Nikon D800 sequential file numbering

[Rob]

Anyone with a D800 that has/had a problem with sequential numbering of
files.

Although the camera is set on sequential numbering each time the memory
card is formatted it returns to 001.

I have been through the instructions several times set and reset the
item in the shooting menu to no avail.

Can find only one reference to this problem at DPreview in which
everyone is an expert, then carry on with a heap of BS.

thanks

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-07-15 18:14 , Rob wrote:
> Anyone with a D800 that has/had a problem with sequential numbering of
> files.
>
> Although the camera is set on sequential numbering each time the memory
> card is formatted it returns to 001.
>
> I have been through the instructions several times set and reset the
> item in the shooting menu to no avail.

When you use "On" and "Reset" is the folder empty?

http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D800_EN.pdf

On
When a new folder is created, the memory card formatted, or a
new memory card inserted in the camera, file numbering
continues from the last number used or from the largest file
number in the current folder, whichever is higher. If a
photograph is taken when the current folder contains a
photograph numbered 9999, a new folder will be created
automatically and file numbering will begin again from 0001.

Off
File numbering is reset to 0001 when a new folder is created,
the memory card is formatted, or a new memory card is
inserted in the camera. Note that a new folder is created
automatically if a photograph is taken when the current folder
contains 999 photographs.

Reset
As for On, except that the next photograph taken is assigned a
file number by adding one to the largest file number in the
current folder. If the folder is empty, file numbering is reset to
0001.



--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

[Savageduck]

On 2012-07-15 15:51:41 -0700, Alan Browne

That is a standard Nikon DSLR convention.
On my D300S go to "Menu"-> "Custom Setting Menu"-> "D-Shooting
Display"-> "d7 File Numbering Sequence". Select "On", Off", or Reset as
above.
You can also get in camera information on the highlighted menu
selection by pushing the info or "?" button.

I have mine set to "On" and it functions and numbers files as stated in
both my D300S and the D800 manuals.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

Note: on your D800 that would be "d5 File Numbering Sequence" not
"d7"as found on the D300S. Both cameras have the same 12 selections,
just reordered.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

The numbering system evidently is meaningful to the OP, but
camera-produced numbers are not necessarily the best way to identify
images.

Immediately after downloading, I rename all of my images with the
date. Today's images would be 2012-07-15-001 and up.

I wouldn't even notice the camera's system.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:40:50 -0400, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com>
wrote:
: The numbering system evidently is meaningful to the OP, but

: camera-produced numbers are not necessarily the best way to identify
: images.
:
: Immediately after downloading, I rename all of my images with the
: date. Today's images would be 2012-07-15-001 and up.
:
: I wouldn't even notice the camera's system.

You would if you were shooting with two cameras. You have to worry about
whether the cameras' internal numbering will result in a naming conflict when
you copy the images to the computer. In some photo shoots I have to juggle the
numbers from three cameras: two of mine and one of my wife's. My two main
cameras are 7Ds, and Canon is planning a firmware upgrade that's supposed to
give a 7D user some control over the file names, not just the sequence number.
Can't happen too soon for me.

Bob

[nospam]

In article <e4s6081eacbo2fsav...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The numbering system evidently is meaningful to the OP, but
> camera-produced numbers are not necessarily the best way to identify
> images.

exactly why there is software designed to manage images based on
content. the file name is irrelevant.

> Immediately after downloading, I rename all of my images with the
> date. Today's images would be 2012-07-15-001 and up.

that info is already in the file.

[nospam]

In article <o5t608demvn3bui0r...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

keep the photos from different cameras in separate folders and there
will never be a name conflict and manage them with an app designed to
manage photos, such as lightroom, aperture, etc.

[Savageduck]

For in camera labeling, Nikon allows any three letters + four digits
along with tagging for Adobe RGB or sRGB colorspace with the use of a
leading understroke. So an Adobe RGB might look like this _ABC_0000.NEF
and an sRGB file ABC_0000.NEF.

Nikon default is DSC_0000
My D70 files appear as DSC_0000.NEF.
D300 as DSC_0000.NEF
and I changed one letter for my D300s to differentiate between the D70
and the stolen D300. Those read DNC_0000.NEF.

Then for some specific shoots, I might change the batch by substituting
the three letters for an obvious identifier. For example DSC_0375.NEF
is now TracyArm05_0375.dng.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

With Nikon DSLRs you can change the label prefix for files written in
each camera owned.
For example; camera #1 might have file labeled DNA_0000.NEF, camera #2
DNB_0000NEF, and camera #3 DNC_0000.NEF. That way each camera has a
specific tag.

Further relabeling can be made in Lightroom, or Bridge, or whatever.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:06:39 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:40:50 -0400, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>: The numbering system evidently is meaningful to the OP, but
>: camera-produced numbers are not necessarily the best way to identify
>: images.
>:
>: Immediately after downloading, I rename all of my images with the
>: date. Today's images would be 2012-07-15-001 and up.
>:
>: I wouldn't even notice the camera's system.
>
>You would if you were shooting with two cameras.

I'm sure you have your reasons for wanting to change things, and I
hope you find a solution.

However, two cameras or six cameras doesn't make any difference. I
often upload my SD cards from two cameras. I send each card's files
to a folder, and number within the folder. The second folder, if
there is one, starts at the next number after the first folder's
number left off.

>You have to worry about
>whether the cameras' internal numbering will result in a naming conflict when
>you copy the images to the computer.

Only if you upload to the same folder or directly to the same drive.

>In some photo shoots I have to juggle the
>numbers from three cameras: two of mine and one of my wife's. My two main
>cameras are 7Ds, and Canon is planning a firmware upgrade that's supposed to
>give a 7D user some control over the file names, not just the sequence number.
>Can't happen too soon for me.
>

I used Adobe's Bridge in the uploading process. Bridge allows a
number of different naming systems.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:35:47 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <e4s6081eacbo2fsav...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The numbering system evidently is meaningful to the OP, but
>> camera-produced numbers are not necessarily the best way to identify
>> images.
>
>exactly why there is software designed to manage images based on
>content. the file name is irrelevant.

Only if you have go-arounds that make it irrelevant. It can be very
relevant, and useful, it build your system around it. That's why we
have software that allows us to re-name image files. FastStone (free)
does a very good job.

>
>> Immediately after downloading, I rename all of my images with the
>> date. Today's images would be 2012-07-15-001 and up.
>
>that info is already in the file.

Of course it is, Sherlock. However, you don't see it when you're
looking through folders for a particular image. Most importantly, to
me, is that using this system sequences the files in Lightroom by date
in Library and on my hard drives. No search is required to find
images in a known date range. I add a year keyword, but not a month.
Besides, my wife can open Lightroom or a back-up on an external drive,
but she doesn't know how to execute searches. Or need to.

Also, the file name is the image name in this system. When I post a
link to an image I've uploaded to SmugMug or Dropbox or whatever, the
image name provides the date the shot was taken. No need to look in
EXIF. That's especially useful when emailing shots to relatives that
think "EXIF" is a shirt size for fat people.

It's easy to do, it works, it carries over to disks burned and sent to
others, and I like it.

Are there other ways? Probably. That doesn't make it irrelevant.

Once again, you are naysaying without good cause.

What's your system, by the way? I don't recall ever seeing an image
of yours. You do take photographs, don't you?

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:35:49 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Can't always be done. I've just completed an exercise wherein my
travel shots and my wife's were merged into a circa 120 x A3 page
printout of some 1500 photographs. The photographs were organised on
the basis of one folder per destination. I had to renumber all my
wife's photographs to ensure they stayed clear of mine.

Why my wife's? Thats another story.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[tony cooper]

I suppose everyone's got their little favorites, but I like FastStone
for this. You can pick a specific format or let FastStone
automatically set the file name to the date the image was taken using
$Y-$M-$D-### or any system you want. You can add a character or
characters to designate the camera: $Y-$M-$D-D40-### (and that can be
done in any sequence) Not bad for a free download.

I could set the file names in Bridge, but I generally just let Bridge
do its thing and re-name in FastStone after I've culled out the really
bad ones.

Since I shoot RAW, the .NEF file will have the date file name with a
suffix number, and I save-as with the same suffix number when creating
a .jpg from the .NEF so I can know which .NEF was the birth mother.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:18:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:35:49 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <o5t608demvn3bui0r...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
>><b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> : The numbering system evidently is meaningful to the OP, but
>>> : camera-produced numbers are not necessarily the best way to identify
>>> : images.
>>> :
>>> : Immediately after downloading, I rename all of my images with the
>>> : date. Today's images would be 2012-07-15-001 and up.
>>> :
>>> : I wouldn't even notice the camera's system.
>>>
>>> You would if you were shooting with two cameras. You have to worry about
>>> whether the cameras' internal numbering will result in a naming conflict when
>>> you copy the images to the computer. In some photo shoots I have to juggle the
>>> numbers from three cameras: two of mine and one of my wife's. My two main
>>> cameras are 7Ds, and Canon is planning a firmware upgrade that's supposed to
>>> give a 7D user some control over the file names, not just the sequence number.
>>> Can't happen too soon for me.
>>
>>keep the photos from different cameras in separate folders and there
>>will never be a name conflict and manage them with an app designed to
>>manage photos, such as lightroom, aperture, etc.
>
>Can't always be done.

I wouldn't say "can't". Simply downloading into separate folders and
then assigning an initial or initials in the numbering system and,
finally, merging into one folder per destination would do it:
2012-01-01-ES-#### and 2012-01-01-BS-####.

