Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Photos naming problem
Page 1 of 2 next>
Nov 19, 2018 09:48:08   #
jwmallon
 
I shoot headshots and post low res versions for the client to choose from. The problem that I've encountered is that when I "copy' and paste the image the naming system chooses numbers and letters which don't match the full res versions in my original file. A lot of work to hunt down the original file that corresponds to the low res version...help!

example: full res DSC_6103..... low res copy UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_137b.jpg

Reply
Nov 19, 2018 09:54:12   #
Anna M-W Loc: New York City
 
Uses photoshop image engine may also be in lightroom (I am too stupid to uses lightroom)

Reply
Nov 19, 2018 10:08:42   #
df61743 Loc: Corpus Christi, TX
 
My solution to always being able to find the original is to use a program to batch edit EXIF and/or IPTC data and add or modify a field containing the original filename. This data is embedded in the image, so I can always find the original regardless how it has been renamed. The first thing I do after a photo shoot is to tag the image IPTC data with the original filename, the name of the photographer (me or my wife) the location, and any other tags I think appropriate, before I stash the originals on an external drive. I use PhotoMechanic, but I believe the free Irfanview will do it as well. There are probably other programs that will do it too.

Take a look at https://irfanview-forum.de/showthread.php?t=10433


Dick

Reply
 
 
Nov 19, 2018 10:51:45   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
jwmallon wrote:
I shoot headshots and post low res versions for the client to choose from. The problem that I've encountered is that when I "copy' and paste the image the naming system chooses numbers and letters which don't match the full res versions in my original file. A lot of work to hunt down the original file that corresponds to the low res version...help!

example: full res DSC_6103..... low res copy UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_137b.jpg


It's would be nice to have exact and specific information. This question is similar to saying I lost my hat in the ocean.

Reply
Nov 19, 2018 10:58:27   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
jwmallon wrote:
I shoot headshots and post low res versions for the client to choose from. The problem that I've encountered is that when I "copy' and paste the image the naming system chooses numbers and letters which don't match the full res versions in my original file. A lot of work to hunt down the original file that corresponds to the low res version...help!

example: full res DSC_6103..... low res copy UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_137b.jpg


Using Lightroom this is a breeze.

Import the images with an import preset that changes the names to something that describes the set of images.

When you export low res proofs, you can rename the exported files also with a preset - which lets you use the new filename you created on import and append/insert "proof" to the name.

When you export high res images, you do the same.

I suspect you can do the same in Adobe Bridge, but I haven't tried it since it is so easy to do in Lightroom.

BTW, once you make the presets work the way you need them to, you never have to do it again, unless you want to change them.

Reply
Nov 19, 2018 11:53:41   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
I try to include / retain the original image number in all versions of the file during the LR import and / or export presets. The number, say 1234, might occur a few times in searching the catalog for this value in the file name as the counter rolls over, but never more than a few images that don't overwhelm my ability to eye-ball the one I'm looking for. I can add a metadata date filter if I really need to isolate further.

Reply
Nov 19, 2018 12:11:07   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
jwmallon wrote:
I shoot headshots and post low res versions for the client to choose from. The problem that I've encountered is that when I "copy' and paste the image the naming system chooses numbers and letters which don't match the full res versions in my original file. A lot of work to hunt down the original file that corresponds to the low res version...help!

example: full res DSC_6103..... low res copy UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_137b.jpg


What operating system are you on? Are you simply copying in file explorer or finder or what? Are you using some other program to view the photo and make a copy?

Detail helps.

Reply
 
 
Nov 20, 2018 05:43:54   #
robertcbyrd Loc: 28754
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
I try to include / retain the original image number in all versions of the file during the LR import and / or export presets. The number, say 1234, might occur a few times in searching the catalog for this value in the file name as the counter rolls over, but never more than a few images that don't overwhelm my ability to eye-ball the one I'm looking for. I can add a metadata date filter if I really need to isolate further.


This is similar to the method I use. For example I have a RAW image, call it IMG_7674.CR2. When I convert it to JPG I rename it IMG_7674 Tom, Irene.JPG. Works for me.

Reply
Nov 20, 2018 06:20:28   #
f8lee Loc: New Mexico
 
jwmallon wrote:
I shoot headshots and post low res versions for the client to choose from. The problem that I've encountered is that when I "copy' and paste the image the naming system chooses numbers and letters which don't match the full res versions in my original file. A lot of work to hunt down the original file that corresponds to the low res version...help!

example: full res DSC_6103..... low res copy UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_137b.jpg


Frankly, I don't know what you are doing but it ain't "copy and paste". So perhaps describing for us exactly how you generate that low res version will help. I'd wager you don't just right-click on the full res copy and select "make a low res version" from a pop up menu...

