Rename photos

[frlindla]

I have read about this topic, but I wonder:

I have read that the file relations make sure that both the master and the version is renamed. I have a lot of versions like this: IMG_1234_DxO. If I want to replace "DxO" with "display", do I have to give both the master and the version the same name?

Should I filter my photos to find all stacks with versions containing "DxO" and rename them seperate from the others? I guess I select all stacks and rename? Or is it enough to rename just the masters?

[Mario]

Only buddy file relationships are considered during rename operations. This is unrelated to file versioning or stacks.

Usually buddy files must have the same name as the original file so the producing application still recognizes the relation between the original file and the buddy file.
If you maintain buddy file relations, IMatch ensures that the buddy file is renamed with the master file. See In Your Language

[frlindla]

Ok. But if the master photo has the name IMG_1234.CR2 and the version : IMG_1234_DxO.jpg, I can replace DxO with display without deleting the relation between the master and version? Imatch give me a warning if I try to rename only the buddy file. But is it possible to only let the buddy file get the "display" extension?

[Mario]

Don't try to be too complicated. Buddy file management can only do so much.
If you use totally different file names for the master and the buddy (like in your example), you will end up in trouble. IMatch cannot "guess" which part of the buddy file name or master file name you want to keep or change.

Buddy files and master files should always have the same name. Using complicated to different names or names where the buddy file name has components not in the master name will break the buddy relation. Just don't do this. If you really need such file name constructs, disable buddy file processing and rename the files as you need separately.

[frlindla]

I didn`t want to get complicated. The meaning was just to replace an extension in the buddy file. I just read this from the help topic:

"As long as the buddy file name includes the master file name, this schema works great. Even if the buddy file has a name quite different from the master:

Master Name   Buddy Name
beach_123.raw
renamed to:
beach_123-1.raw   beach_123.jpg

beach_123-1.jpg
beach_123.raw
renamed to:
beach_123-1.raw   beach_123_web.jpg

beach_123-1_web.raw
beach_123.raw
renamed to:
beach_123-1.raw   Copy of beach_123_web.jpg

Copy of beach_123-1_web.raw
beach_123.raw
renamed to:
beach_123-1.raw   beach_for_print.jpg

[Mario]

I don't understand.
Have you use the <F2> rename or Renamer feature in IMatch and it did not work?
The examples in the help are clear. If it does not work, something is to complex in your naming schema.

[frlindla]

Sorry. I guess you call it postfix? (_DxO). From the help topic I also read:

"You can add postfixes or prefixes to the buddy file name, but do include the name of the master file."

I wanted to replace "_DxO" in the buddyfile with "_display". But of course I want to listen to your good advice!:)

[Mario]

If it does not work, the rename function in IMatch cannot do what you expect it to do. Even IMatch has limits.

[herman]

I wanted to replace "_DxO" in the buddyfile with "_display".

I suspect you have version files with _DxO postfix, not buddy files?
As far as I can tell the output files (raw conversion) of DxO or DxO Photo Lab default to _DxO postfix, whereas the DxO sidecars just have the full filename with a .dop extension. Usually one wants these sidecars to become a buddy file in IMatch.....

When my understanding is correct you want to rename the versioned files, not the sidecar buddy files?

In that case you could switch off versioning for the DxO output files (just remove the checkmark in front of the version rule) and rebuild the versions. The DxO output files are now "normal" images, no longer part of a version set.

Having done that you could use the IMatch Renamer to replace _DxO part of a filename with _display.

When the renaming action is finished you need a new version definition for these files.
A link expression like {filename}\.(display)$ should do the trick.

Hope this helps.....

[frlindla]

Yes Herman, I want to replace the "_DxO" with "_display" in the versioned files. Perhaps I can try some photos and see if it works...

[godspeedjas]

as an aside, you can also change the "_DXO" suffix when exporting out of DxO Photolab to "_display", in case you hadnt caught that yet , at least for any images you process going forward...

[herman]

Sorry, I see that I gave you a wrong link expression, mixing up sidecars and versions myself now 

I use {filename}\.(dop)$ as link expression for the DxO sidecar buddy files.

In your case something like ^{name}.+\.(jpg|tif)$ for the versioned files would perhaps be a better choice.

[Mario]

IMatch cannot rename individual parts of the buddy file name via a buddy file relation.
The algorithm is simple. For example, if the master is named

beach.RAW

and the buddy file is named

beach_123.cfg

If you rename the master to toothbrush.RAW, IMatch replaces the original master file name text (beach) in the buddy file accordingly.
beach_123.cfg becomes toothbrush_123.cfg

If you want to rename the buddy file independently from the master (the _123 part) you can do that via F2. Just make sure that the new name still matches the buddy file mask you use to link the master and its buddy files.

Tip: The variable {File.BuddyFiles} returns all buddy files of a file. You can use it in the VarToy app, for example.

[frlindla]

Ok. Do I have to turn off the buddy relation if I want to rename the _123 part of the buddy file independently from the master (Version-file)?

[Mario]

Select the buddy file in a File Window and press <F2>.
IMatch tells you that this is a buddy file and asks you if you really want to rename it. Choose Yes.

[Carlo Didier]

Hermann, I think your problem would best be solved if instead of replacing the "_DxO" part, you just left it and appended "_Display". In that case, everything would work as expected out of the box and with no issues.

[frlindla]

I see. But I don`t see why it should be a problem to replace or rename the _DxO part?