have to interact with the actual files directly. It removes the need for access to the files altogether, and there is nothing you can add to the file names that the asset manager can't handle without that extra step. -- Sandman |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Photo file rename by to date and time taken
On 2015-07-30, Tony Cooper wrote:
Well, there is, and it's a big one. What do you do, some years from now, when you have even more photos than now, all carefully organized with AssetManager, and for whatever reason, that program becomes no longer available for any platform you then use? All your "organization" is out the window, is what. While, if you had named the files in some rational (to you) way, any viable OS that could store them could easily display them in the way you set up. While I support the desire to rename files, the above reason is - in my opinion - bogus. You simply can't plan on far-in-the-future scenarios. Yes, some programs will be discontinued and not supported in the future, but the new programs developed will be able to convert. Sorry, don't quiet agree. That would only be the case if the company responsible for the first Assetmanager would then make the next one. Not likely. Or, that company would need to use an open standard for it's asset data. Very, very, very unlikely. Besides, the data are not in the files. Meaning that if you move the files from one system to another, whatever metadata was stored "somewhere" (never clear) in the original system, it will just not follow. That - in my opninion - is the very reason to have Exif data IN the file. You can allways get it out again. But that sort of portable standards are very unwelcome in certain companies, because it leaves the user free to migrate from one system to another freely. And *that* is why the usual application-religious 'tardboy stepped in and made what could have been a very short Q-and-A into the usual swamp of mindless arguments while the OP waits for anyone to provide some form of usefull answer. PS to the OP: my sister had a very big pile-up of unsorted pictures. She too wanted to rename her files, using the date to regroup pictures from the same event. So I looked around, found a Python script that would extract Exif data, and made a little tool that moves a given file into a dated subdir, adding date and time before the original file name. Several thousands of files sorted in a few secs. On a very slow machine with an Atom CPU. If you use Linux, you can have mine. For Windows, I could adapt the tool. For Mac... that would be blasphemy, so I'll avoid it. -- When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What prog will put time and date of file onto JPG image? | Peter[_9_] | Digital Photography | 2 | May 10th 08 06:06 AM |
changing file date and time | N.Coffey | Digital Photography | 4 | April 11th 07 07:26 PM |
Program to Rename photos to Date and Time taken??? | Bud Snavely | Digital Photography | 2 | February 9th 05 04:48 AM |
Rename file to date pic taken - software ? | Andy100 | Digital Photography | 12 | December 2nd 04 01:22 PM |
Free file date/time "toucher" software? | jersie0 | Digital Photography | 6 | September 6th 04 03:29 AM |