JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I have seen many posts about numbering/naming/organizing photos, and the advice is often to cull the duds and work with the rest. Perhaps I have a bit of OCD but I can't do that!!!

A recent post raised the issue of giving a customer a batch of serialized photos where certain numbers are missing, and the consternation that might create with the customer. In a business situation I can see renumbering the photos delivered to a customer to be sequential. But from my perspective as owner/creator of the photos I consider myself to be my prime customer, and I am bothered by missing numbers.

I started photography in the days of film and I always received every negative and slide back from the photo processing shop. I may not have reprinted every photo or shown every slide in a presentation, but I sure did not chop up a negative strip to cull a bad exposure or composition from the middle of a strip of 6 negatives. I also did not throw away bad slides, but kept them in an archive.

Now with digital I file all my photos by their camera-assigned serial numbers in folders that group batches of photos logically by topic and rough date. So I have folders like:

08898-08898 Vulture on Roof Aug 2013
08899-09622 Philadelphia Aug 2013
09623-09638 F&M Visit Sep 2013
09639-14251 Portugal Sep 2013

As you can see from the first example, some folders might only contain a single odd photo while others may hold thousands. But not a single photo is missing in the sequence numbers of the folder names (it is easy to get the folder names into Excel and do a bit of automatic checking that verifies that the start number of any folder is the end number of the previous folder plus one).

Within those folders I retain the camera-assigned number followed by text describing the photo as the file name:

DSC23938 Churchill, Hudson Bay excursion, Eskimo Point, female bear & cub.JPG
DSC24039 Churchill, Hudson Bay excursion, Eskimo Point, female bear & cub.JPG
DSC24040 Churchill, Hudson Bay excursion, Seal Point, cabin.JPG
.
.
.
DSC24113 Churchill, Hudson Bay excursion, Seal Point, beluga watching.JPG
DSC24114 Churchill, Hudson Bay excursion, Cape Merry, beluga watching.JPG

This tells me quickly which camera was used to take the photo, and when sequential they are automatically filed chronologically. I use up to 4 levels of text description (granularity) if required, and I can quickly find a photo within a group of photos simply by scanning down the filenames. Of course, it is also easy to search the hard drive for any word in a filename.

Note that I use Automator on the Mac to do all of the filename manipulation. I also use it to copy all of these filenames into Excel, do a bit of text manipulation in columns, and generate a printout catalogue of all my photos. The Excel spreadsheet can also be easily massaged to filter on a number of criteria for searching or printing out specific subsets of filenames. And it is trivial in Excel to check the serial numbers for missing photos.

I believe I can locate any photo on my computer relatively quickly using the OS capabilities, independent of any keywords that might be specific to proprietary photo organizing software like LR, and I can be assured that I have not lost or misfiled a photo somewhere. This approach is for filing my original photos, which for me are my negatives. What I do with the photos afterwards (adjusting exposure, resizing, cropping, etc) is done in subfolders elsewhere on the computer, and it may even involve completely renaming a photo with text only, but I do not ever discard the photo or the serial number of the photo as downloaded from my memory card into my primary file structure. Storage space is not that expensive, and it would drive me crazy thinking that I had perhaps taken an interesting shot but deleted it because of some criteria at the time of culling.

Call me crazy, but I sleep easy at night, and I have ALL my memories.

JF

Rongnongno Loc: FL

It works for you.

Why are you concerned about what other do?
My sorting is jumble, an unholy mess of data files* yet I find whatever I want using EXIF.

It works for me.

----
* So much so that a few months ago I found out I have over 5k captures in a single directory. I had to use windows explorer to cut that thing down to size. Now there are only 1k each folder... Basically my file organization is as bad as my desk yet I know where everything is.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Strangely enough, was thinking about this VERY issue today.

Like the old joke about the bad Dad, and the unruly kid "I made you, I can always off you and make another one."