The reason this is important is that it would seem that whatever program you do use to generate the low res version is set to rename the file - defaulting to the name you showed us. So going into that setting of the program in question and changing it so it simply appends "low res" or something similar to the original file name is likely all you need to do.

Reply
Nov 20, 2018 08:29:38   #
spraguead Loc: Boston, MA
 
can your camera produce two files? I shoot nikon and always choose "NEF + low res jpg" for the image quality choice, that way I have small files to choose the "picks" and only process those in Lightroom. Once in lightroom, you could also output to a specific folder and name it "LoRezJPG", then when you have final choices you can output again to the desired high resolution file, all the while retaining the original file name.

Reply
Nov 20, 2018 08:57:18   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
spraguead wrote:
can your camera produce two files? I shoot nikon and always choose "NEF + low res jpg" for the image quality choice, that way I have small files to choose the "picks" and only process those in Lightroom. Once in lightroom, you could also output to a specific folder and name it "LoRezJPG", then when you have final choices you can output again to the desired high resolution file, all the while retaining the original file name.


I had not thought of doing that. It is so obvious and the settings for a low-res JPEG are there. I think I may start doing that.

Reply
 
 
Nov 20, 2018 09:11:21   #
gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast
 
IF you use Windows, and IF you use its File Explorer to do the Copy and Paste to a different location or folder, your file names WILL NOT BE CHANGED, period. It would help readers to know what sort of program you’re using to do your copy routines and where you’re trying to put the copied files.

Reply
Nov 20, 2018 10:28:37   #
CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida
 
I keep originals as raw or .tif files and make copies and they have the same file name but are .jpg files. If they are small copies for proofs then each file name gets " - small " or "-proof" attached.
I use Bridge to bring the photos into the computer from the camera and they get named something descriptive at that time.

Reply
Nov 20, 2018 14:05:45   #
aellman Loc: Boston MA
 
jwmallon wrote:
I shoot headshots and post low res versions for the client to choose from. The problem that I've encountered is that when I "copy' and paste the image the naming system chooses numbers and letters which don't match the full res versions in my original file. A lot of work to hunt down the original file that corresponds to the low res version...help!

example: full res DSC_6103..... low res copy UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_137b.jpg


You can simply add your own info to the filename.

Reply
Nov 20, 2018 14:41:13   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
jwmallon wrote:
I shoot headshots and post low res versions for the client to choose from. The problem that I've encountered is that when I "copy' and paste the image the naming system chooses numbers and letters which don't match the full res versions in my original file. A lot of work to hunt down the original file that corresponds to the low res version...help!

example: full res DSC_6103..... low res copy UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_137b.jpg


What program are you using to make and save the copies?

If it's Lightroom, I know you can change the way it names copies of images. I would expect other software serving similar purpose can do the same. In this case, you have something set incorrectly and can easily change to show whatever you want.

For example, Lightroom can be set up so that the copies it makes (whatever they may be... such as JPEGs or TIFFs from RAWs, or JPEGs from JPEGs) use the original name with some sort of appended descriptor. For example, a file named 12345.raw (with "raw" being the type of file your camera generates... .cr2, .nef, or whatever) would by default make a JPEG called 12345.jpg or a TIFF called 12345.tif (or whatever). You can alter this in the batch RAW conversion dialog box however you see fit... for example making Lightroom call them 12345_proof.jpg or 12345_thumb.jpg or 12345_low_rez.jpg or anything else you dream up. It's entirely up to you.

Also with Lightroom, it will usually by default display copies of image right alongside the originals, making them easy to find even if the name has been changed. It will do this even if you just put all your images into one massive file. The problem would be if you later go looking for that file using another program (such as Windows Explorer, etc.). If you've changed the name or the way that program sorts (such as by date created rather than alpha-numeric), the files can end up separated and difficult to find.

Personally I rename and organize everything by date.

First, I have installed a separate drive on my desktop specifically for photos and have folders within it set up as:

- Photos_2018... inside that I have a folder for each day's shoot, such as:
--- 2018_11_22 (optionally adding _Thanksgiving or any other keyword if I wish, for easy identification).... inside that I always have:
----- 2018_11_22_RAW folder where all my original image files go... I may also have other folders in there such as:
----- 2018_11_22_model_releases
----- 2018_11_22_thumbnails
----- 2018_11_22_finished
----- 2018_11_22_whatever keyword I need

I set the first three tiers up in advance and copy my images from my memory cards into the RAW folder simply by dragging and dropping... not via Ligthroom. I deliberately don't "move" them, so that the originals remain on the memory card until I've insured all was downloaded properly and safely backed up.

