Once I got my family out and determined they were safe I would send my kids back in to get my slides; they can run faster than I can [Kidding!!!!] [Oh, darn, another pun on "kid"?]


I know what you are saying, but technically the "B" means "Between", not "Before". What you are really after is MTTF (i.e., "To Failure"; subtle distinction). According to Wikipedia, such numbers are mainly used to improve design as opposed to being like a food "best before" date. [Wikipedia:"However, these "prediction" methods are not intended to reflect fielded MTBF as is commonly believed; the intent of these tools is to focus design efforts on the weak links in the design."] And don't forget the significance of the "M" for "Mean". Some will fail much earlier, and some much later. Personally, I don't use such data in a purchase decision.

I don't feel I have a false sense of security when it comes to the reliability of electronics; I prefer to think I have made an informed decision. I have never purchased extended warranties on any electronics and have never regretted it. I may have had to pay for a repair or replacement the odd time, but in the end I have probably saved money. And if you think of it from a business perspective, an extended warranty plan has to be in favor of the company, not the consumer. They are playing the odds which are stacked in their favor, and they are the winners.

But thanks for your comments.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I think there is uglier. Check out this visitor to my apartment balcony in Washington, DC. Actually there was a pair of them that hung around for several days. I suspect there were lots of rats around somewhere for food (in DC? Really?? Between the White House and the Capital, you say???)

(Download)


(Download)

Sure, but do you want all of your "11th day" photos grouped together, regardless of month or year, when you sort by filename? I know that this only applies if all the photos have "Jones Wedding" in the first part of the filename, but think of it from a principle perspective. It's no different than counting numbers where the units turn over before the 10s, then the 100s. Days turn over faster than months, which turn over faster than years.

I suspect most people would not have the problem within any one folder of "Jones Wedding", but if you collected files from various folders into a common folder for some reason then a sorting problem could arise.

Plain and simple -- if you want to sort/organize/name files with dates, configure the date in the logical way (SI convention, BTW).

Corollary: give me one good reason why the year should be the last component of the filename in a filing system where date is important and you will be sorting in chronological order by filename?

Hey, Heather, welcome from another newcomer. I lurked on UHH for over a year before joining just the other day. So far I have enjoyed it, and hope you will too.

And I have to say… great photos.

AMEN to that!!!


Many years ago I used to think that in a fire my treasure trove of slides would be my first grab (the camera could always be replaced). But while photography has been a life-long hobby with me, it is just that -- a hobby. I have encountered a number of situations in my life that I would consider a "restart", and none have been as difficult to get over as I imagined they would be. Humans are amazingly resilient.

And so it is with computers for me today. I have never encountered a catastrophic failure -- accidental or self-created -- that wasn't either "recoverable" or "get-overable". I have faith in hardware (less in software) and believe if it hasn't died within the first 3 months it will probably run for 3 decades. I have a few backups of my files, but all are still on-site. I think there are ways to recover from virtually any loss of important credentials and documents (drivers license, passport, bank records, etc); it is the "hard copies" of irreplaceable items that no one else has copies of that are the real challenge. As for my photo files, they are precious to me, but they are not my life. In case of disaster I might mourn their loss, but I would probably get over it without too much difficulty.

(Heck, how difficult would it be to jump on a plane to Cuzco and hike up to Machu Picchu again for that sunrise photo… at age 65? No, not going to happen. Been there, done that, got the photo, and I would simply enjoy others' photos of such places; there are thousands out there, I am sure.)

Whatever I think of the rest of your suggestions, please please don't write dates in reverse time order. Use yyyy-mm-dd so that sorting works properly.

WOW to the photo… WOW to being published in a Nikon book. Clearly they believe your photo exemplifies the capabilities of their product. Ah, to be there someday...

No, not with my approach. The number assigned by my camera is "DSC0xxxx". Using Automator I batch change "DSC0" to "DSC2" as soon as I have downloaded the photos into a folder. It was "DSC1" up until Oct 2014, and I will soon have to make that "DSC3". This gives me headroom for 99,999 files. If I ever get beyond that I will use Automator to change "DSC" to "DSC1" on all my files, thereby adding another leading digit into the numbering sequence.

As for multiple cameras, I do keep parent folders for different cameras (my wife uses her own, and I have retired my Optio 555). Admittedly, I only shoot with 1 camera at this time, but if I ever have the (enviable) problem of multiple cameras around my neck I will simply modify my approach. Considering that I seem to keep the same gear for at least a decade I am sure I will remember when I switched to a modified numbering scheme.

That said, I agree whole-heartedly with your date-based numbering system. It drives me bonkers that some people don't appreciate (understand?) that yyyy-mm-dd is the ONLY correct way to use dates in filenames. Why would anyone want to use "Jan 21, 2015; Feb 14, 2015; etc"? Do they want files sorted alphabetically by month name? Good luck with that because April -- and therefore April Fool's Day -- comes first!!! In my job we used automated data collection systems where filenames were "yyyy-mm-dd-hh:mm:ss.ss", and life was good. It is unfortunate that CA and US don't even agree on which incorrect method of specifying dates is the best.

Thanks for the compliments. I went Sony because it allowed me to use my Minolta lenses (the plan), although I hardly ever use them (the reality). They are all in my camera bag (50 prime; 28-85; 75-300), so I get a good workout slugging them around, but I find the Sony 18-250 handles just about all situations for me.

Almost correct… it is the Cascades Resort in Lagos. Sagres is a bit further west.


No idea. A tourist from the resort? A local? For me she just added serenity to the landscape.

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

I'm a new member to UHH, but thought I would share these images from about 2 years ago. They demonstrate what I think is quite an extensive zoom and image stabilization capability. The pics were taken with my Sony SLT A-57 camera and the 18-250 zoom lens. The first photo is full wide angle while the second is from the same spot with full optical zoom and with the digital zoom maximized at 2.0. The 35 mm equivalents would be 27 mm and 375 mm. Both images were taken hand held. And yes, the girl is in both photos.

Edit: with digital zoom the 375 becomes 750 mm.

Yes, Portugal has a beautiful coastline… in more ways than one.

Wide angle, 18 mm

(Download)

Optical zoom 250 mm; digital 2.0

(Download)

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.

To those who stopped by to welcome me (Mac, Keldon, lev29, tomvanb and northsidejoe) and those who may do so down the road, thanks. I probably won't be as active as some folks on this forum, but I will ask the occasional question and add my voice to some topics. I look forward to a positive experience on UHH.

JF

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.