A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Photo file rename by to date and time taken



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 30th 15, 12:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Anonymous[_14_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Photo file rename by to date and time taken

In article
nospam wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

an asset manager is the alternative.

i didn't tell him *which* asset manager because that's *his* choice.


How would you expect a person who is seeking a simple way to renumber
photos to know what an "asset manager" is?


there is nothing simple about renaming files.


Really? Maybe you actually think that. I need to rename files all
the time, and it is best done in batch mode, if there's more than
one file.

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


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.

  #22  
Old July 30th 15, 01:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Photo file rename by to date and time taken

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
  #23  
Old July 30th 15, 01:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Stephen G. Giannoni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Photo file rename by to date and time taken

Windows 7 Home Premium ...

On 29 Jul 2015 15:51:57 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Stephen G. Giannoni
wrote:

What's the best program for such a batch rename ?


What operating system do you use?

  #24  
Old July 30th 15, 03:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Photo file rename by to date and time taken

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

an asset manager is the alternative.

i didn't tell him *which* asset manager because that's *his* choice.

How would you expect a person who is seeking a simple way to renumber
photos to know what an "asset manager" is?


there is nothing simple about renaming files.


This gives me a pretty good indication of your ability level in using
a computer. If you think renaming a file is anything but simple, you
need to get a grade school kid in to teach you some tricks. Let him
introduce you to the F2 key.


my ability is not the issue. once again, you are trying to turn things
personal.

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

asset management is something the computer can do better than you can,
which is why there are dedicated apps optimized for that task. since
there are a number of choices, it's clear that a whole lot of people
agree.

Suggesting an alternative is done by writing something like "You could
use an asset manager like..." and naming a program or two and
providing links. You can add that there are other asset managers.


a google search for asset manager would show many options.


So you are unwilling to offer any help.


i offered help by suggesting an asset manager. it's up to him to decide
which one that best fits his needs and budget.

lightroom is a popular choice but it's not the only one.

It's also a program for which the user is charged. He can use a trial
version for free for 30 days, but he will not be able to use it again
without paying unless he cheats somehow.


try reading for comprehension.

lightroom is not the only choice. there are others.

lightroom is well worth the price to many and one reason why it's
*very* popular, but again, it's not the only option.


Hardly worth the price for this single function.


that's his choice to make, and it's unlikely that he would use it for a
single function for a wide variety of reasons.

for those on a tight budget there are less expensive and even free
solutions.


Which I provided.


no you didn't. what you provided was not an asset manager.

Changing the file name can do more than provide a
list of file names. Depending on the Viewer used, it can display
information in a simpler way that looking at the EXIF data and it can
be used as a sorting data point.

asset managers do all of that and more without having to change or
rename anything, making users much more productive.

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.

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


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


If you think renaming is "work", you are even less qualified as a
computer user than I thought.


of course it's work. it doesn't happen on its own. the human has to do
it.

Renaming files in LR done by many users. Julieanne Kost's Adobe video
goes into it:

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-comple...st/how-and-whe
n-to-rename-files-in-lightroom-4/

There are dozens of other sites that cover how files should be named
and renamed in LR and other apps. Where's your video?


nowhere in that video does she say *why* someone might need to rename
files. what problem is she trying to solve??

again, there's no need to rename anything because lightroom manages
assets for you. the names of the files no longer matter.

There are reasons to assign file numbers. To deny that reasons exist
is ridiculous. Especially when the denial is based only on your own
situation.


it's not based on my own situation and in fact, it has absolutely
nothing to do with anything i do.

the fact, which you refuse to acknowledge, is that an app designed for
managing assets, in this case photos, will always be more efficient and
more productive than doing it manually in a file manager that knows
nothing about assets, where the user has to manually move and rename
files.


Renaming does not require moving files. The files move themselves
into the new sequence based on the sort order.


nope. renaming a file does not move a file. they are two separate
things.

what you're talking about is how a file manager displays files, which
if set to sort on name might display them in a different order. that's
*not* the same as moving a file.

the order in which photos (or other assets) are displayed is something
that can be done in lightroom or another asset manager much easier and
without renaming anything.

let the computer handle the details so you can concentrate on more
important things.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that some people like to view files
in a particular sequence? Or having a reason to do so?


i never said they couldn't do that. why do you lie and twist what i say?

the point is that an asset manager lets a person view images in any
sequence they want *without* renaming *anything*.

Why have you not addressed the other other limitations of relying on
EXIF data?


what limitations might that be?

exif data contains a *lot* more information than you could *ever* stuff
into a file name.

that makes file renaming the more limiting option, by a *lot*.

once again, you are talking out your ass.

Why have you failed to provide any downside to renaming files?


i did provide downsides.
  #25  
Old July 30th 15, 03:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Photo file rename by to date and time taken

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

because renaming files is never a good solution. in fact, it's not even
needed at all because the file name makes absolutely no difference
whatsoever.


It does to the person that wants it renamed. Sometimes you rename a file just
so it lists the file in the order you want in the finder(Mac). Very useful
for slideshow too.


using finder to view files is a bad idea and slide shows know which
order to show the images, *without* renaming anything.

