Photo file rename by to date and time taken

On 7/31/2015 8:47 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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."

Accidentally renaming system files, or any critical files, could
result from a minor typo. I've made plenty of catastrophic errors with
computers, but I was lucky enough to always be able to fix them. It
was an obsession to never have to do a reinstall with Windows.

Or playing with the registry, as I did, once. That one needed a complete
reinstall. (Note I only did that one once.)

no backups?


I only did that once. Yeah! I screwed up. I am not perfect, like you.

--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

and if you don't
learn how to use it, that then becomes a waste of time when you fumble
around trying to find your photos. It takes me about 2 seconds to
rename a batch of photos, but it would take anyone days to learn how
to correctly use asset manager software to its full capabilities.

nonsense. it might take a few minutes to learn.


How many books and videos are there out there on the subject of
learning how to use Lightroom?

how many books are there on the subject on how to use windows?

answer: a ****load, from windows basics to windows internals and
everything in between. some of them are actually pretty good and
there's a lot more than for lightroom. there are even certifications
from microsoft on knowing how to use windows.

by your metric, that makes *windows* hard to use.

On 8/1/2015 12:20 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 23:35:50 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

and if you don't
learn how to use it, that then becomes a waste of time when you fumble
around trying to find your photos. It takes me about 2 seconds to
rename a batch of photos, but it would take anyone days to learn how
to correctly use asset manager software to its full capabilities.

nonsense. it might take a few minutes to learn.


How many books and videos are there out there on the subject of
learning how to use Lightroom?

how many books are there on the subject on how to use windows?

So, I take it you are evading my observation that you are wrong about
it taking a few minutes to learn to use LR as an asset manager.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.


Aw Tony. He can't be wrong. If he was, he owuld have admitted it. Just
ask him.

--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

and if you don't
learn how to use it, that then becomes a waste of time when you fumble
around trying to find your photos. It takes me about 2 seconds to
rename a batch of photos, but it would take anyone days to learn how
to correctly use asset manager software to its full capabilities.

nonsense. it might take a few minutes to learn.


How many books and videos are there out there on the subject of
learning how to use Lightroom?

how many books are there on the subject on how to use windows?

So, I take it you are evading my observation that you are wrong about
it taking a few minutes to learn to use LR as an asset manager.

if anyone is evading, it's you.

you try to portray lightroom as harder to use than windows by
mentioning books on lightroom. that's bull****, because windows has
*more* books.

now you're backing down from that and as usual, trying to make it
personal.

the fact is that it's a *lot* easier to manage photos in lightroom than
it is in windows explorer by a long shot since lightroom takes care of
all the details for you. there's less to learn and the user is more
productive.

In article
nospam wrote:

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.

That's me, all right.

it's very
limiting and something that is eventually going away.

Being able to deal with files directly? I know that for most people
that's almost already happened, but I think that those of us who
are used to it will find a way. Those who prefer convenience over
control of what they're doing will go along with the tyranny of the
GUIs.

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.

What I can do is make sure that the files I want are in the right
place and have the names I need them to have so that my human mind
can plug them into Web pages where I want to.

I don't have an "asset manager," I don't need an "asset manager."

....
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.

You sound like you're trying to sell me Microsoft or Google stock.

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.

Which I neither have nor need.

Maybe you just don't understand the idea of you do it your way,
I'll do it my way. Your diktat is not persuasive.

In article .at,
Anonymous Remailer (austria) 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.

That's me, all right.

then you're doing things the hard way.

it's very
limiting and something that is eventually going away.

Being able to deal with files directly? I know that for most people
that's almost already happened, but I think that those of us who
are used to it will find a way.

you're making excuses because it's what you're used to that and it's
all you know. you refuse to learn new and more efficient ways which are
significantly more flexible and capable than direct file system access
ever could provide.

fortunately the rest of the world has progressed beyond those
limitations.

Those who prefer convenience over
control of what they're doing will go along with the tyranny of the
GUIs.

nonsense. that's the most idiotic thing i've read in years. people
choose guis because they're more productive.

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.

What I can do is make sure that the files I want are in the right
place and have the names I need them to have so that my human mind
can plug them into Web pages where I want to.

a computer does that *much* better than a human ever could, leaving
more important and more interesting tasks to the human.

I don't have an "asset manager," I don't need an "asset manager."

then you're doing things the hard way and missing out on all sorts of
functionality that's not possible any other way.

let me guess. you use linux. linux users *love* to do things in the
most convoluted way possible and make excuses that their way is the
best because there is no other option due to the sheer lack of quality
software. they *have* to do things manually.

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.

You sound like you're trying to sell me Microsoft or Google stock.

it has nothing to do with any company or their stock.

having the computer do work *for* you is the key.

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.

Which I neither have nor need.

then you don't do very much with your computer.

people who don't have any photos, music, movies or other documents
don't need an asset manager because they don't have any assets to
manage.

if that's you, then you don't need an asset manager. however, that's
*not* the norm. it's an extreme edge case.

Maybe you just don't understand the idea of you do it your way,
I'll do it my way. Your diktat is not persuasive.

what's clear is that you don't understand what you're missing and
stubbornly dismissing anything new as bad.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

How many books and videos are there out there on the subject of
learning how to use Lightroom?

how many books are there on the subject on how to use windows?

So, I take it you are evading my observation that you are wrong about
it taking a few minutes to learn to use LR as an asset manager.

if anyone is evading, it's you.

you try to portray lightroom as harder to use than windows by
mentioning books on lightroom. that's bull****, because windows has
*more* books.

