I am trying to further organize my files. I like the prospect of adding a global sequence number, but I only want to apply the main global sequence to the original file and then just add the editing information afterward.
For example, I have 2008-12-23-img023.tiff, and I would like to add a global sequence (0000001), after the camera file name, like so: 2008-12-23-img023_0000001.tiff
But now I have an edited file with this format, with the editing information and version:2008-12-23-img023(c1.4,e01[Mult]_MJS).tiff, where c is for crop, e is for edit.
Since this is an edit of the original 2008-12-23-img023_0000001.tiff, I do not want it to have a new global sequence number but rather a suffix added to it (which really creates another global sequence number), so the first edit would be named 2008-12-23-img023_000001.02(c1.4,e01[Mult]_MJS).tiff
I assume using the Group By option in the file renamer would allow me to do this, I just I would confirm.
Also, I was thinking of having the original be given a 00 instead of 01. Would I have to then insert 00,01,02,03,04,05 and so on in the "Token from list" box to accomplish this? Is there a better way? Can I just have the first in a Group by not have an extension, where the first file is "2008-12-23-img023_0000001.tiff" and the 1st edit is "2008-12-23-img023_000001.01(c1.4,e01[Mult]_MJS).tiff"
If anyone has any thoughts, comment or critiques, I welcome it. I am trying to vet my thinking process in trying to come up with a concrete naming system.
Group By
I do not know, if this old thread is still helpful for you:
https://www.photools.com/community/index.php/topic,1644.msg10283.html#msg10283
I started with a unique numer (with a variable) with
000001
And nowaday I am here:
20250306-0832-484986-s-sin-lauerzersee_a.nef
My versions get the same number by propagation, but with another ending (e.g. ... lauerzersee_m_v1.jpg)
Yes, Markus, I have read your post more than once, as well as the responses to it. As a matter of fact I still have the tab open. Thank you for your contribution. It was helpful. I also read https://www.photools.com/community/index.php/topic,10384.msg73885.html#msg73885 (https://www.photools.com/community/index.php/topic,10384.msg73885.html#msg73885), which was also very helpful.
I am just wondering if my approach is foolproof, if such a thing exists in the realm of organization.
BTW, you are probably going to have to add another number because you are almost halfway to 999999. That is why I used 0000001, but the files names are getting longer and they will get even longer if I use Gary's hierarchy scheme, as I am considering doing.
Danks, Damit, for your answer.
Ah, I see, if you read such other threads, you looks very good having finally a good system for you.
Hopefully other users comes here with comments and ideas.
BTW: Thanks for your input. I have started this numbering system about the year 2001.
now I am on number about 485'000.
Means, until I am on number 999'999 it will work still some years. :)
But because nowadays people incusive me tend to create more files, your remark is of course very true.
If I were to start again, I would use one more number.
On the other hand, if I reach the 999'999 I am sure, I will find a good solution.
I am curious as to the purpose of the sequence number?
I think you proposed naming is awfully complicated.
Quote from: ubacher on Today at 11:27:20 AMI am curious as to the purpose of the sequence number?
I think you proposed naming is awfully complicated.
To keep the pictures in order. This was mostly for scanned images but I have been thinking about this for many hours and I think I am going to just add the hour, minute and second to the file name instead of a sequence number.
I do recognize it is complicated, but everything has its purpose and there many who use system just as, if not more complicated. I am trying to find ways to simplify it. Thanks for your input. It is appreciated!
QuoteTo keep the pictures in order
In historic order (when they were added to the db)? But then you would do better having the sequence at the start of the file name so that you can use the normal sort order of Imatch (and windows file system).
Not sure how you store the files on disk i.e. the directory structure.
It is necessary to append to the file name if you want to have a simple master/version definition. I am interested how you
define the master/version relationship - does your naming convention make this easy? Do you have versions which in turn are masters of other files?
QuoteTo keep the pictures in order.
You know that most software these days can sort files by date, and other metadata? Also display it.
This includes Windows Explorer, Finder on the Mac and Nautilus on Linux.
I generally think that
simple file names work best. That's why we use a DAM like IMatch, to keep our files managed without more or less clumsy approaches to include metadata or file
state in the file name.
File names with tons of prefixes, suffices and numbers was a thing we had to do in the past.
If you still want this, that's OK.
But I would think twice before I establish such a complex naming convention. It will probably make your life harder - and for which purpose, really? You have powerful DAM that can take care for this.
I don't know your tool chain or platform chain. Or if you have to deliver files to clients, agencies or libraries. Or if you develop a naming convention for your own use.
For the past decade or so, I use file names with unique numbers. In date+time folders (year > month > day). Not once I have thought that the file name should contain any metadata or state information. That's what IMatch is for.
Just my two cents. You are of course free to use whatever naming convention you like.
Great advice, Mario. The reason I am including this information is for the eventuality that these files find there way into the hands of one with no DAM or much knowledge of metadata. It is so they could figure out at least what date they were taken, what is the source and what it was scanned at, just by looking at the file name. It is the same principle as was used by @GrantRobertson in this thread: https://www.photools.com/community/index.php/topic,10384.msg73885.html#msg73885 (https://www.photools.com/community/index.php/topic,10384.msg73885.html#msg73885)
If these files were just for my use, then you are right, none of this is necessary.
As far as metadata, I will be inputting manually the date subject created, so I am going to use the renamer to just add that to the begining of the file name and use that for sequencing the pictures in the order I
think they occurred.
All of this is for my family and I. I am not a professional, though I am a photo enthusiast. I am building an archive of thousands of family photos dating back to 1898. I have basically become the historian of my family so I want the photos in order. I am including the scanner, dpi and source print size in the file name so I can quickly choose between an image that may have been scanned by multiple scanners or in multiple sizes. Just for convenience and not necessary for digital pictures. For those I am just including the abbreviated camera name where I would place the scanner name. I may remove this information once everything is culled. All made possible by the renamer.
Quote from: ubacher on Today at 06:42:26 PMIn historic order (when they were added to the db)? But then you would do better having the sequence at the start of the file name so that you can use the normal sort order of Imatch (and windows file system).
Yes, great point, and one of which I realized as well, which is why I am going to appropriate the time information to create the sequence with scanned files. So, the beginning will be YYYY-MM-DD-hh-mm-ss. I will first used the hour to guess or approximate a time and use the minutes and seconds to organize the sequence. It is almost impossible to be sure what the exact time or sequence is of these historical photos, but I still want to try to tell a story with them.
Quote from: ubacher on Today at 06:42:26 PMI am interested how you
define the master/version relationship - does your naming convention make this easy? Do you have versions which in turn are masters of other files?
This thread (https://www.photools.com/community/index.php/topic,14101.msg99126.html#msg99126 (https://www.photools.com/community/index.php/topic,14101.msg99126.html#msg99126)) contains a lot of my latest thinking on the subject, but I need to hone it a little more. I need to work on this naming convention and then finally settle on a convention for providing dates to images with no known dates. After everything is named, then I can work on my versioning.
If you haven't already, you may want to do a search in the IMatch forums for 'approximate date' and/or 'unknown date'. There are several discussions that might be relevant.