Photo file rename by to date and time taken

On 7/30/2015 10:00 AM, nospam wrote:



simple or not, renaming is more work than not renaming.


The OP expressed a valid reason for renaming. There is nothing complex
about using a global command line rename, and move to the correct it can
be done in a few lines.


--
PeterN

On 7/30/2015 12:09 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On 30 Jul 2015 14:56:59 GMT, Sandman wrote:

snip


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.

If you include your name as submitter, that might be grounds for
disqualification.


--
PeterN

In article ,
nospam wrote:

managing photos (or any asset) via the filesystem is primitive and
inefficient. that's why asset mangers exist, which are designed and
optimized to manage assets. not only are they more efficient but they
do a lot more too. there is no downside.

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.

Isaac

In article , isw
wrote:

managing photos (or any asset) via the filesystem is primitive and
inefficient. that's why asset mangers exist, which are designed and
optimized to manage assets. not only are they more efficient but they
do a lot more too. there is no downside.

Well, there is, and it's a big one.

no there isn't.

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?

then you migrate to another asset manager. it's not a big deal.

and if you choose a popular one, the risk of that happening is
negligible. it's not like lightroom is going away any time soon.

All your "organization" is out the window, is what.

nope.

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.

that's a *****load* of work, both to do and to maintain, and it still
won't do everything an asset manager can do.

the computer will do a far more effective job.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

simple or not, renaming is more work than not renaming.

The OP expressed a valid reason for renaming.

actually he didn't.

There is nothing complex
about using a global command line rename, and move to the correct it can
be done in a few lines.

the point is that renaming is not needed. it's a waste of time because
all of those pesky details are handled automatically.

On 2015-07-30 16:57:10 +0000, isw said:

In article ,
nospam wrote:

managing photos (or any asset) via the filesystem is primitive and
inefficient. that's why asset mangers exist, which are designed and
optimized to manage assets. not only are they more efficient but they
do a lot more too. there is no downside.

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?

Let's just say my asset manager is Lightroom (and strangely enough it
is) and for some reason LR is no longer available for any platform.
Lightroom has in fact already done the logicl filing for me, and I can
use those logically arranged files in anyway.
Lightroom does not store the image files within the application, they
are still on your computers HDD/SSD storage or your archive.
For example if I want to find any images managed by Lightroom without
using Lightroom, I know that they are located in this path on my
computer:
LCO-3TB-Users-lco-Pictures-Lightroom Images

In that Ligtroom Images folder I will find the following:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_239.jpg

If I open the folder "2010" I have 72 dated sub-folders:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_240.jpg

....and if from that folder I open "2010-08-15 Laguna Seca" I get 1,169
image files, all of which I can access without Lightroom. Everything is
still organized.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_241.jpg

All your "organization" is out the window, is what.

Nope.

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.

....and it does, aided by the asset manager of your choice.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-07-29 11:04, Stephen G. Giannoni wrote:
What's the best program for such a batch rename ?


You could use Skooby Renamer for such but it's Date/Time formatting of
file names is not very flexible.

OTOH, I usually date/time the file names on import using Bridge (Adobe)
where I can set it as I like.

On 2015-07-29 11:04, Stephen G. Giannoni wrote:
What's the best program for such a batch rename ?


Terminal command in OS X or Linux, I s'pect. Possibly in Windows.

This requires pretty good skills with string manipulation in the command
line. Not common these days. (It would take me an hour to get there
again - been too long).

On 2015-07-30 17:58:54 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:38:43 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-30 16:09:31 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On 30 Jul 2015 14:56:59 GMT, Sandman wrote:

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.

Agreed.

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.

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.

LR does that without renaming. When I import image files into LR they
are placed in folders by date. I then relabel the folder by adding a
specific tag. For example, folder "2005-05-24", is relabled "2005-05-24
Vancouver". Any other images shot at a different location on the same
day will be relabled to reflect the different location, eg. "2005-05-24
Butchart Gardens".

Well, it does so without renaming, *but* only if you import them into
folders that are date-named. I use one folder for a complete year of
photos, but sub-folders in each year for baseball and football.

So? LR does that, one folder per year then multiple folders for date.
To some of those I add additional label information. Here is some of
2010;
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_242.jpg

There are several ways to sort the view in Library, but if I would use
file name, and not have a date/number name, the sorting would be
alphabetic.

Keywords.

All are simple to find.

As are mine. I don't see a difference in any system that results in
easier to find. There are several ways to find a particular image in
LR. If I'm looking for images of a particular event (that has not
been keyworded), I generally go to text option in LR, enter the year
and month in the search box (2014-05) and go from there. There are
other ways, of course.

Whatever works for you. I am just showing what I do, and you are
telling us what you do.

What, by the way, is the difference between "relabeling" a folder and
"renumbering" photos as far as all this extra work nohelp is talking
about?

None.

It would seem that renumbering the photos as a batch, and using
"Vancouver" as a keyword, would get you to the same place with the
same amount of "work".

Not quite. Especially if I add the keyword at import.

Not that I suggest you should. How you do it is up to you and what
you're comfortable with.

Ditto.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 7/30/2015 1:20 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

simple or not, renaming is more work than not renaming.

The OP expressed a valid reason for renaming.

actually he didn't.

If you knew how to read you would see that he did. If the reason is
valid for him, then its valid.


There is nothing complex
about using a global command line rename, and move to the correct it can
be done in a few lines.

the point is that renaming is not needed. it's a waste of time because
all of those pesky details are handled automatically.

See above.


--
PeterN