If I lost all my digital photos, would I lose treasure or baggage? I do have some good ones, but I'd get over it.

Maybe harsh, but there you have it!

Keldon Loc: Yukon, B.C.

He never said a thing about being concerned about what others do. He was simply telling others what he does. And giving some excellent advise.

And clearly from your other statements, your system doesn't work for you. Your system is a jumbled mess and again, according to you, you had misplaced or mishandled 5K and only accidentily discovered them. That is clearly NOT a system that works.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I did not 'accidentally' discovered them. I found the capture I wanted but it took long to load so I checked the reason... 'Ooops', just like a pile of paper to high and ready to drop on the floor.

As to you initial objection:

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

OK, I have to admit, back in 2003 when I got my first digital I did actually delete a few photos, but I did regret it because I am now missing some numbers in the sequence. I quickly over it with the decision to not do this again.

As far as losing everything because of a disaster (fire, flood, hard drive failure, etc) I think I could also get over it too… with time… and with alcohol ;) I just don't want to be the cause of losing a file. Otherwise, I am with you.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I did see a few posts where people asked for suggestions on how to organize their photo files. I could have replied to those threads directly, but my main point was that I don't delete files and I wanted to show how I can keep things organized despite having all those files. Hence, a new thread.

If I were to now pose a question on this topic I would be asking if there are any others out there who never delete a photo.

Quixdraw Loc: x

John -- I'm looking at this from both film and digital. If it is a poor shot (relatively rare for any old timer) or has lost it's emotional impact -- why keep it? The digital path to a hoarder house? Granted, the indulgence takes up no physical space, unlike slides, prints and negs. Can't imagine that for most of us it will ever be like reprocessing tailings from an old mine to produce unrecovered treasure. Just have to keep moving ahead. In re: filing -- if I can find it, my system may be primitive, but it works for me.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Well, next time, post that you do not delete. Your input is just as important and those that do not like it? Bah.

The idea of a forum is open discussion, not to be quiet and move on in order to avoid whatever. Says what you have to say and damn the torpedoes.

Often diverging opinions are beneficial to all reading.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Absolutely agree, be kind, be caring, but in the final analysis, if you aren't convinced, "scroom"!

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Your last line says it all.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

If you shoot a lot, you need to implement some sort filing/naming strategy. Otherwise, there will come a point when you won't be able to find anything anymore. Especially images you took several years ago.

I'm actually considering puting together a searchable database for my images. By entering keywords, I could then generate a list of images that match the description, and where they are stored. I can also include film negatives within the database, and assign numbers to all my film sleeves. But it will take much work to get the project started.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I was thinking along those very lines myself, the idea being that the image number is the only key you need to locate an image in the filing system. That, however, requires access to the database for any relevant image details. Since I do a lot of the photography now for the travel articles that my wife writes, she needs image information at her fingertips. She is not adept at computers or databases, and she does some of her own photographs that she labels with details in the file name itself. I guess I bent to her way and decided to use rich filenames. As stated previously, Automator is a great tool on the Mac for doing batch filename manipulation. The OS itself can easily locate text that is used in folder names or filenames. And if you are really into programming you can use scripting to accomplish a lot of this, and more.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

That is where the EXIF comes. You have many fields that can be searched and despite being a mess like mine, it works. No programming no nothing just set the EXIF (some in camera other after the shoot) then you do not give a hoot as any relatively decent program can access the EXIF.

(And find 5k captures in the same directory which slows down everything...)

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I am not sure how I can get the text descriptors that I gave in my original post into the EXIF data. Does one need software for that?

Also, when my wife is writing up the travel article it is far easier to look at the filename in the Finder (Mac) than open an image and dig through the EXIF.

As you said indirectly several times now, different strokes for different folks. I was merely trying to show what works very well for me.

And if I wanted to get back to the gist of the thread title, I could add the word "dud" into the filename of photos that others would delete to easily separate the wheat from the chaff.

JF