Photo file rename by to date and time taken

On 7/30/2015 6:08 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Of course you have to keep track of the stuff!

not by file name, you don't.

You have to keep track at least to the extent that no matter what
system you are using you have to remember how it works and you have to
remember what it is about the image you are looking for that enabled
you to place (and hence to later find) it in the system you have
created.

that's not keeping track of the stuff.

obviously you need to know what the photos you want to see or work with
are about, but that's it.

the actual file name or where it's stored, local or remote, makes no
difference. the computer handles all of that for you.

Savageduck (and some others) use folders based on date. That works for
them but would almost totally useless for me. Once a year or two has
gone I wouldn't have a clue about when I took it. But I do remember
the content of all my images (or the groups of images) and file them
on that basis. I don't generally bother to change the file names. This
practice predates my use of any 'asset manager' and I have no trouble
finding any photograph I want.

that's perfect for an asset manager.

you can search on what you want to see rather than the name or date,
which as you say, is something people won't remember, and the asset
manager does the rest.

I can see the advantage of an asset manager but I find the need to
hang key words on individual images to be a pain in the neck that I
can do without. "Let the computer do the work" says nospam. That's all
very well but no matter what system you use you too will have to do a
substantial part of the work required to enable the computer to do the
work for you. Asset managers are not the totally magic bullet that
some would have them be.

asset managers aren't perfect (nothing is)

Cudda fooled me. Judging by your postings, you want us to think you are.


--
PeterN

On 7/30/2015 6:46 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:13:55 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:57:10 -0700, isw wrote:

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

Your scenario might be a bit overwrought, and I definitely am a fan of
the forward march of technology, but I still agree with you. There are
a lot of very cruel posters here who look down on us Luddites who are
so careful that they believe in a bit of redundancy, but I do not care
for black boxes, and if I didn't write the software, in this case the
asset manager, it's a black box. I just went through a long couple of
weeks going through old computer files, many of which I could not open
without a lot of research.

I mean, after you've taken a bunch of photos, it's just not that hard
to create a clearly named folder, and import all of the photos
directly into it, and then rename them, if that's what you want. After
that, I can easily import them into any app that I want, LR, DXO, PSP,
or into all of them. I just use the folder name for the collection
name. Redundancy, redundancy, redundancy. (I know, that's redundant.)

I realize that it can be (and has been) argued that it's pointless,
but so was converting all of my Works files, and all of my files
stored on a Zip drive. Until I learned the hard way it wasn't. If one
does not spend every waking hour following the status of current
hardware & software, one can find himself in a bind one day.

The "Let the computer do the work" concept is one of those things that
sounds good but is not a realistic premise. The computer will "do the
work" in LR if you organize it properly in the first place and learn
how to direct it after that.

And the system must be comfortable for the user. Not what some person,
who without full knowledge of you, thinks you should do.

--
PeterN

On 7/30/2015 7:01 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:56:02 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/30/2015 3:13 PM, nospam wrote:
In article 2015073011414326671-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

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).

Probably longer for me. I used to be able to decently do basics in Unix
caommand lkine. The operating principle is not all that much different
with DOS command lines. Both are fairly simple and quick. But I have
forgotten the syntax for conditional execution of cammands.

...and you would really have to be careful with regard to those typos
you are vulnerable to these days.

no ****. one minor typo and you could be looking at a complete
reinstall.


Gee dad, it's a Wurlitzer!

It's funny you'd say that. I have an Arturia Wurly V software synth,
and I've had nothing but problems with it. At least 3 reinstalls so
far. It's those damn arrogant French software companies. Them, and
DXO.


My proposal for my thesis in computer science was based upon a different
method of converting musical notations to sound and converting digital
sound to written notes, that would incorporate undertones, overtones,
accents, and attentuation. It included an analysis of the major issues
with the current sustem. My proposal was approved, but for personal
reasons I decided not to pursue a masters degree.
The expression was originally a widely copied advertising slogan. In my
narrow area of NYC it became a polite and sarcastic way of telling
someone they were FOS.



