How to organize a huge mess of digital photos

[John C.]

I've had to manually sort hundreds of photos into date-taken-named
folders for friends and relatives over the years. A program which can do
this automatically and based on EXIF data in the files seems like a good
idea to me.

Originally, I thought "Adebis Photo Sorter" might be able to serve this
purpose, but its website is no longer available. You can still download
the program from Snapfiles:

https://www.snapfiles.com/get/adphotosorter.html

and they claim that it will run in Windows versions from XP to 11.

gHacks has this 2010 article about the program:

https://www.ghacks.net/2010/04/08/digital-photo-organizer-adebis-photo-sorter/

and in it, Martin Brinkman says:

"Please check out Photo Event Organizer instead, it is a solid alternative."

He provides a link to this 2011 article:

https://www.ghacks.net/2011/11/24/photo-event-organizer-image-organizer/

and its home page is here:

https://gearmage.com/mediaevent.html

However, at the top of the page it says that the product has been
discontinued and to "please try to find other products that can do this
for you."

Anybody have another such (Windows) program that they like to use?

--
John C. BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, pirated,
share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares for me please. I filter out
posts made from Google Groups and cross-posted (sent to more than one
newsgroup at a time) messages. I recommend you do likewise.

[wasbit]

On 29/09/2022 13:56, John C. wrote:
> I've had to manually sort hundreds of photos into date-taken-named
> folders for friends and relatives over the years. A program which can do
> this automatically and based on EXIF data in the files seems like a good
> idea to me.
>
> Originally, I thought "Adebis Photo Sorter" might be able to serve this
> purpose, but its website is no longer available. You can still download
> the program from Snapfiles:
>
> https://www.snapfiles.com/get/adphotosorter.html
>
> and they claim that it will run in Windows versions from XP to 11.
>
> gHacks has this 2010 article about the program:
>
> https://www.ghacks.net/2010/04/08/digital-photo-organizer-adebis-photo-sorter/
>
> and in it, Martin Brinkman says:
>
> "Please check out Photo Event Organizer instead, it is a solid alternative."
>
> He provides a link to this 2011 article:
>
> https://www.ghacks.net/2011/11/24/photo-event-organizer-image-organizer/
>
> and its home page is here:
>
> https://gearmage.com/mediaevent.html
>
> However, at the top of the page it says that the product has been
> discontinued and to "please try to find other products that can do this
> for you."
>
> Anybody have another such (Windows) program that they like to use?
>

Sorting by date depends on the camera being set to the correct date.
Photos from digital phones are likely to be correct.
I have photos where I forgot to change the settings & they have a
default date & I have photos taken by other menbers of the family that
are the same. These dates have to be estimated & inserted between events
with known dates & can lead to some lively conversations especially as
memories fade.

--
Regards
wasbit

[John C.]

Absolutely. First thing I do with a digital camera is to set the date. I
don't like date stamps on my photos though, so relying on EXIF info
works for me unless I loose it while editing a picture. To avoid this
issue, I make sure that I do a "Save as..." and then check to see that
the EXIF was preserved. Never an issue with my main graphics programs,
but some of the more obscure programs I might use once in a great while
might not save that info in the file.

My cell phone is such a cheap thing, that it's not worth taking pictures
with it (a pitiful 2MP resolution.)

> I have photos where I forgot to change the settings & they have a

> default date & I have photos taken by other members of the family that

> are the same. These dates have to be estimated & inserted between events
> with known dates & can lead to some lively conversations especially as
> memories fade.

Huh. I've not run into that issue yet.

I scanned several hundred family photos from as far back as the 1860s,
and was mostly able to estimate the year each was taken. But that was
only the year. I named the resulting image files with the year at the
start of the name followed by the subject.

Yeah, organizing more recent (digital) pictures can be a pain, but
adding a "Date taken" column in Windows Explorer makes it much less of a
task.

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

Think of the children

https://theconversation.com/dark-data-is-killing-the-planet-we-need-digital-decarbonisation-190423

p-0.0-h the cat, the number one influencer on the Usenet Social!

Live everyday like you're a really cool cat!

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, Pooh Dendum, scouringerer,
jumped up chav, punk ass dole whore troll, no nothing innumerate religious
maniac, lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, professional bully and stalker,
the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any messages from trolls »Q« and 'Arlene' Holder as stinky

[John C.]