It may not be to your liking, but it can be done.

>I've just completed an exercise wherein my
>travel shots and my wife's were merged into a circa 120 x A3 page
>printout of some 1500 photographs. The photographs were organised on
>the basis of one folder per destination. I had to renumber all my
>wife's photographs to ensure they stayed clear of mine.
>
>Why my wife's? Thats another story.

--

[Eric Stevens]

If you (finally) merge them into one folder per destination then you
are not keeping "the photos from different cameras in separate
folders". That was the part I said "Can't always be done".

>
>It may not be to your liking, but it can be done.

Now you are giving me recomendations as to how to not do it.

>
>>I've just completed an exercise wherein my
>>travel shots and my wife's were merged into a circa 120 x A3 page
>>printout of some 1500 photographs. The photographs were organised on
>>the basis of one folder per destination. I had to renumber all my
>>wife's photographs to ensure they stayed clear of mine.
>>
>>Why my wife's? Thats another story.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Rob]

I did read all that in the manual. Went through it with Nikon support
again this morning. Looks as if its on the way to repair section.

[Rob]

Thats all set OK.

[Rob]

Understood that.

[Rob]

I would - but if I reformat the card I loose the last number - the
camera is not storing the highest number.

[Rob]

I know which camera all my digital shots have been taken with.

So I have sequential folders which contain sequential images, this is
what is archived.(148-001 to 999). After that each trip, job what ever
images are copied to a working titled folder.

[nospam]

In article <0t0708hm2o8jiq10d...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> The numbering system evidently is meaningful to the OP, but
> >> camera-produced numbers are not necessarily the best way to identify
> >> images.
> >
> >exactly why there is software designed to manage images based on
> >content. the file name is irrelevant.
>
> Only if you have go-arounds that make it irrelevant. It can be very
> relevant, and useful, it build your system around it.

what go arounds are you talking about?

apps such as lightroom take care of managing photos. it's *so* much
easier it's not even funny.

> That's why we
> have software that allows us to re-name image files. FastStone (free)
> does a very good job.

renaming is old school.

> >> Immediately after downloading, I rename all of my images with the
> >> date. Today's images would be 2012-07-15-001 and up.
> >
> >that info is already in the file.
>
> Of course it is, Sherlock.

so you admit it's redundant.

> However, you don't see it when you're
> looking through folders for a particular image.

nonsense.

> Most importantly, to
> me, is that using this system sequences the files in Lightroom by date
> in Library and on my hard drives.

they'd already be sequenced by date even without you renaming them, but
more importantly, who cares? lightroom takes care of managing it.

> No search is required to find
> images in a known date range.

you're searching. you just don't realize it.

> I add a year keyword, but not a month.
> Besides, my wife can open Lightroom or a back-up on an external drive,
> but she doesn't know how to execute searches. Or need to.

you're making it much harder than it really is. click on the desired
date.

<http://www.frankhollis.com/temp/month.jpg>

> Also, the file name is the image name in this system. When I post a
> link to an image I've uploaded to SmugMug or Dropbox or whatever, the
> image name provides the date the shot was taken. No need to look in
> EXIF. That's especially useful when emailing shots to relatives that
> think "EXIF" is a shirt size for fat people.

lightroom can export images in various formats and name them whatever
you want and even directly upload them for you. it's very, very simple,
and the name of the original files makes no difference.

> It's easy to do, it works, it carries over to disks burned and sent to
> others, and I like it.

actually it's more work.

> Are there other ways? Probably. That doesn't make it irrelevant.

of course there are other ways. the point is that some of those ways
are more time consuming that others.

> Once again, you are naysaying without good cause.

wrong.

> What's your system, by the way? I don't recall ever seeing an image
> of yours. You do take photographs, don't you?

i sure do and i shot 300 yesterday. my photos shared with whom i want
to share them, but more importantly, my photos have absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with the topic.

[nospam]

In article <ut7708lhrh4imqhm4...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >>>keep the photos from different cameras in separate folders and there
> >>>will never be a name conflict and manage them with an app designed to
> >>>manage photos, such as lightroom, aperture, etc.
> >>
> >>Can't always be done.
> >
> >I wouldn't say "can't". Simply downloading into separate folders and
> >then assigning an initial or initials in the numbering system and,
> >finally, merging into one folder per destination would do it:
> >2012-01-01-ES-#### and 2012-01-01-BS-####.
>
> If you (finally) merge them into one folder per destination then you
> are not keeping "the photos from different cameras in separate
> folders". That was the part I said "Can't always be done".

each camera has its own subfolder.

lightroom or aperture will sort them by content, not by folder.

[nospam]

In article <275708574sndb87j6...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >keep the photos from different cameras in separate folders and there
> >will never be a name conflict and manage them with an app designed to
> >manage photos, such as lightroom, aperture, etc.
>
> Can't always be done.

nonsense. of course it can always be done.

> I've just completed an exercise wherein my
> travel shots and my wife's were merged into a circa 120 x A3 page
> printout of some 1500 photographs. The photographs were organised on
> the basis of one folder per destination. I had to renumber all my
> wife's photographs to ensure they stayed clear of mine.

one destination, with one subfolder per camera.

[nospam]

In article <ju0foo$qpq$4...@dont-email.me>, Rob <mesa...@google.com>
wrote:

> I would - but if I reformat the card I loose the last number - the
> camera is not storing the highest number.

there's no need to reformat each time, but regardless, the camera
should be storing the last number. i've yet to see a camera not do
that, including several nikon cameras. if you insert a brand new card,
the numbering continues from where it left off.

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:43:01 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Then how the ##### do you keep them separate while merging them?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:43:02 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I was wanting to tell a story about each destination. I absolutely did
not want to tell two separate stories - by camera - about each
destination. The folders had to be merged.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:04:04 +1200, Eric Stevens

I thought you wanted them - both yours and your wife's - in one folder
per destination. It seems that's what you say above.

I'm not making recommendations. I'm stating what could be done if you
want to do it differently from what you are now doing.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:43:01 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I didn't know Lightroom sorts by content. I can't seem to train my
version to do that. It will sort by file name, capture time, added
sequence or some other ways in Grid view, but it doesn't know the
content of the image. It will sort out by keyword if I give images
keywords, but I have to tell it the keyword.

I can make "Collections" as a substitute for a folder, but I have to
determine what goes in a Collection.

Tell me how Lightroom can sort by content.

[Eric Stevens]

Let me explain further. When you visit a location you first see A then
B and on to C etc. When I assemble the photographs for the album I
collect all the photographs of A and select the best, no matter who
took them. Then I go on to do the same thing for B, and then C. The
result is that I have an ad hoc mix of photographs from different
cameras.

I'm not saying they can't be renumbered to avoid a clash. All I am
saying is that the nature of the task is such that the folders have to
be merged. That's why the earlier suggestion that the photographs be
kept in separate folders 'Can't always be done'.

>
>I'm not making recommendations. I'm stating what could be done if you
>want to do it differently from what you are now doing.

Ah, but I didn't.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <e6m70818nlfoseacb...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> If you (finally) merge them into one folder per destination then you
> >> are not keeping "the photos from different cameras in separate
> >> folders". That was the part I said "Can't always be done".
> >
> >each camera has its own subfolder.
> >
> >lightroom or aperture will sort them by content, not by folder.
>
> Then how the ##### do you keep them separate while merging them?

lightroom 'merges' the photos internally. it does not care that they're
in different folders. you can combine the photos in any way you want,
in any order you want, cropped and retouched if you want. if the photos
are geotagged, it's even easier.

[nospam]

In article <h8m708lorjb2041oj...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> I've just completed an exercise wherein my
> >> travel shots and my wife's were merged into a circa 120 x A3 page
> >> printout of some 1500 photographs. The photographs were organised on
> >> the basis of one folder per destination. I had to renumber all my
> >> wife's photographs to ensure they stayed clear of mine.
> >
> >one destination, with one subfolder per camera.
>
> I was wanting to tell a story about each destination. I absolutely did
> not want to tell two separate stories - by camera - about each
> destination. The folders had to be merged.

the folders do not have to be merged. lightroom (or other asset
management software) manages which photos go in what story. you can
easily have the photos all in one folder on disk, but separated (or
not) in lightroom.

[nospam]

In article <bk49085cc7v3laodc...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> Let me explain further. When you visit a location you first see A then
> B and on to C etc. When I assemble the photographs for the album I
> collect all the photographs of A and select the best, no matter who
> took them. Then I go on to do the same thing for B, and then C. The
> result is that I have an ad hoc mix of photographs from different
> cameras.
>
> I'm not saying they can't be renumbered to avoid a clash. All I am
> saying is that the nature of the task is such that the folders have to
> be merged. That's why the earlier suggestion that the photographs be
> kept in separate folders 'Can't always be done'.

as i said, they don't need to be merged. put them in subfolders and
import all of them into lightroom, which takes care of the rest.

[nospam]

In article <1m3808hr5krnmph9q...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >lightroom or aperture will sort them by content, not by folder.
>
> I didn't know Lightroom sorts by content.

it does, although sorting isn't exactly the right term. filtering is
more accurate.

> I can't seem to train my
> version to do that. It will sort by file name, capture time, added
> sequence or some other ways in Grid view, but it doesn't know the
> content of the image.

it can display images taken in a specific location (assuming they're
geotagged which is very easy with version 4).

aperture can do face recognition and identify who is in the photos,
without needing to tag each one individually. you train it on a bunch
of photos initially and then let it loose on your entire library.
future imports are automatically processed.

> It will sort out by keyword if I give images
> keywords, but I have to tell it the keyword.

keywords is the main method and yes you do have to tell it. enter one
or more keywords when importing and they're applied to all of the
photos at once. you can always add additional keywords later or change
existing ones. it seems like a lot of work but it really isn't.

with face recognition, geotagging, keywords and the calendar, you can
do complex queries, such as all photos with tony but not bob, taken in
2009, and at the zoo. those types of queries are not possible using
files and folders, no matter how precisely you name the files.

> I can make "Collections" as a substitute for a folder, but I have to
> determine what goes in a Collection.

that's yet another way. there are also smart collections based on
parameters you specify that automatically update themselves as new
photos are added to the library.

> Tell me how Lightroom can sort by content.

see above.

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:16:45 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

So, for the final product, Lightroom still merges them.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:16:49 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

A. I don't have Lightroom.

B. You (or someone) have separately described how Lightroom merges
the separate folders.

C. I have my own way of merging the separate folders.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:16:48 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

All you describing how " lightroom (or other asset management
software)" merges the photographs. This is what I said 'has to be
done'. All you are doing now is describing another way of doing it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <5pa908has601bq89n...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> Then how the ##### do you keep them separate while merging them?
> >
> >lightroom 'merges' the photos internally. it does not care that they're
> >in different folders. you can combine the photos in any way you want,
> >in any order you want, cropped and retouched if you want. if the photos
> >are geotagged, it's even easier.
>
> So, for the final product, Lightroom still merges them.

it's not a true 'merge' which is why i quoted it. it's database driven
and managed internally to lightroom. nothing is done on disk, so the
photos can be in separate folders, or on even separate hard drives if
you wanted, or all in the same folder. it makes no difference where the
photos are, only that lightroom knows how to find them.

[nospam]

In article <6sa9089of0hc2h5en...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >as i said, they don't need to be merged. put them in subfolders and
> >import all of them into lightroom, which takes care of the rest.
>
> A. I don't have Lightroom.

easily fixed.

> B. You (or someone) have separately described how Lightroom merges
> the separate folders.

it's done within its own database. the files and folders on disk remain
as they are, wherever they are.

[nospam]

In article <20b908his6gjup5c7...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> I was wanting to tell a story about each destination. I absolutely did
> >> not want to tell two separate stories - by camera - about each
> >> destination. The folders had to be merged.
> >
> >the folders do not have to be merged. lightroom (or other asset
> >management software) manages which photos go in what story. you can
> >easily have the photos all in one folder on disk, but separated (or
> >not) in lightroom.
>
> All you describing how " lightroom (or other asset management
> software)" merges the photographs. This is what I said 'has to be
> done'. All you are doing now is describing another way of doing it.

yes, but the point is you don't have to rename anything for the 'merge'
which i put in quotes deliberately since it's not really a merge, it's
all database driven. just copy the photos to your hard drive and keep
them separate if you want (or not) and let lightroom manage the rest.
it's much easier and a lot more flexible.

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:21:57 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

OK: I getcha. It's not a true merge. Maybe its a meta-merge. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:22:01 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I presume the data base contains descriptors of each of the individual
images and. In effect the descriptors are a different set of names.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <0jh9085ndu0m1ec8o...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> I presume the data base contains descriptors of each of the individual
> images and. In effect the descriptors are a different set of names.

it maintains iptc metadata, exif data, the location of the photo in
your file system, etc. it also caches previews for speed (which you can
configure for space considerations).

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:58:46 -0400, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com>
wrote:
: On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:06:39 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
:
: >On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:40:50 -0400, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com>
: >wrote:

: >: The numbering system evidently is meaningful to the OP, but
: >: camera-produced numbers are not necessarily the best way to identify
: >: images.
: >:
: >: Immediately after downloading, I rename all of my images with the
: >: date. Today's images would be 2012-07-15-001 and up.
: >:
: >: I wouldn't even notice the camera's system.
: >
: >You would if you were shooting with two cameras.

:
: I'm sure you have your reasons for wanting to change things, and I
: hope you find a solution.
:
: However, two cameras or six cameras doesn't make any difference. I
: often upload my SD cards from two cameras. I send each card's files
: to a folder, and number within the folder. The second folder, if
: there is one, starts at the next number after the first folder's
: number left off.
:
: >You have to worry about

: >whether the cameras' internal numbering will result in a naming conflict when
: >you copy the images to the computer.

:
: Only if you upload to the same folder or directly to the same drive.
:
:
: >In some photo shoots I have to juggle the

: >numbers from three cameras: two of mine and one of my wife's. My two main
: >cameras are 7Ds, and Canon is planning a firmware upgrade that's supposed to
: >give a 7D user some control over the file names, not just the sequence number.
: >Can't happen too soon for me.

: >
: I used Adobe's Bridge in the uploading process. Bridge allows a
: number of different naming systems.

Look, Tony, I freely acknowledge that there are numerous ways to avoid the
issue. All are considerably less convenient than simply pouring the input from
all the cards into the same folder and sorting by shooting date and time.

And I don't have to find a solution; Canon has promised to send me one next
month in the form of a firmware upgrade that will let me specify the naming
convention of the files from my two 7Ds (something I understand Nikon has
allowed for some time). My wife's T2i can keep using the current scheme, and
the problem goes away. No extra folders, no software I don't currently use,
etc., etc.

Bob

[tony cooper]

Personally, then, I'm at a loss as to what you want
advice/suggestions/commiseration/agreement/? about. As best I can
figure, all you want is to vent about the problem that the in-camera
numbering causes you. If that's it, that's OK. It's good to get our
gripes out.

I wouldn't think you'd want to get shirty about suggestions, though,
even if you don't feel they'd work for you. They are just thoughts
passed on under the assumption that you might want to try something
different or at least know about some different systems.

As far as Lightroom, readers of your post don't know what software you
have or use. It's unfortunate the comments brought up Lightroom
because - if I understand what you're doing - Lightroom is not a
program that is designed to "tell a story" about each destination.

If you are going to "tell a story", it would seem to me that your
intent is to share that story. Lightroom's role is just to organize
the photos and aid you in retrieving certain images. It doesn't allow
you to "tell a story" to others unless you export the images to
something else. Since you mention a "printout", that must be the way
you intend to share.

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:06:30 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>All you describing how " lightroom (or other asset management
>software)" merges the photographs. This is what I said 'has to be
>done'. All you are doing now is describing another way of doing it.

Lightroom doesn't merge photographs. It puts all of the images you
input into one master "folder" (called a Catalog) that can be arranged
to display in Grid View (Library) in determinable order set by the
user. Within that folder, you can, by choice, retrieve only those
images pre-determined to be associated with one or more keywords, by a
pre-determined collection, or by a pre-determined stack. You can also
retrieve only those images shot with a particular camera, or lens, or
date, or rating, or other filter that you set.

The value to the user - speaking just of the Library module - is the
ability to locate images. I have two Lightroom catalogs: one for
family photographs and one for hobby photographs. If I want to find a
photo of my daughter's wedding, I can bring up all of the images
keyworded with that event in my family catalog. If I want to find an
image of a cat, I can bring up all of the images containing a cat if
I've used that as a keyword in my hobby catalog.

The real advantage of Lightroom in retrieving images is that concept
of one master "folder". Instead of having a large number of folders
and sub-folders on your disk, you can have one catalog and the ability
to display all of the images, and only those images, of a particular
filter. (Also, you are backing-up only one folder to back-up all
images)

Lightroom doesn't sound as if it would be at all useful for you in
your present project, but it may be useful a few years from now if you
want to find the images of a particular city you visited on this trip.

There are other modules in Lightroom, but they aren't at issue here.

[nospam]

In article <8ni908d123c4udg5t...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As far as Lightroom, readers of your post don't know what software you
> have or use. It's unfortunate the comments brought up Lightroom
> because - if I understand what you're doing - Lightroom is not a
> program that is designed to "tell a story" about each destination.

of course it is designed to tell a story. just what do you think a
collection that can be ordered in any way you want is?

it's not as sophisticated as an app that can combine music, narration
and video into a slick multimedia presentation with fancy special
effects, but you can absolutely tell a story with lightroom.

[nospam]

In article <dfl908lclmq2649ru...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lightroom doesn't merge photographs.

true

> It puts all of the images you
> input into one master "folder" (called a Catalog) that can be arranged
> to display in Grid View (Library) in determinable order set by the
> user.

not true. there is no master folder. it's a database and the images
stay where they were in whatever folders they were in, unless you tell
it copy them on import.

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:58:19 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>I presume the data base contains descriptors of each of the individual
>images and. In effect the descriptors are a different set of names.

When images are imported into Lightroom, LR uses the file name of the
image as you have set it or allowed it. If you have the same file
name assigned to two images, there will be two images in LR with that
file name. This can happen when you have two folders, each containing
an image with the same file name.

This brings up a problem that a lot of people who are new to LR don't
understand until it bites them on the ass: when you import an image
into LR, the image is not stored in LR. LR essentially mirrors the
image that you have on your hard drive *at that location*. Change the
location, and LR will display the image but you will not be able to
access the image to edit it or export it. There will be ? on the LR
image.

If you import the image C:\Paris\DSC_1001_001, and then later change
the image on your hard drive to C:\France\Paris\DSC_1001-001 because
you want Paris in a sub-folder under France, LR can't find the image
even though it displays it. It follows the original file path. You
have to search for the new location and re-assign the file path.