--
PeterN

On 7/30/2015 8:23 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:21:09 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:


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.

Your scenario might be a bit overwrought, and I definitely am a fan of
the forward march of technology, but I still agree with you. There are
a lot of very cruel posters here who look down on us Luddites who are
so careful that they believe in a bit of redundancy, but I do not care
for black boxes, and if I didn't write the software, in this case the
asset manager, it's a black box. I just went through a long couple of
weeks going through old computer files, many of which I could not open
without a lot of research.

then you have to stick with plain text and jpeg files.

that's *really* limiting and a *huge* price to pay for something that
might never occur.

It has already occurred to me.

I have a large number of Photopaint files which I can no longer open
in Windows.

I have a smaller number Paintshop Pro files which will be inaccessible
in the forseeable future.

IIRC you can save them as either PSD or TIFF files. I don't know if you
can create an action to do that.


I keep finished print' files as high quality jpg files. For all the
rest I rely on raw files as the basic backstop.

photoshop is 25 years old with no sign of it going away any time soon.
lightroom is 10 years old with no sign of it going away either.


--
PeterN

On 7/30/2015 8:30 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:08:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Probably longer for me. I used to be able to decently do basics in Unix
caommand lkine. The operating principle is not all that much different
with DOS command lines. Both are fairly simple and quick. But I have
forgotten the syntax for conditional execution of cammands.

...and you would really have to be careful with regard to those typos
you are vulnerable to these days.

no ****. one minor typo and you could be looking at a complete
reinstall.

Bull****

it's definitely not bull****.

Renaming a bunch of image files can lead to needing a complete
reinstall? I still say Bull****. I suppose now you are going to
redifine what you mean by a complete reinstall.


If I use a command such as DEL *.*, there would be some issues. But that
would not by any rational definition, be a "minor typo."

--
PeterN

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Probably longer for me. I used to be able to decently do basics in
Unix
caommand lkine. The operating principle is not all that much
different
with DOS command lines. Both are fairly simple and quick. But I have
forgotten the syntax for conditional execution of cammands.

...and you would really have to be careful with regard to those typos
you are vulnerable to these days.

no ****. one minor typo and you could be looking at a complete
reinstall.

Bull****

it's definitely not bull****.

Renaming a bunch of image files can lead to needing a complete
reinstall? I still say Bull****. I suppose now you are going to
redifine what you mean by a complete reinstall.

i said one minor typo could mean a reinstall, and it can.

the initial paragraph mentions 'the basics in unix caommand kline', not
specifically about renaming image files or any other type of file. it's
about the command line.

one of these is going to *really* ruin your day:
sudo rm -rf /path/to/some/folder
sudo rm -rf / path/to/some/folder

as for renaming image files, one of these will ruin your day too but
not quite as much:
rm *.jpg
rm * .jpg

there are *many* other examples where you can easily **** yourself
over, requiring a reinstall. usually it's a lot less severe.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Your scenario might be a bit overwrought, and I definitely am a fan of
the forward march of technology, but I still agree with you. There are
a lot of very cruel posters here who look down on us Luddites who are
so careful that they believe in a bit of redundancy, but I do not care
for black boxes, and if I didn't write the software, in this case the
asset manager, it's a black box. I just went through a long couple of
weeks going through old computer files, many of which I could not open
without a lot of research.

then you have to stick with plain text and jpeg files.

that's *really* limiting and a *huge* price to pay for something that
might never occur.

It has already occurred to me.

I have a large number of Photopaint files which I can no longer open
in Windows.

I have a smaller number Paintshop Pro files which will be inaccessible
in the forseeable future.

I keep finished print' files as high quality jpg files. For all the
rest I rely on raw files as the basic backstop.

nothing else reads those files? no way to export to a common format?

do those apps work anymore? if not, you could run them in vm running
an older version of windows.