If true, combined with the ongoing defoliation of the western North
American forests (to feed the gluttonous appetite of China for raw
materials) along with Bolsonaro cutting down the Amazon and our
totally-out-of-control-human-population of EIGHT BILLION PEOPLE has
doomed us all to a soon-to-come extinction.

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 05:56:25 -0700, John C. wrote:

> I've had to manually sort hundreds of photos into date-taken-named
> folders for friends and relatives over the years. A program which can do
> this automatically and based on EXIF data in the files seems like a good
> idea to me.

[...]

> Anybody have another such (Windows) program that they like to use?

I usually use the command line exiftool program. IIRC, you are more a
GUI guy, though. Therefore, the following is a small how-to for the
GUI version.

Get the latest version (v5.16; very old, but it still works) of the
ExifToolGUI program from here:

https://exiftool.org/forum/index.php?topic=2750.0

Extract the content of the *.zip into a folder of your choice. (Best,
/not/ to use an UAC protected folder like C:\Programs\..., because
settings are written to a subfolder.)

Get the latest exiftool command line version from here:

https://exiftool.org (Second box: "Windows Executable")

Extract exiftool(-k).exe to the main ExifToolGUI folder and rename this
program to exiftool.exe

Start ExifToolGUI and "Browse" to the folder containing the images.
Once you select this folder, all files residing inside should be visible
in the main "Filelist" tab. Set a filter (like *.jpg), if necessary.
(You can enter /any/ valid DOS file filter string containing * and ?
wildcards and optionally add them for later re-use with the "Edit"
button.

Select the files you wish to move to Date-Folders. (Clicking on the
first one and hitting <Shift><End> selects all.) Please note: If no
files are selected, the following command(s) will /not/ be executed
for all files of the current folder. Instead, you'll just get an
error message.

If you just want to add a %date% prefix to each file, you can do so
by selecting the menu entry Various -> File: Name=... (It opens a
file rename dialog.)

To rename to subfolders, you need to call ExifTool directly, though.
Hit the so-named button on the bottom of the GUI window. This should
open a command line, where you can enter exiftool commands. Enter the
following command line:

"-Directory<FileModifyDate" "-Directory<DateTimeOriginal" -d %Y-%m-%d

It is evaluated from right to left and will use FileModifyDate (= the
date/time, when the file was modified last), when no DateTimeOriginal
(= the Exif date/time) is present in a file. For a reference of valid
date/time format values, have a look here:

https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/strftime.3.html

Hit the Return key (= Enter) after entering above mentioned command line.
You may see a Windows error message ("Access violation"). The command is
executed, nevertheless. Double click on the folder name in the "Browse"
tab to refresh it and see the newly created subfolder(s).

To save the above command for later use, click on the "Edit predefined"
button, choose an appropriate "Command name" and hit the "Add new"
button. From now on, you can select above command line from the drop
down menu on the left side of the "Edit predefined" button. To execute
the command on selected files (not necessarily only images, because
FileModifyDate will be available for /any/ file!), you'll always need
click in the Command line containing the command and hit Enter. (As
the edit box caption says.)

HTH.
BeAr
--
===========================================================================
= What do you mean with: "Perfection is always an illusion"? =
===============================================================--(Oops!)===

[Nic]

I have a bunch of slides 35mm, what is the best way to digitize them?

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 17:12:23 -0400, Nic wrote:

> I have a bunch of slides 35mm, what is the best way to digitize them?

Get a decent dedicated slide scanner. Everything else (flatbat scanner
with slide extension, DSLR duplicator mounts, ...) will only get you
mediocre results. Invest real time in cleaning the slides before the
scanning process. Cleaning by postprocessing will always be worse.

I can't recommend any scanning device. (Haven't followed the market for
more than a decade.) If you have only few slides, commissioning a
scanning service provider will be better.

Postprocessing software usually was (is?) included with slide scanners.
If not, RawTherapee (www.rawtherapee.com) should be a good starting point.

[wasbit]

On 02/10/2022 15:14, B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 05:56:25 -0700, John C. wrote:
>

> Snip <

>
> Get the latest version (v5.16; very old, but it still works) of the
> ExifToolGUI program from here:
>
> https://exiftool.org/forum/index.php?topic=2750.0
>
> Extract the content of the *.zip into a folder of your choice. (Best,
> /not/ to use an UAC protected folder like C:\Programs\..., because
> settings are written to a subfolder.)
>
> Get the latest exiftool command line version from here:
>
> https://exiftool.org (Second box: "Windows Executable")
>
>

Thank you.
Have updated my freeware files list.

--
Regards
wasbit

[John C.]

B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Oct 2022 17:12:23 -0400, Nic wrote:
>
>> I have a bunch of slides 35mm, what is the best way to digitize them?
>
> Get a decent dedicated slide scanner. Everything else (flatbat scanner
> with slide extension, DSLR duplicator mounts, ...) will only get you
> mediocre results. Invest real time in cleaning the slides before the
> scanning process. Cleaning by postprocessing will always be worse.
>
> I can't recommend any scanning device. (Haven't followed the market for
> more than a decade.) If you have only few slides, commissioning a
> scanning service provider will be better.
>
> Postprocessing software usually was (is?) included with slide scanners.
> If not, RawTherapee (www.rawtherapee.com) should be a good starting point.

Not quite true, Bear. I started out with a Smartscan 2700
(https://productz.com/en/smartdisk-smartscan-2700/p/VD2E2), which was a
dedicated negative and slide scanner. I was attempting to scan my
father's slides. The results from that very-difficult-to-use piece of
equipment were far from satifactory.

Then I used a (now ancient) Canon Canoscan 8400F
(https://www.amazon.com/Canon-CanoScan-8400F-Flatbed-Scanner/dp/B0002U40NG)
to scan and got really excellent results. That scanner *still* works
perfectly and will do slides with great results.

The trick is to use a scanner with a backlit lid, not just one which
only has lighting in the bed. It should also have a high, real
resolution (not interpolated) capability.

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

My experience with the Canoscan 8400F were "just acceptable" results.
I don't know the Smartscan 2700, myself. But scans by dedicated film
scanners >1k € and by dedicated scanning services were in my experience
/much/ better than these of the Canoscan 8400F.

[John C.]

Strange, because that certainly wasn't my experience. I should add
though, that I did some adjustment of each picture. And there were 984
of them. Perhaps you require larger resolutions than I do. I was
satisfied with 2260 x 1510. Could have gotten higher, but it was a
matter of resulting file size. At the time, hard drives were much
smaller than they are now.

> I don't know the Smartscan 2700, myself. But scans by dedicated film
> scanners >1k € and by dedicated scanning services were in my experience
> /much/ better than these of the Canoscan 8400F.

I was working within a budget. The results were fine AFAIWC. For example:

https://imgur.com/a/LfpzqYv

One of my late dad's 35mm shots using an old Argus.

--
John C.

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 05:00:50 -0700, John C. wrote:

> B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson wrote:

[...]

>> My experience with the Canoscan 8400F were "just acceptable" results.
>

> Strange, because that certainly wasn't my experience. [...] Perhaps you

> require larger resolutions than I do. I was satisfied with 2260 x 1510.
> Could have gotten higher, but it was a matter of resulting file size.

Scan resolution of the Canoscan was, IMHO, ok for most personal archiving
purposes. All higher "nominal" scan resolutions of this device were just
"fantasy", anyway. - Increasing the resulting file size without adding on
detail.

What I /really/ was fairly dissatisfied was the color quality, though.
Canon scanners usually have very good color reproduction. But the quality
of the special film scanner light source was so bad, that colors not only
got misrepresented, but lost in a smearing appearance. The differences
between the original and the scanning result became more than obvious
when seen side by side (color calibrated monitor vs. slide projector).

Your example scan seems to show this effect, too. But maybe (in addition)
the source slide was also a bit color-degraded from age and had a tint
from the beginning. Jpeg compression didn't help either.

>> scans by dedicated film scanners >1k € and by dedicated scanning services
>> were in my experience /much/ better than these of the Canoscan 8400F.
>
> I was working within a budget.

Of course. And for your requirements the Canoscan probably /was/ the
best available solution. Btw., I didn't buy any of the expensive slide
scanners, either. But I saw (and sometimes used) the results, which
exceeded these of the Canoscan by far. For personal use I carefully
pre-selected a "payable" amount of very good originals and had them
digitized by dedicated scanning services. The results had good color
representation and resolution and (very important) came with lossless
image compression (Kodak PCD and Tiff).

I may have been somewhat lucky in this regard, though. I also heard about
unsatisfactory scanning results from professional services...