Once most of the RAW have been downloaded, I Import that folder into Lightroom (again, I am not using Lightroom to do the download... simply using my computer's operating system).

During the import I have Lightroom add some keywords and copyright data to all the files. Universal stuff that I need to add to all image files regardless.

If I've done an import but am still downloading more image from cards, I'll occasionally "sync folder" in Lightroom (right click on the folder to get the menu for this). This imports any files that were added to the folder since the last import was done (be sure "don't import duplicates" is checked). When this is done, LR always wants to show only the new files, but a simple click will bring it back to the full 2018_11_22_RAW folder. (Optionally, click on that folder and then on "show parent folder" if you'd like to also see the 2018_11_22_thanksgiving main folder displayed there, with the RAW folder inside it. Other folders within the main folder can also be displayed, though I usually don't do so. If needed I can see them in Windows Explorer and I see no benefit to cluttering up Lightroom with them.)

After all images have been downloaded, I sort them into their "time shot" sequence and then rename them. My file naming convention is: YYYY_MM_DD_xxxx, where the last four are sequential (will handle up to 9999 files... which I hope to never shoot that many on a given day... though I've come close once or twice). So images in this example would end up being 2018_11_22_0001.cr2, 2018_11_22_0002.cr2, etc. The JPEGs made from them end up with the same names, just a different file extension. If I wish, I'll sometimes append with "thumb" or similar when I do batch conversions....Or, when I make finished images, I'll append the file name with "8x10" or "digital_download" or whatever is appropriate. But the YYYY_MM_DD_xxxx remains consistent throughout, so they're easy to find.

Depending upon the images, I then might do some batch work on them, such as applying lens correction profiles. This is done by setting it up on one file first, then highlighting all the files and "syncing" them in LR. A dialog box opens that allows you to choose what to sync and to leave unchecked the items that shouldn't be synced.

At this point, I back up the main folder in it's entirety to an external drive. Only once the backup is confirmed will I format my memory cards, allowing the original files to be overwritten (but I usually don't do so until I'm out shooting with them again). I later back up that external drive to a larger network attached storage device (NAS).... at least once a year.

Basically the drive on my computer (a 3TB dedicated to photos only) and the external drive (also 3TB) serve as my "Hot File" storage.... My most recent images and the ones I'm working with and accessing most often. Those contain about two years worth of work at any given time. The NAS where they all eventually end up are "Cold Storage".... a long term archive of images I'm accessing less frequently. Those NAS contain many years of shooting digital as well as scans from images shot on film prior to that. They're backed up separately.

With my volume of images, I set up a Lightroom catalog for each year. (LR slows down when it contains more than 100,000 images. By using a different catalog for each year, I never reach that number.)

All this takes a lot longer to describe and read than it does to actually do it! There are other ways to set up an archive. This is just what works well for me. Once something was established the whole process became pretty quick and easy.... and I can find an image or any copies of it pretty easily. (It would be even easier if I were more diligent about keywording in LR.... which give another method of finding images completely separate from the date/time method.) And while I use Lightroom, I'm sure other organizing and cataloging programs can do similar, or there may be separate programs you can use (before Lightroom existed, I used Faststone Photo Resizer to do the renaming and to make thumbnail files).

EDIT: Forgot something.... If using Windows, you can't view RAW files. Natively it can only display JPEGs and a few other types of image files. But there are codecs that can be installed to make it possible to see RAWs, too. I use Fast Image Viewer codec that works with virtually any type of RAW file, plus other image files Windows can't normally display. This creates icons in Windows explorers... tiny thumbnails, in effect. It also allows images to be enlarged in Windows Picture Viewer and other places. Costs all of $10 for the codec, but well worth it, IMO.

I also forgot... the second drive for photos on my computer have a partition (100GB) for Photoshop to use as a "scratch disk". This really helps Photoshop's performance. That's where PS will store copies of images while working on them. It needs to be a "drive" other than the one where PS itself resides, and the space has to be dedicated for only PS to use for it to work best (but the "drive" can be a partition, if only using a single drive on a computer). The next time I build a computer for photo editing, I'll install a modest size SSD for Photoshop's scratch drive.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.