I get around this by copying all images into a single permanent folder
for all family images and a single permanent folder for all hobby
images on the hard drive. (I could use multiple folders as long as I
don't change them later) This way, I can change or delete working
folders. I use working folders for each month with sub-folders for
events or dates.

LR is a great program, but it does take some getting used to.

[nospam]

In article <hrn908d7eh2vlvf5f...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This brings up a problem that a lot of people who are new to LR don't
> understand until it bites them on the ass: when you import an image
> into LR, the image is not stored in LR. LR essentially mirrors the
> image that you have on your hard drive *at that location*. Change the
> location, and LR will display the image but you will not be able to
> access the image to edit it or export it. There will be ? on the LR
> image.
>
> If you import the image C:\Paris\DSC_1001_001, and then later change
> the image on your hard drive to C:\France\Paris\DSC_1001-001 because
> you want Paris in a sub-folder under France, LR can't find the image
> even though it displays it. It follows the original file path. You
> have to search for the new location and re-assign the file path.

that's a windows issue, not a lightroom issue. on a mac, lightroom does
not lose track of the photos if you make a minor change to the path.

however, if you make a major change, such as moving the photos to a
different drive, they will need to be relinked to the database, which
is trivial to do.

> LR is a great program, but it does take some getting used to.

no different than anything else.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 20:40:40 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <8ni908d123c4udg5t...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As far as Lightroom, readers of your post don't know what software you
>> have or use. It's unfortunate the comments brought up Lightroom
>> because - if I understand what you're doing - Lightroom is not a
>> program that is designed to "tell a story" about each destination.
>
>of course it is designed to tell a story. just what do you think a
>collection that can be ordered in any way you want is?

Try telling that story to someone that is not at your computer. What
you snipped was that I understand that he wants to tell that story to
others by showing the images to them.

The story the Collection shows is shown *in Lightroom*.

What can be done in LR is the creation of a slide-show (having the
images in a Collection is not required), exporting that slide-show to
a .pdf, and distributing that .pdf file. There are dozens of programs
- some free - that will do this. You don't buy LR to do this.

>
>it's not as sophisticated as an app that can combine music, narration
>and video into a slick multimedia presentation with fancy special
>effects, but you can absolutely tell a story with lightroom.

As I said, LR is "not designed to 'tell a story'". That's not what
the creators went about doing.

Try to think these things out before you fire.

[nospam]

In article <m4q908h1ffu386drp...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> As far as Lightroom, readers of your post don't know what software you
> >> have or use. It's unfortunate the comments brought up Lightroom
> >> because - if I understand what you're doing - Lightroom is not a
> >> program that is designed to "tell a story" about each destination.
> >
> >of course it is designed to tell a story. just what do you think a
> >collection that can be ordered in any way you want is?
>
> Try telling that story to someone that is not at your computer. What
> you snipped was that I understand that he wants to tell that story to
> others by showing the images to them.
>
> The story the Collection shows is shown *in Lightroom*.
>
> What can be done in LR is the creation of a slide-show (having the
> images in a Collection is not required), exporting that slide-show to
> a .pdf, and distributing that .pdf file. There are dozens of programs
> - some free - that will do this. You don't buy LR to do this.

nobody said you buy lightroom *just* to tell a story (there you go
twisting things again), but if you already have lightroom to manage
your photos, you can definitely use it to tell a story. just export the
desired photos (usually in a collection but as you say, not required)
to a slide show, webpage, book, etc. it's very easy.

> >it's not as sophisticated as an app that can combine music, narration
> >and video into a slick multimedia presentation with fancy special
> >effects, but you can absolutely tell a story with lightroom.
>
> As I said, LR is "not designed to 'tell a story'". That's not what
> the creators went about doing.

yes it definitely was. that's why it has the capability to create slide
shows and web pages and more.

> Try to think these things out before you fire.

if only you would do that.

[tony cooper]

As you can imagine, I am unfamiliar with how Canon does it.

What is not clear to me is the "extra folders" bit. When I upload, I
designate that the images from this SD card to into a folder. If I
used my other camera that day, and upload the images from that SD
card, I will designate that they go in a separate folder.

In my case, I have a folder for "Work-July", and each day's shooting
results will go in a sub-folder under that folder. Two cards, two
sub-folders.

What I get the impression that you are doing is using only one folder
for all images for all shooting dates. No sub-folders. Is that
right?

Not that it pertains to the above, but I also have a folder named
"Work-2012". All of the "keepers" are copied to this folder. The
images down in "Work-July" and its sub-folders are retained for a
while, backed-up on an external hard drive (in case I later want to
re-work the RAW file from July) and deleted from my C: drive.

I'm not saying or suggesting that my way is in any way better than one
folder, but with the size of hard drives now those extra folders and
sub-folders don't cause a problem. File numbering isn't a problem for
me because I use a date/suffix number system that I assign. The
suffix number picks up where the other sub-folder leaves off if there
are two sub-folders for the day.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:16:51 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <1m3808hr5krnmph9q...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >lightroom or aperture will sort them by content, not by folder.
>>
>> I didn't know Lightroom sorts by content.
>
>it does, although sorting isn't exactly the right term. filtering is
>more accurate.

Yes, it is. "Content" is what the image is a picture of. LR can't
tell the difference between a photograph of a cat and a photograph of
a canary.

>> I can't seem to train my
>> version to do that. It will sort by file name, capture time, added
>> sequence or some other ways in Grid view, but it doesn't know the
>> content of the image.
>
>it can display images taken in a specific location (assuming they're
>geotagged which is very easy with version 4).

>aperture can do face recognition and identify

But the subject is Lightroom.

> who is in the photos,
>without needing to tag each one individually. you train it on a bunch
>of photos initially and then let it loose on your entire library.
>future imports are automatically processed.
>
>> It will sort out by keyword if I give images
>> keywords, but I have to tell it the keyword.
>
>keywords is the main method and yes you do have to tell it. enter one
>or more keywords when importing and they're applied to all of the
>photos at once. you can always add additional keywords later or change
>existing ones. it seems like a lot of work but it really isn't.

Yes, I know. I do it. That's what I said can be done.

>with face recognition,

Not in Lightroom.

>geotagging, keywords and the calendar, you can
>do complex queries, such as all photos with tony but not bob, taken in
>2009, and at the zoo. those types of queries are not possible using
>files and folders, no matter how precisely you name the files.

All of your points deal with user input steps. Include enough user
input steps, and you can sort for content, as you are so loosely using
it, without Lightroom and using just files and folders.

>> I can make "Collections" as a substitute for a folder, but I have to
>> determine what goes in a Collection.
>
>that's yet another way. there are also smart collections based on
>parameters you specify that automatically update themselves as new
>photos are added to the library.

User input required.

> Tell me how Lightroom can sort by content.

Now, tell me how Lightroom can sort by content.

[tony cooper]

At risk of adding something else that you are not asking for, what is
the problem with re-numbering the images? It's one global action for
each folder.

The problem I see with numbering - whether it's done in-camera or
later - is the sequence in which the images appear in the merged
folder if sequence is important.

If you are printing multiple images on sheets, you can designate the
order if your software will allow it. You haven't stated what
software you have that does this.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:42:58 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>> It's easy to do, it works, it carries over to disks burned and sent to
>> others, and I like it.
>
>actually it's more work.

Really? I re-name with one global step in a folder before importing.
I'm seldom exhausted after that.

>> What's your system, by the way? I don't recall ever seeing an image
>> of yours. You do take photographs, don't you?
>
>i sure do and i shot 300 yesterday.

Ah, so you are a K-Mart baby photographer.

>my photos shared with whom i want
>to share them, but more importantly, my photos have absolutely nothing
>whatsoever to do with the topic.

Unh-hunh. Ever heard the expression "All hat and no cattle"? Or, for
the UK reader, "All mouth and trousers"? (Sometimes seen as "All
mouth and no trousers", but that suggests something entirely
different.)

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 20:44:55 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <dfl908lclmq2649ru...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lightroom doesn't merge photographs.
>
>true
>
>> It puts all of the images you
>> input into one master "folder" (called a Catalog) that can be arranged
>> to display in Grid View (Library) in determinable order set by the
>> user.
>
>not true. there is no master folder.

That "folder" is called a Catalog. It's right up there...see?

> it's a database and the images
>stay where they were in whatever folders they were in, unless you tell
>it copy them on import.

That was also explained.

[Savageduck]

Only when the content is quantified by a "Keyword Tag". I have LR
"Keywords" such as "Yosemite 2009", "Yosemite 2010", "Yosemite 2011",
"WF Triathlon 2010", "WF Triathlon 2011", "WF Triathlon 2012", etc.
This allows me to create broad "Smart Collections" with hierarchical
"sub-Smart Collections". For example;
Yosemite (Broad Smart collection)
this wraps sub-Smart Collections
Yosemite 2009
Yosemite 2010
Yosemite 2011
Halfdome
El Capitan
Yosemite Falls
Eastern Yosemite Tioga

So each of these smart collections will have virtual copies of image
files where the original imports are contained in the individual
chronological import folders.

So the 2010 Yosemite original imports are in the 2010 folder, sorted
for a three day trip are in sub-folders 2010-11-16; 2010-11-17; &
2010-11-18.

Now virtual copies for the three day shoot are found in Smart
Collection "Yosemite 2010". However, in the "Halfdome" Smart Collection
you will find "Keyword Tagged" Halfdome shots from four separate trips
over three years in chronological order. The same would be true for El
Cap, Yosemite Falls, & Eastern Yosemite.

Obviously there are all sorts of combinations a Lightroom user can
dream up. Some of us do what we can to squeeze different stuff out of
our software.

A slightly different approach has to be made when doing something
similar with Bridge where virtual copies are not produced, so here is
where you would use up HD disc space v Lightroom and the virtual
copies. However Bridge can be a good place to inserting Keywords,
ratings (star ratings), and labels.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <65s908h6n5kal88jn...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >lightroom or aperture will sort them by content, not by folder.
> >>
> >> I didn't know Lightroom sorts by content.
> >
> >it does, although sorting isn't exactly the right term. filtering is
> >more accurate.
>
> Yes, it is. "Content" is what the image is a picture of. LR can't
> tell the difference between a photograph of a cat and a photograph of
> a canary.

not automatically but once the images are keyworded, it can do so very
easily. i can retrieve images of all kinds, based on content.

i never said it could automatically analyze the image to do it. that
will happen fairly soon, but it's not here just yet.

and although face recognition is not designed to work on animals, it
does work to a certain extent. many people have had success with it
recognizing their pets in addition to their friends and family, so it's
entirely possible it could tell the difference between a cat and a
canary.

[nospam]

In article <a2u9085lderc0ra4u...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> It's easy to do, it works, it carries over to disks burned and sent to
> >> others, and I like it.
> >
> >actually it's more work.
>
> Really? I re-name with one global step in a folder before importing.
> I'm seldom exhausted after that.

i add keywords with one global step when importing.

[nospam]

In article <k9v908hn9lkr6i7sl...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> It puts all of the images you
> >> input into one master "folder" (called a Catalog) that can be arranged
> >> to display in Grid View (Library) in determinable order set by the
> >> user.
> >
> >not true. there is no master folder.
>
> That "folder" is called a Catalog. It's right up there...see?

it's not a folder, period. a folder is what's on disk. lightroom
manages a catalog. they are *very* different.

[tony cooper]

Agreed. We can identify the content of an image by user input steps.
Lightroom doesn't do it without our input, though. The content that
we identify is only the content we feel is descriptive, and is not
necessarily the true content.

I have "Humor" as a keyword. That only identifies the image as
something that *I* feel is humorous. Others may find the image not to
be humorous at all. Lightroom makes no decisions.

I tend to keyword by type rather than by specific. I have a
"architecture" as a keyword, and that includes all types of buildings.
I do have some specific keywords like "Boxing" as a keyword within
"Sports".

>
>A slightly different approach has to be made when doing something
>similar with Bridge where virtual copies are not produced, so here is
>where you would use up HD disc space v Lightroom and the virtual
>copies. However Bridge can be a good place to inserting Keywords,
>ratings (star ratings), and labels.

I like importing to my hard drive rather than directly to Lightroom,
and then importing only the keepers to LR. I like the ability to
back-up my master files separately and in addition to backing-up LR.
I can take all or part of the master file and put it on an external
drive and use the images on my laptop away from home. (Using save-as
in a different folder) I don't have LR on my laptop.

Also, I don't always go to LR to find an image. Since my files are
sequential by date due to file naming, I can often go to the C: file
without bothering to open LR.

As I have mentioned before, I under-utilize LR because I edit only in
CS4. LR is used only as a file cabinet in my case. It works for me.

[Savageduck]

Since you are a Mac user, go to your system "Pictures folder where you
will find a Lightroom folder.
In that folder you should find the following:
"Backup"; this contains a backup directory "lightroom 4 Catalog.ircat"
for each backup of your LT Catalog recording the changes made to LR
image files.
"lightroom 4 catalog previews.irdata"; this contains stuff such as
thumbnail data.
"lightroom 4 Catalog.ircat"; this is the catalog file which is really
just a virtual record of user manipulations and adjustments of the
original imported files, virtual copies, and which is backed up via the
files contained in the "Backup" folder.
That ircat file is further supported by the "Lightroom 4
Catalog.ircat-journal" and the "Lightroom 4 Catalog.ircat-journal" files

As for the original image file imports. In my case, I import and
convert to dng. So my original LR imports can be found in the last
folder in the "lightroom" folder, that is "Lightroom DNG Images".
There you will find a hierarchical folder setup for each year of
import, for example "2011", "2012".
The interesting thing here is, if you bought LR in 2011 and imported
image files from 4-5 or more years your purchase, Lightroom will place
them in the subfolder of the year you actually import them.

So I upgraded from LR2 to LR4 in 2011. In my 2011 folder I have
original imports converted to dng files, some transferred from my LR2
Catalog some fresh imports, and found in folders "2006", "2007",
"2008", "2009", "2010", "2011". In each of those folders are other
folders for each day shots were taken. I guess there is a fair amount
of date and time sorting done right there, long before any other sort
and search criteria are added to the virtual files.

All LR image edits, adjustments, sorting, Keywords, etc are made
non-destructively and virtually and are recorded in the ircat files,
leaving the original imports untouched.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:07:41 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <65s908h6n5kal88jn...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >lightroom or aperture will sort them by content, not by folder.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't know Lightroom sorts by content.
>> >
>> >it does, although sorting isn't exactly the right term. filtering is
>> >more accurate.
>>
>> Yes, it is. "Content" is what the image is a picture of. LR can't
>> tell the difference between a photograph of a cat and a photograph of
>> a canary.
>
>not automatically but once the images are keyworded, it can do so very
>easily. i can retrieve images of all kinds, based on content.

OK, now you've stated the obvious, and that which was known and said
before you went to such great length to say otherwise.

>so it's
>entirely possible it could tell the difference between a cat and a
>canary.

When they announce that upgrade, I'll consider it. However, while I
have a few images of cats, I have none of canaries.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:07:45 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

That's why I put it in "scare quotes".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:07:44 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I do too, if appropriate. Not all files imported at the same time use
the same keywords...unless you are baby photographer at K-Mart.

[Savageduck]

I overkill on file redundancy. All my RAW files are stored on my HD via
Bridge. In my "Photos & Stuff" HD folder/Directory you will find
hierarchical folders for D70, D300, D300S, G11. In the D300S folder you
will find a sub folder for each year, within that a folder for each
month. Within the month folder can be another folder for specific days
if there are a large number of shots for that particular month.
So my basic Bridge subcatalog for 2011, looks like this:
< http://db.tt/XVEgJGZb >

...and sometimes my LR Library Mode looks like this:
< http://db.tt/Nz4rnxNr >

>
> Also, I don't always go to LR to find an image. Since my files are
> sequential by date due to file naming, I can often go to the C: file
> without bothering to open LR.

Yup!

>
> As I have mentioned before, I under-utilize LR because I edit only in
> CS4. LR is used only as a file cabinet in my case. It works for me.

I have the same problem, and I find myself using LR less after the
improvements to Bridge and ACR with CS5. However There are times I find
some features of LR a good workflow fit, and with Nik plugins working
in both LR & CS, along with the ability to edit in CS with, or without
LR adjustments occasionally convenient.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 01:28:31 -0400, tony cooper

The problem is that I saved my images on my laptop based on where the
photographs were taken. My wife just kept loading up her card. I
solved the problems by using Windows command line to change the first
3 or 4 characters in my wife's files. I actually found an undocumented
feature to do this.

>
>The problem I see with numbering - whether it's done in-camera or
>later - is the sequence in which the images appear in the merged
>folder if sequence is important.
>
>If you are printing multiple images on sheets, you can designate the
>order if your software will allow it. You haven't stated what
>software you have that does this.

I assembled the finals in Paintshop Pro.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

I'm neither asking nor griping about anything. All this started when I
said it is not always possible to avoid merging folders.

>
>I wouldn't think you'd want to get shirty about suggestions, though,
>even if you don't feel they'd work for you. They are just thoughts
>passed on under the assumption that you might want to try something
>different or at least know about some different systems.

Me? I'm not getting shirty, but I suspect you are confused.

>
>As far as Lightroom, readers of your post don't know what software you
>have or use. It's unfortunate the comments brought up Lightroom
>because - if I understand what you're doing - Lightroom is not a
>program that is designed to "tell a story" about each destination.

I don't have it, so that doesn't matter.

>
>If you are going to "tell a story", it would seem to me that your
>intent is to share that story. Lightroom's role is just to organize
>the photos and aid you in retrieving certain images. It doesn't allow
>you to "tell a story" to others unless you export the images to
>something else. Since you mention a "printout", that must be the way
>you intend to share.

Yep. A3 pages.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:39:08 -0400, tony cooper
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:06:30 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>All you describing how " lightroom (or other asset management
>>software)" merges the photographs. This is what I said 'has to be
>>done'. All you are doing now is describing another way of doing it.
>
>Lightroom doesn't merge photographs.

Do you mean as into one image?

Well that's not at all what I was talking about. I meant merging
multiple photographs from different cameras into the one folder.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Rob]

On 16/07/2012 5:44 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <ju0foo$qpq$4...@dont-email.me>, Rob <mesa...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I would - but if I reformat the card I loose the last number - the
>> camera is not storing the highest number.
>
> there's no need to reformat each time, but regardless, the camera
> should be storing the last number. i've yet to see a camera not do
> that, including several nikon cameras. if you insert a brand new card,
> the numbering continues from where it left off.
>


Thats the problem.

In my testing I'm reformatting in the camera. The camera has about 500
actuations now.