In article , Bill W
wrote:

Your scenario might be a bit overwrought, and I definitely am a fan of
the forward march of technology, but I still agree with you. There are
a lot of very cruel posters here who look down on us Luddites who are
so careful that they believe in a bit of redundancy, but I do not care
for black boxes, and if I didn't write the software, in this case the
asset manager, it's a black box. I just went through a long couple of
weeks going through old computer files, many of which I could not open
without a lot of research.

then you have to stick with plain text and jpeg files.

No, not stick with, but if one wants to be really careful, text files
along with Word, or whatever.

which is very limiting.

that's *really* limiting and a *huge* price to pay for something that
might never occur.

It's not limiting if it's redundant, but yes, there is a price to pay,
but not huge. I sometimes type a document into a basic text editor,
and then paste that into Word, email, a web page, etc. In this case,
it's not to protect the original document, but I do end up with a copy
I can open with anything.

in that case, you're not really using all of the features of word.

try writing a long document with formatting, embedded images,
hyperlinks, etc. you can't do that in a plain text editor.

photoshop is 25 years old with no sign of it going away any time soon.
lightroom is 10 years old with no sign of it going away either.

I remember an investment class many years ago where the instructor
made a similar remark about IBM. "Can you even imagine IBM
disappearing?" It was only a few years later that they almost did. But
to be clear, I don't expect LR or PS to go away in my lifetime. I just
happen to think that paranoia is healthy.

a very different situation in a very different era.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 00:42:33 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:

Your scenario might be a bit overwrought, and I definitely am a fan of
the forward march of technology, but I still agree with you. There are
a lot of very cruel posters here who look down on us Luddites who are
so careful that they believe in a bit of redundancy, but I do not care
for black boxes, and if I didn't write the software, in this case the
asset manager, it's a black box. I just went through a long couple of
weeks going through old computer files, many of which I could not open
without a lot of research.

then you have to stick with plain text and jpeg files.

No, not stick with, but if one wants to be really careful, text files
along with Word, or whatever.

which is very limiting.

that's *really* limiting and a *huge* price to pay for something that
might never occur.

It's not limiting if it's redundant, but yes, there is a price to pay,
but not huge. I sometimes type a document into a basic text editor,
and then paste that into Word, email, a web page, etc. In this case,
it's not to protect the original document, but I do end up with a copy
I can open with anything.

in that case, you're not really using all of the features of word.

try writing a long document with formatting, embedded images,
hyperlinks, etc. you can't do that in a plain text editor.

You have long been able to do that better in Word Perfect than you
could in Word. No doubt Word is catching up.

photoshop is 25 years old with no sign of it going away any time soon.
lightroom is 10 years old with no sign of it going away either.

I remember an investment class many years ago where the instructor
made a similar remark about IBM. "Can you even imagine IBM
disappearing?" It was only a few years later that they almost did. But
to be clear, I don't expect LR or PS to go away in my lifetime. I just
happen to think that paranoia is healthy.

a very different situation in a very different era.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 00:11:56 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/30/2015 8:23 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:21:09 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:


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.

Your scenario might be a bit overwrought, and I definitely am a fan of
the forward march of technology, but I still agree with you. There are
a lot of very cruel posters here who look down on us Luddites who are
so careful that they believe in a bit of redundancy, but I do not care
for black boxes, and if I didn't write the software, in this case the
asset manager, it's a black box. I just went through a long couple of
weeks going through old computer files, many of which I could not open
without a lot of research.

then you have to stick with plain text and jpeg files.

that's *really* limiting and a *huge* price to pay for something that
might never occur.

It has already occurred to me.

I have a large number of Photopaint files which I can no longer open
in Windows.

I have a smaller number Paintshop Pro files which will be inaccessible
in the forseeable future.

IIRC you can save them as either PSD or TIFF files. I don't know if you
can create an action to do that.

I'm reluctant to that for a variety of reasons. No doubt I will have
to bite the bullet.


I keep finished print' files as high quality jpg files. For all the
rest I rely on raw files as the basic backstop.

photoshop is 25 years old with no sign of it going away any time soon.
lightroom is 10 years old with no sign of it going away either.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens