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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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