Even if I place a new card in it will start at 001

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:11:03 +1200, Eric Stevens

As an American, I had to look that up. A3 pages are 11.7 inches by
16.5 inches. We have no such size as a standard paper size, but some
scrapbooks and albums use a similar size paper. That paper size would
not run in my printer, but there are printers that will accommodate
it.

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:11:03 +1200, Eric Stevens

It started when you posted that your D800 has a numbering problem.
Some people made suggestions on dealing with the problem of the images
that are not numbered the way you want them to be, but you do not seem
to feel any of these suggestions are useful to you.

That's understandable since we really don't know the full extent of
your plan of use for the images and what software you have to use.
Those of us who made suggestions have done so with helpful intent, but
without all the facts.

>>I wouldn't think you'd want to get shirty about suggestions, though,
>>even if you don't feel they'd work for you. They are just thoughts
>>passed on under the assumption that you might want to try something
>>different or at least know about some different systems.
>
>Me? I'm not getting shirty, but I suspect you are confused.

I wouldn't say all of your rejections of suggestions have been couched
in a warm and fuzzy manner.

I remain confused about the problem, but I don't use Corel's Paintshop
Pro. On their website, they compare their product to Adobe Elements,
so I guess it's a photo editing program.

The project of laying out the images on page would be simple for me
with Corel's CorelDraw. In that program, I import an image, place it
on a page, and move it around and size it the way I want. I can
import from different folders with affecting the image in the folders,
so multiple folders or merged folders make no difference.

I don't know how far you are into the project, but playing around with
the Open Office "Draw" module (free), it seems to work the same as
Corel's CorelDraw as far as importing images from any folder, sizing,
and placing them. I just opened the program, imported a couple of
images from different folders, moved and sized them. I didn't check
it out any further.

I created a photo scrapbook of old scanned images of family snapshots
a few years ago. The pages were printed on 8.5" x 11" photo paper,
punched, and placed in a notebook binder. There were 30-some pages,
so it wasn't a project at the level of yours. But, it was a fairly
simple project in CorelDraw.

[Savageduck]

On 2012-07-17 07:04:29 -0700, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> said:

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:11:03 +1200, Eric Stevens
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

<<< Le Snip >>>

>>
>> Yep. A3 pages.
>
> As an American, I had to look that up. A3 pages are 11.7 inches by
> 16.5 inches. We have no such size as a standard paper size, but some
> scrapbooks and albums use a similar size paper. That paper size would
> not run in my printer, but there are printers that will accommodate
> it.

My Epson R2880 drivers can deal with A3 size paper.
The problem in the USA is going to be finding a domestic vendor of that
size paper in the US.
The closest I get is 11x17 paper from Red River.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <2012071623474470933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >>>> It puts all of the images you
> >>>> input into one master "folder" (called a Catalog) that can be arranged
> >>>> to display in Grid View (Library) in determinable order set by the
> >>>> user.
> >>>
> >>> not true. there is no master folder.
> >>
> >> That "folder" is called a Catalog. It's right up there...see?
> >
> > it's not a folder, period. a folder is what's on disk. lightroom
> > manages a catalog. they are *very* different.
>
> Since you are a Mac user, go to your system "Pictures folder where you
> will find a Lightroom folder.

no i won't. my photos are on a shared network drive accessible to all
computers on the network. they have to be on an external drive of some
sort since they won't all fit on the laptop drive, even without a
system installed. if i look in my pictures folder, all i see is an
iphoto database because i have to use iphoto for idevices.

however, what you described is on that network drive.

> All LR image edits, adjustments, sorting, Keywords, etc are made
> non-destructively and virtually and are recorded in the ircat files,
> leaving the original imports untouched.

correct, which is why catalog and folder are completely different
concepts.

[nospam]

In article <o72a085t3iufsijhq...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> >lightroom or aperture will sort them by content, not by folder.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't know Lightroom sorts by content.
> >> >
> >> >it does, although sorting isn't exactly the right term. filtering is
> >> >more accurate.
> >>
> >> Yes, it is. "Content" is what the image is a picture of. LR can't
> >> tell the difference between a photograph of a cat and a photograph of
> >> a canary.
> >
> >not automatically but once the images are keyworded, it can do so very
> >easily. i can retrieve images of all kinds, based on content.
>
> OK, now you've stated the obvious, and that which was known and said
> before you went to such great length to say otherwise.

i never said otherwise.

[nospam]

In article <sn2a08t4gi5sl9vvl...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> It puts all of the images you
> >> >> input into one master "folder" (called a Catalog) that can be arranged
> >> >> to display in Grid View (Library) in determinable order set by the
> >> >> user.
> >> >
> >> >not true. there is no master folder.
> >>
> >> That "folder" is called a Catalog. It's right up there...see?
> >
> >it's not a folder, period. a folder is what's on disk. lightroom
> >manages a catalog. they are *very* different.
>
> That's why I put it in "scare quotes".
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

a folder and a catalog are two totally different things. they aren't
close enough for scare quotes. sorry.

[nospam]

In article <kr2a08dldg5a6uac5...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> It's easy to do, it works, it carries over to disks burned and sent to
> >> >> others, and I like it.
> >> >
> >> >actually it's more work.
> >>
> >> Really? I re-name with one global step in a folder before importing.
> >> I'm seldom exhausted after that.
> >
> >i add keywords with one global step when importing.
>
> I do too, if appropriate. Not all files imported at the same time use
> the same keywords...

most of the time they do, unless you neglect to copy images after
shooting and have multiple shoots on the same card.

> unless you are baby photographer at K-Mart.

good thing i'm not.

[nospam]

In article <jjea08thp88iida6h...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >>All you describing how " lightroom (or other asset management
> >>software)" merges the photographs. This is what I said 'has to be
> >>done'. All you are doing now is describing another way of doing it.
> >
> >Lightroom doesn't merge photographs.
>
> Do you mean as into one image?

into one folder.

> Well that's not at all what I was talking about. I meant merging
> multiple photographs from different cameras into the one folder.

right, which lightroom does not do.

what it does is track where the photos are, wherever they are, in its
own database.

within lightroom, you can group your photos however you want. the
location on disk makes no difference. lightroom takes care of that, not
you.

[nospam]

In article <ju3lpv$974$1...@dont-email.me>, Rob <mesa...@google.com>

something is set wrong. have you contacted nikon or the store from
where you bought it? it's not normal.

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:41:56 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

The comment was directed to a person who doesn't use Lightroom, but
does understand the concept of a folder that contains many images.
It's a reasonable reference in this case.

You're just jawing around because you don't understand the application
of scare quotes.

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:41:57 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

You think? So if I go out tomorrow and shoot a few images of an
abandoned house, an emu in a field, a red-winged hawk, a few candid
shots of people, and a piece of rusty machinery, then I'm going to
keyword them all the same? I'd keyword the entire batch "2012" and
then separately keyword each shot according to the keyword base I use.

Don't make generalizations about what others do based on what you do.
"Most" is not appropriate when you don't know what others do.

>> unless you are baby photographer at K-Mart.
>
>good thing i'm not.

Maybe, but you could move up.

[nospam]

In article <seeb08975g4en2f5o...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >a folder and a catalog are two totally different things. they aren't
> >close enough for scare quotes. sorry.
>
> The comment was directed to a person who doesn't use Lightroom, but
> does understand the concept of a folder that contains many images.
> It's a reasonable reference in this case.

it's not, and likely will confuse him further.

> You're just jawing around because you don't understand the application
> of scare quotes.

nonsense. i used them myself in a different post.

[nospam]

In article <mjeb08pbjqdsqpq0g...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I do too, if appropriate. Not all files imported at the same time use
> >> the same keywords...
> >
> >most of the time they do, unless you neglect to copy images after
> >shooting and have multiple shoots on the same card.
>
> You think?

sure do.

> So if I go out tomorrow and shoot a few images of an
> abandoned house, an emu in a field, a red-winged hawk, a few candid
> shots of people, and a piece of rusty machinery, then I'm going to
> keyword them all the same? I'd keyword the entire batch "2012" and
> then separately keyword each shot according to the keyword base I use.

oh no! there's an exception!

that's why i didn't say 'all.'

> Don't make generalizations about what others do based on what you do.

i don't.

> "Most" is not appropriate when you don't know what others do.

most is appropriate. most people shoot a particular event, say a ball
game, kid's graduation, trip to the beach, etc., and a set of keywords
will apply to the entire set of photos.

obviously, not everyone does that, which is why i said 'most' and not
'all.'

[me]

Have you tried another card? Also what happens if you either just
delete all the files or just leave the first or last one?

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:04:29 -0400, tony cooper

Quite a few. A number of people subscribing to this news group have
printers which will do that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Robert Coe]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:56:50 -0400, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com>
wrote:
: On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:55:01 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
:
: >On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:58:46 -0400, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com>
: >wrote:
: >: On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:06:39 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
: >:
: >: >On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:40:50 -0400, tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com>
: >: >wrote:
: >: >: The numbering system evidently is meaningful to the OP, but
: >: >: camera-produced numbers are not necessarily the best way to identify
: >: >: images.
: >: >:
: >: >: Immediately after downloading, I rename all of my images with the
: >: >: date. Today's images would be 2012-07-15-001 and up.
: >: >:
: >: >: I wouldn't even notice the camera's system.
: >: >
: >: >You would if you were shooting with two cameras.
: >:
: >: I'm sure you have your reasons for wanting to change things, and I
: >: hope you find a solution.
: >:
: >: However, two cameras or six cameras doesn't make any difference. I
: >: often upload my SD cards from two cameras. I send each card's files
: >: to a folder, and number within the folder. The second folder, if
: >: there is one, starts at the next number after the first folder's
: >: number left off.
: >:
: >: >You have to worry about
: >: >whether the cameras' internal numbering will result in a naming conflict when
: >: >you copy the images to the computer.
: >:
: >: Only if you upload to the same folder or directly to the same drive.
: >:
: >:
: >: >In some photo shoots I have to juggle the
: >: >numbers from three cameras: two of mine and one of my wife's. My two main
: >: >cameras are 7Ds, and Canon is planning a firmware upgrade that's supposed to
: >: >give a 7D user some control over the file names, not just the sequence number.
: >: >Can't happen too soon for me.
: >: >
: >: I used Adobe's Bridge in the uploading process. Bridge allows a
: >: number of different naming systems.
: >
: >Look, Tony, I freely acknowledge that there are numerous ways to avoid the
: >issue. All are considerably less convenient than simply pouring the input from
: >all the cards into the same folder and sorting by shooting date and time.
: >
: >And I don't have to find a solution; Canon has promised to send me one next
: >month in the form of a firmware upgrade that will let me specify the naming
: >convention of the files from my two 7Ds (something I understand Nikon has
: >allowed for some time). My wife's T2i can keep using the current scheme, and
: >the problem goes away. No extra folders, no software I don't currently use,
: >etc., etc.
:
: As you can imagine, I am unfamiliar with how Canon does it.
:
: What is not clear to me is the "extra folders" bit. When I upload, I
: designate that the images from this SD card to into a folder. If I
: used my other camera that day, and upload the images from that SD
: card, I will designate that they go in a separate folder.
:
: In my case, I have a folder for "Work-July", and each day's shooting
: results will go in a sub-folder under that folder. Two cards, two
: sub-folders.
:
: What I get the impression that you are doing is using only one folder
: for all images for all shooting dates. No sub-folders. Is that
: right?

No. Isolated photos go into a common folder. A small photo shoot: one folder.
A big one, encompassing serveral days: more than one folder. In last summer's
Rhode Island trip, I shot 700 pictures at one party. My wife shot around 30 at
that event, and I wanted them interspersed, not separate.

: Not that it pertains to the above, but I also have a folder named
: "Work-2012". All of the "keepers" are copied to this folder. The
: images down in "Work-July" and its sub-folders are retained for a
: while, backed-up on an external hard drive (in case I later want to
: re-work the RAW file from July) and deleted from my C: drive.
:
: I'm not saying or suggesting that my way is in any way better than one
: folder, but with the size of hard drives now those extra folders and
: sub-folders don't cause a problem. File numbering isn't a problem for
: me because I use a date/suffix number system that I assign. The
: suffix number picks up where the other sub-folder leaves off if there
: are two sub-folders for the day.

The problem the extra folders cause is that it's harder to treat all the
photos as one pool. Usually, when I'm winnowing down the results of a shoot, I
don't care whether I took a particular picture or my wife did, or which camera
I used if it was me. (My wife never uses two; she won't carry anything heavier
than a Rebel.) Editing is the only time at issue; when I'm done with that, I
always renumber the whole shoot anyway.

Bob

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:36:51 -0400, tony cooper

I wish I had a D800. I'll have be content with my D300.

You are confusing me with 'Rob'.

>Some people made suggestions on dealing with the problem of the images
>that are not numbered the way you want them to be, but you do not seem
>to feel any of these suggestions are useful to you.
>
>That's understandable since we really don't know the full extent of
>your plan of use for the images and what software you have to use.
>Those of us who made suggestions have done so with helpful intent, but
>without all the facts.
>
>>>I wouldn't think you'd want to get shirty about suggestions, though,
>>>even if you don't feel they'd work for you. They are just thoughts
>>>passed on under the assumption that you might want to try something
>>>different or at least know about some different systems.
>>
>>Me? I'm not getting shirty, but I suspect you are confused.
>
>I wouldn't say all of your rejections of suggestions have been couched
>in a warm and fuzzy manner.

Well, I was getting slightly tetchy with someone who seemed
determinedly at cross purposes. Now we know how that came about.

>
>I remain confused about the problem, but I don't use Corel's Paintshop
>Pro. On their website, they compare their product to Adobe Elements,
>so I guess it's a photo editing program.
>
>The project of laying out the images on page would be simple for me
>with Corel's CorelDraw. In that program, I import an image, place it
>on a page, and move it around and size it the way I want. I can
>import from different folders with affecting the image in the folders,
>so multiple folders or merged folders make no difference.

Paintshop Pro is much the same. The problem starts at an earlier
stage.

I start by gathering together all the photographs for (say) St
Petersburg. This means merging my St Petersburg folder with my wifes
and is where there is a possible clash between file numbers. I
renumbered my wife's photographs before I did this. It is only after
the folders have been merged that I start throwing out, keeping etc
the various photographs and assembling them into some kind of a story.
>
>I don't know how far you are into the project, ...

Now finished. It was about two months sparetime work.

> ... but playing around with

>the Open Office "Draw" module (free), it seems to work the same as
>Corel's CorelDraw as far as importing images from any folder, sizing,
>and placing them. I just opened the program, imported a couple of
>images from different folders, moved and sized them. I didn't check
>it out any further.
>
>I created a photo scrapbook of old scanned images of family snapshots
>a few years ago. The pages were printed on 8.5" x 11" photo paper,
>punched, and placed in a notebook binder. There were 30-some pages,
>so it wasn't a project at the level of yours. But, it was a fairly
>simple project in CorelDraw.

I had to rework a lot of the photographs and that took time. I used a
mix of Paintshop Pro and NX2 for this.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/JMG_0350-1.jpg is the photograph of
the Vasa which emerged from my wife's purse-sized Canon something or
other. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/JMG_0350.jpg The museum where
it is displayed is very dark and my wife knew enough to not use the
flash. But still ...
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[tony cooper]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:29:47 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>>It started when you posted that your D800 has a numbering problem.
>
>I wish I had a D800. I'll have be content with my D300.
>
>You are confusing me with 'Rob'.

I'm using an entry level D40 and a D60. All you big-money camera guys
look alike to me.

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:22:36 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I thought you were plumping for use of keywords to identify people.
Even that beach shoot would involve "Bobby", "Bobby and Tim", "Tim",
etc. Individual entries.

Both of my grandsons were on the same Babe Ruth baseball team this
year. Two boys, choice of keywording.

See how fast "most" goes out the window?

>obviously, not everyone does that, which is why i said 'most' and not
>'all.'

[nospam]

In article <ogrb085mg03qktbgi...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

<b...@1776.COM> wrote:

> The problem the extra folders cause is that it's harder to treat all the
> photos as one pool.

it's not harder at all. you just add the multiple folders to whatever
asset management software you are using.

[nospam]

In article <33vb08p1g122vlhh0...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >most is appropriate. most people shoot a particular event, say a ball
> >game, kid's graduation, trip to the beach, etc., and a set of keywords
> >will apply to the entire set of photos.
>
> I thought you were plumping for use of keywords to identify people.
> Even that beach shoot would involve "Bobby", "Bobby and Tim", "Tim",
> etc. Individual entries.

i don't use keywords for people's names. i put that in the metadata,
where it belongs. or i use face recognition.

> Both of my grandsons were on the same Babe Ruth baseball team this
> year. Two boys, choice of keywording.
>
> See how fast "most" goes out the window?

no, because the issue is batch file renaming versus batch keywording.

you originally said you batch rename on import, which is effectively
the same as batch keywording on import, except it's more limited due to
operating system limitations for file names.

if you are going to tag each photo with the names of who is in each
one, then you are going to have to do that one by one, regardless
whether you do that with keywords or file names.

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:15:38 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <33vb08p1g122vlhh0...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >most is appropriate. most people shoot a particular event, say a ball
>> >game, kid's graduation, trip to the beach, etc., and a set of keywords
>> >will apply to the entire set of photos.
>>
>> I thought you were plumping for use of keywords to identify people.
>> Even that beach shoot would involve "Bobby", "Bobby and Tim", "Tim",
>> etc. Individual entries.
>
>i don't use keywords for people's names. i put that in the metadata,
>where it belongs. or i use face recognition.

But...but...but...but...you *just* posted about the advantage of
keywording with combinations of names.

And, we're talking about Lightroom, aren't we? Lightroom doesn't have
face recognition.

You change your story faster than "most" goes out the window.

>
>> Both of my grandsons were on the same Babe Ruth baseball team this
>> year. Two boys, choice of keywording.
>>
>> See how fast "most" goes out the window?
>
>no, because the issue is batch file renaming versus batch keywording.
>
>you originally said you batch rename on import, which is effectively
>the same as batch keywording on import, except it's more limited due to
>operating system limitations for file names.

No, no, I batch rename *before* I import to Lightroom. I upload to a
file in C: and rename in that file using a date file name. No
limitation there.

I'll grant you that choosing a word to describe adding files to a
computer from an SD card has no firm and accepted term attached. Some
say they upload from the SD card, some say they download to the
computer, and I suppose you could say you import to the computer from
the SD card.

>if you are going to tag each photo with the names of who is in each
>one, then you are going to have to do that one by one, regardless
>whether you do that with keywords or file names.

I wouldn't tag in file names. I said that it could be done in
rebuttal to your wrong-as-usual statement that of the impossibility of
doing it.

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:15:35 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

But what if you aren't using asset management software?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <7pdc08p964f8smk6q...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> The problem the extra folders cause is that it's harder to treat all the
> >> photos as one pool.
> >
> >it's not harder at all. you just add the multiple folders to whatever
> >asset management software you are using.
>
> But what if you aren't using asset management software?

then you're making things more difficult than it need be.

[nospam]

In article <26ac08h1ndlira4q5...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >most is appropriate. most people shoot a particular event, say a ball
> >> >game, kid's graduation, trip to the beach, etc., and a set of keywords
> >> >will apply to the entire set of photos.
> >>
> >> I thought you were plumping for use of keywords to identify people.
> >> Even that beach shoot would involve "Bobby", "Bobby and Tim", "Tim",
> >> etc. Individual entries.
> >
> >i don't use keywords for people's names. i put that in the metadata,
> >where it belongs. or i use face recognition.
>
> But...but...but...but...you *just* posted about the advantage of
> keywording with combinations of names.

where did i say that?

or is this yet another of your made up ideas of what you *think* i
said? why yes, it is.

> And, we're talking about Lightroom, aren't we? Lightroom doesn't have
> face recognition.

i never said it did. do try to keep up.

iphoto and aperture have face recognition, and as i mentioned earlier
in this thread, i use iphoto for syncing idevices. the face recognition
from iphoto is transferred to the device and i can instantly pull up
photos by name there.

> You change your story faster than "most" goes out the window.

no, you just have a serious reading comprehension problem, to go along
with your habit of twisting what i say into things i never said.

> >> Both of my grandsons were on the same Babe Ruth baseball team this
> >> year. Two boys, choice of keywording.
> >>
> >> See how fast "most" goes out the window?
> >
> >no, because the issue is batch file renaming versus batch keywording.
> >
> >you originally said you batch rename on import, which is effectively
> >the same as batch keywording on import, except it's more limited due to
> >operating system limitations for file names.
>
> No, no, I batch rename *before* I import to Lightroom.

an extra step that's entirely unnecessary.

> I upload to a
> file in C: and rename in that file using a date file name. No
> limitation there.

there absolutely is a limitation there. you *personally* may not have
run into it, but that does not mean it does not exist.

windows disallows a number of characters, whereas keywords have no
restriction whatsoever. there is also a maximum file name length, which
you won't hit by using just a date for a file name, but it's definitely
there.

> >if you are going to tag each photo with the names of who is in each
> >one, then you are going to have to do that one by one, regardless
> >whether you do that with keywords or file names.
>
> I wouldn't tag in file names. I said that it could be done in
> rebuttal to your wrong-as-usual statement that of the impossibility of
> doing it.

i didn't say it was impossible. why do you insist on twisting things?

however, tagging in file names is going to become unmanageable
extremely quickly.

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:25:59 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Maybe, or maybe not. But organising through the conventional file and
folder structure means that I am not bound to any particular asset
management software.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:26:01 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <26ac08h1ndlira4q5...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >most is appropriate. most people shoot a particular event, say a ball
>> >> >game, kid's graduation, trip to the beach, etc., and a set of keywords
>> >> >will apply to the entire set of photos.
>> >>
>> >> I thought you were plumping for use of keywords to identify people.
>> >> Even that beach shoot would involve "Bobby", "Bobby and Tim", "Tim",
>> >> etc. Individual entries.
>> >
>> >i don't use keywords for people's names. i put that in the metadata,
>> >where it belongs. or i use face recognition.
>>
>> But...but...but...but...you *just* posted about the advantage of
>> keywording with combinations of names.
>
>where did i say that?

You posted: "with face recognition, geotagging, keywords and the
calendar, you can do complex queries, such as all photos with tony but
not bob, taken in 2009, and at the zoo."

>or is this yet another of your made up ideas of what you *think* i
>said? why yes, it is.
>
>> And, we're talking about Lightroom, aren't we? Lightroom doesn't have
>> face recognition.
>
>i never said it did. do try to keep up.

But this has been about Lightroom. Even you have said so:
"they'd already be sequenced by date even without you renaming them,
but more importantly, who cares? lightroom takes care of managing it."

>iphoto and aperture have face recognition, and as i mentioned earlier
>in this thread, i use iphoto for syncing idevices. the face recognition
>from iphoto is transferred to the device and i can instantly pull up
>photos by name there.
>
>> You change your story faster than "most" goes out the window.
>
>no, you just have a serious reading comprehension problem, to go along
>with your habit of twisting what i say into things i never said.
>
>> >> Both of my grandsons were on the same Babe Ruth baseball team this
>> >> year. Two boys, choice of keywording.
>> >>
>> >> See how fast "most" goes out the window?
>> >
>> >no, because the issue is batch file renaming versus batch keywording.
>> >
>> >you originally said you batch rename on import, which is effectively
>> >the same as batch keywording on import, except it's more limited due to
>> >operating system limitations for file names.
>>
>> No, no, I batch rename *before* I import to Lightroom.
>
>an extra step that's entirely unnecessary.
>
>> I upload to a
>> file in C: and rename in that file using a date file name. No
>> limitation there.
>
>there absolutely is a limitation there. you *personally* may not have
>run into it, but that does not mean it does not exist.

Please explain how file naming by date can exceed the character
limitation. My file name would be 2012-07-18-001. How many images
would I have to number on 7/18 (It's day-specific) to exceed the
limit?

>windows disallows a number of characters, whereas keywords have no
>restriction whatsoever. there is also a maximum file name length, which
>you won't hit by using just a date for a file name, but it's definitely
>there.
>
>> >if you are going to tag each photo with the names of who is in each
>> >one, then you are going to have to do that one by one, regardless
>> >whether you do that with keywords or file names.
>>
>> I wouldn't tag in file names. I said that it could be done in
>> rebuttal to your wrong-as-usual statement that of the impossibility of
>> doing it.
>
>i didn't say it was impossible. why do you insist on twisting things?

You said: "those types of queries are not possible using
files and folders, no matter how precisely you name the files."

Not possible = impossible.

I didn't say that = You did say that
You twist things = I contradict myself

[nospam]

In article <n0dd08142e63druve...@4ax.com>, tony cooper

<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> I thought you were plumping for use of keywords to identify people.
> >> >> Even that beach shoot would involve "Bobby", "Bobby and Tim", "Tim",
> >> >> etc. Individual entries.
> >> >
> >> >i don't use keywords for people's names. i put that in the metadata,
> >> >where it belongs. or i use face recognition.
> >>
> >> But...but...but...but...you *just* posted about the advantage of
> >> keywording with combinations of names.
> >
> >where did i say that?
>
> You posted: "with face recognition, geotagging, keywords and the
> calendar, you can do complex queries, such as all photos with tony but
> not bob, taken in 2009, and at the zoo."

the fact that i didn't explicitly list every single bit of metadata in
a photo that can be searched on does not mean i use keywords for names.
that was entirely an assumption on your part.

> >or is this yet another of your made up ideas of what you *think* i
> >said? why yes, it is.
>
> >> And, we're talking about Lightroom, aren't we? Lightroom doesn't have
> >> face recognition.
> >
> >i never said it did. do try to keep up.
>
> But this has been about Lightroom.

no, it's been about asset management software. i initially said
lightroom or aperture. you keep tying it to lightroom because that's
all you've used.

> Even you have said so:
> "they'd already be sequenced by date even without you renaming them,
> but more importantly, who cares? lightroom takes care of managing it."

true, because you said you use lightroom and it was a reply to you, not
to the general user.

> >> I upload to a
> >> file in C: and rename in that file using a date file name. No
> >> limitation there.
> >
> >there absolutely is a limitation there. you *personally* may not have
> >run into it, but that does not mean it does not exist.
>
> Please explain how file naming by date can exceed the character
> limitation. My file name would be 2012-07-18-001. How many images
> would I have to number on 7/18 (It's day-specific) to exceed the
> limit?

read the rest of the post:

> >windows disallows a number of characters, whereas keywords have no
> >restriction whatsoever. there is also a maximum file name length, which
> >you won't hit by using just a date for a file name, but it's definitely
> >there.
> >
> >> >if you are going to tag each photo with the names of who is in each
> >> >one, then you are going to have to do that one by one, regardless
> >> >whether you do that with keywords or file names.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't tag in file names. I said that it could be done in
> >> rebuttal to your wrong-as-usual statement that of the impossibility of
> >> doing it.
> >
> >i didn't say it was impossible. why do you insist on twisting things?
>
> You said: "those types of queries are not possible using
> files and folders, no matter how precisely you name the files."

is english your first language? because it sure doesn't look like it.

you said,

> >> I wouldn't tag in file names. I said that it could be done in
> >> rebuttal to your wrong-as-usual statement that of the impossibility of
> >> doing it.

that part is possible, but it will rapidly become an unmanageable mess.

i said,

> You said: "those types of queries are not possible using
> files and folders, no matter how precisely you name the files."

which is impossible, as i said. you *can't* do complex queries with
file names.

[nospam]

In article <i2vc089rt2i4abceb...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >> The problem the extra folders cause is that it's harder to treat all the
> >> >> photos as one pool.
> >> >
> >> >it's not harder at all. you just add the multiple folders to whatever
> >> >asset management software you are using.
> >>
> >> But what if you aren't using asset management software?
> >
> >then you're making things more difficult than it need be.
>
> Maybe, or maybe not.

definitely not.

> But organising through the conventional file and
> folder structure means that I am not bound to any particular asset
> management software.

but you're bound to windows explorer or mac finder, which plays the
role of asset management software and does a very bad job of it.

why not use software designed for the task? it makes things *so* much
easier and does *so* much more.