Maybe the best option is to leave all photos untilled so they can be easily
found


asset managers don't give a **** what the files are called. they keep
track of stuff so you don't have to.
  #26  
Old July 30th 15, 03:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Photo file rename by to date and time taken

In article , Anonymous
wrote:

an asset manager is the alternative.

i didn't tell him *which* asset manager because that's *his* choice.

How would you expect a person who is seeking a simple way to renumber
photos to know what an "asset manager" is?


there is nothing simple about renaming files.


Really? Maybe you actually think that. I need to rename files all
the time, and it is best done in batch mode, if there's more than
one file.


there is no need to rename files because the computer can manage that
for you and give you vastly more options in managing assets.

interacting directly with the file system is old school. it's very
limiting and something that is eventually going away.

for instance, with an asset manager, you could do a query such as
'photos of paris in winter' or 'photos with bob but not sue'. you can't
do that by renaming files.

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


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?


because it's something the computer can do far more effectively. it's
simply not something that's needed anymore.

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.


again, that is something automatically done by asset managers.
  #27  
Old July 30th 15, 03:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Photo file rename by to date and time taken

On 2015-07-30 13:21:04 +0000, Whisky-dave said:


Reminds me of a council estate joke.
A women with 8 kids calls out the name "John, dinners ready", and all 8
kids come running. When ever she calls john all the kids
answer/respond, so is asked if all your kids have the same name john
how do you single out any john from the rest.
The women answers well in those cases I use their fathers surname to
identify them.


The boxer, George Foreman has 12 children, 5 sons, and 7 daughters. His
five sons are George Jr., George III, George IV, George V, and George
VI. Each has a nik nameAmong the names of his daughters in one
Georgetta.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #28  
Old July 30th 15, 03:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Photo file rename by to date and time taken

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Sandman:
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).


What is the advantage of exporting files and assigning a different
name to them than the name of file that is retained?


Exporting files creates new files, and you get to choose what naming scheme you
prefer or need for that specific export. What the original files on disk are
named is absolutely irrelevant at that stage, but you can use "filename" in
your export as well if you for whatever reason want to use it in your export.

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.

Let's say you send a batch of files to a client and those files are
named on export as Sandman-001 to Sandman-020. The client contacts
you saying he wants to use Sandman-014 for the project.


But, those files are on your computer with the original name. How
do you know which is Sandman-014? If two files are essentially
identical but have a very minor difference, wouldn't it be easier to
know which was wanted if the original file name was used on export?


Well, there's a workflow difference here. I rarely send a group of files to a
client. I create a web gallery from Lightroom (or other app) that displays low-
res versions for picking a photo. Here's one example:

http://jonaseklundh.se/files/jessicaforsberg/index.html

And if you click any photo, you will get a larger preview, and also the
original filename. So the client can then pick one for enlargement (she picked
"DSC_3939") and that lets me know which one it is.

In your example, should I send a group of photos to a client, I would keep the
exported files on my computer as well (in fact, I would probably upload them to
my server, but still) so when she picks one that is differently named than the
original filename, it's not a problem for me to figure out which photo that is.

I don't understand the point of renaming the files on export.


Well, so don't? The OP wanted to batch rename photos, and I was merely telling
"Anonymous" about how his examples would be easier when using an asset manager.

Just to be clear...I'm not finding fault with the practice. I just
don't understand the benefit.


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), if you're
making a collection of photos for download, like this one:

http://jonaseklundh.deviantart.com/art/Hardwood-floor-texture-484476983

It would probably look neater if the files are named in an easy-to-read fashion
rather than "DSC-XXXX"

--
Sandman
  #29  
Old July 30th 15, 04:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Photo file rename by to date and time taken

On 2015-07-30 14:21:32 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2015-07-30 13:21:04 +0000, Whisky-dave said:


Reminds me of a council estate joke.
A women with 8 kids calls out the name "John, dinners ready", and all 8
kids come running. When ever she calls john all the kids
answer/respond, so is asked if all your kids have the same name john
how do you single out any john from the rest.
The women answers well in those cases I use their fathers surname to
identify them.


The boxer, George Foreman has 12 children, 5 sons, and 7 daughters. His
five sons are George Jr., George III, George IV, George V, and George
VI. Each has a nik nameAmong the names of his daughters in one
Georgetta.


Let me clean that up:
Each has a nick name: "Junior", "Monk", "Big Wheel", "Red", and "Little
Joey". Among the names of his daughters is one Georgetta.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #30  
Old July 30th 15, 05:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default Photo file rename by to date and time taken

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". All the files retain their original capture names.
All are simple to find.

With specific exports Lightroom can handle the batch export (with
resizing and conversion to JPEG, with file size limits) to a new folder
and location and the batch renaming.

So, I can select a group of image files from folder "2010-08-15 Laguna
Seca", and export them to an appropriate folder (let's say "Laguna Seca
2010") at an export destination. Then have those exported files renamed
"Monterey Historics-001", "Monterey Historics-002", et seq.

There is no change to the file names in LR, and all is well with the World.

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.

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.

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.

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.

LR has the feature of ability to batch rename. In doing so, I'm just
using a feature that works for me.


....and that is generally what is desired. A solution which works for the user.

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.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:48 AM
Rename file to date pic taken - software ? Andy100 Digital Photography 12 December 2nd 04 02:22 PM
Free file date/time "toucher" software? jersie0 Digital Photography 6 September 6th 04 03:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.