For a guy who whines about "twisting", you have sure knotted up this
one.

The discussion has never been about the difficulty of *using*
anything. It's about learning how to use something.

more twisting.

you have to learn how to use something to be able to use it.

There is no learning curve or need to know how to use Windows.
A person can buy a computer with a Windows OS, turn it on, and use it.

nonsense!!

you don't seriously believe that, do you??

have you even seen what people do trying to figure out windows?

Nothing to learn about the OS. There are things that *can* be learned
about Windows, but none that are necessary for all users.

it's true that you don't need to learn everything about windows to use
it but that's not the issue.

What must be learned is how to use the programs that are added.

what must be learned is what someone doesn't yet know how to do. that
is not limited to what gets added.

You cannot just download Lightroom and use it without learning how to
use it. There are various ways to learn about it, and buying a book
is one of them...but not the only way.

maybe you can't but others can.

I don't feel Lightroom is particularly difficult to learn how to use,
but it most certainly takes more than a "few minutes" to master even
the most rudimentary features. Using the Develop module certainly
takes quite a bit of time to master if you want to get the most out of
it.

this isn't about becoming a lightroom wizard.

it's about managing photos with lightroom versus doing it the hard way
in windows explorer, manually renaming and moving files.

since lightroom does a lot of the grunt work, it doesn't take more than
a few minutes to learn how to manage images.

developing images can't be done in windows and was *never* the issue.

now you're backing down from that and as usual, trying to make it
personal.

the fact is that it's a *lot* easier to manage photos in lightroom than
it is in windows explorer

You must be exhausted from all that effort of moving the goal posts.
Who said anything about comparing the difficulty of managing photos in
Windows Explorer compared to Lightroom?

nothing was moved.

managing photos is the topic under discussion.

put another way: asset managers versus doing it the hard way with files
and folders in windows.

It's an inane comparison anyway. Any difficulty depends entirely on
the number of photos involved and what the user wants the system to
manage. For some, no management at all is necessary. There's a whole
group of people who upload their photos into "My pictures" and have no
system whatsoever to manage them...and don't need one.

There's another group of people who do have a basic folder and file
system that manage quite nicely with just that.

those groups don't have very many photos.

that doesn't scale as the number of photos goes up. when you start to
have thousands of photos or tens of thousands of photos, managing them
in the file system becomes a *lot* of work, which is where an asset
manager shines.

by a long shot since lightroom takes care of
all the details for you. there's less to learn and the user is more
productive.

Less to learn about managing photos in Lightroom than less to learn
about using managing photos in Windows using a folder and file system?
You have to be kidding. Not that there's a great deal that the person
needs to know about managing photos in Lightroom, but there isn't a
great deal that a person needs to learn about setting up folder and
file system, either.

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.

all you have to do is import, optionally add keywords and rate photos.
face recognition and geotagging (if location data is available) will
take care of a lot of the details you'd otherwise need to do.

it's easy to query on content (e.g., photos of mary), make a smart
collection (that auto-populates as new images are added) or a standard
collection.

Lightroom's a great program. I wouldn't be without it. But, to say
that it takes just a few minutes to learn is a ridiculous statement.
To say that using LR takes less to learn than using a folder and file
system is also a ridiculous statement. The more complex the need for
managing files becomes, the more useful LR becomes, but the user has
to learn how to manage the more complex system.

there's nothing ridiculous about either one.

As usual, when it comes to LR and Apple products, you take extreme
positions instead of the more rational and objective positions in your
constant need to provide argument.

there's nothing extreme about it.

it's an opinion shared by many professional photographers, who sure as
hell aren't going to start diddling individual files in the file
system.

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.

it is.

When speaking about learning
to use something, you learn to use the salient features of it.


when making a comparison, you only compare the relevant features.

in this case, it's about managing assets. that's all.

there is no requirement to use the rest of the app. many features in
lightroom and windows go unused.

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.

the hell it is. you show just how ignorant you are by that comment.

anyone who has seen non-geeks fumble with windows will tell you just
how utterly ludicrous that comment is.

look at the feedback from windows 8. *many* people found it very
difficult to use, so much so that they either stayed with win7 (or
worse, xp) or switched to a mac.

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.

you wouldn't see very many differences in that setting.

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.

that app is windows explorer which is part of windows.

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.

twist twist twist.

when you're renaming and moving files, you're using mac or windows to
manage photos.

if you want to call it managing it in finder or explorer rather than
mac or windows, then call it that, but it doesn't change a thing.
you're arguing just to argue.

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.

the issue is not launching an app. more twisting.

You are trying to compare the OS with an app. That's a stupid
position.

what's stupid is trying to separate the built in file manager from the
os.

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 do if you're renaming them and putting them into folders.

they don't do that on their own.

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.

that's my point. get an app designed to manage photos. those apps are
called asset managers.

now you're agreeing with me, yet you argue.

You haven't defined what "manage" means,

it's been defined.

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.

for a few photos they might be.

not for large numbers of them.

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.

nope.

once again, you're twisting things and arguing against what wasn't said
and even agreeing with my point that managing photos is best done with
an app designed to manage photos.

that makes you the silly one.

On 2015-08-02 01:23:38 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:56:41 -0400, nospam
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.

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:

"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.

You have a hierarchy of folders in the drive.

....er, Yup!
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_249.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck