Looking for a quick photos' naming/labeling software

In article ,
wrote:

Hi all,

Nowadays where taking photos became very easy (from your camera, smartphone,
webcam ...), I take hundred of pictures a month.

Unfortunately, I have no time to label all my photos correctly. I drop the
photos in folders named with the date, place and a quick summary about what
it is about.
I recently did a search and wanted to find a specific person on a photo which
was taken at a specific date and it took me a while because the file name had
not been personalized.

Do you know any kind of software which would automate file naming ?

I explain what I mean.

By using a tag system that you defined yourself:

* you tag all the photos taken in Los Angeles with "Los Angeles" tag,

* you tag the character name with the label "John Smith" if it's him,

* and of course, if you want the date / GPS coordinate, the software will
find them itself from the EXIF fields.

According to all this informations, the software will automatically name the
labeled photos like this:

2013-08-15 - Los Angeles - John Smith.jpg

Do you know a software doing that kind of thing ?

Yes and no. First off, what if you have two persons in the picture? Or
ten?

iPhoto/Aperture does all of this automatically. Automatic face
detection, and automatic city tagging based on GPS. You don't have to do
a thing. And works even when there's more than one person in the picture.

This way, you get a nice view of all the people you have in your library
(or album/project), like this:

http://sandman.net/files/faces.png

And also a map of all the countries, provinces, cities and places you've
taken pics at:

http://sandman.net/files/places.png

Of course, you can create smart folders that contain any combination of
this, like he

http://sandman.net/files/tina_fuerteventura.png

You can pick your source, like a project or album, or the entire albu,.
You can add any searchable parameter, like "photos of Tina shot on the
Canary Islands with my 85mm lens that I've rated more than three stars"
and so on.

In the end - this doesn't rename your actual files, because this is
about the images, not the files. Why do you want to change the file
names?



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
wrote:

iPhoto/Aperture does all of this automatically.

I had a look on the web and on your screen shots and these tools seem great
but I forgot to tell that I am working under Windows 7 and I found not
Windows port.

No, they are mac-only. I don't know if there is any free software
(iPhoto is free, comes with every Mac) that does this, especially not
for Windows.

Why do you want to change the file name ?

I had 2 disks crashes in 25 years and when you try to recover the files,
having the files named properly greatly help.

Oh, well. Then my best advice is; Get a Mac, fast. You buy a nice Mac
laptop and a Time Machine that is also a wifi router, then you have
every-hour automatic backup and you get iPhoto that will sort and deal
with all your images automatically and effortlessly. And all data will
always be backed up so you can restore it when and if bad things happen.

File naming isn't a safeguard against disk crashes, proper backup is

When (or rather, if) your Mac disk crashes, you just insert a new blank
disk, start it in install mode and install the operating system again on
the new disk, and during the install process it will ask you if you want
to start from new or restore from another Mac, a backup disk or a Time
Machine. Click Time Machine and wait while it copies your entire
previous setup to the disk, and when it's done, you're up and running as
if nothing had happened.

Obviously a HUGE time saver.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
wrote:

I forgot to mention that most of the image organizers store the metadata in a
separate database file which can easily be corrupted or unlinked from your
pictures' directory structure.

anything can get corrupted. that's why you make backups. also, the
database file won't become unlinked in normal use. you have to work at
it for that to happen.

On 8/17/2013 11:31 AM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

I forgot to mention that most of the image organizers store the metadata in a
separate database file which can easily be corrupted or unlinked from your
pictures' directory structure.

anything can get corrupted. that's why you make backups. also, the
database file won't become unlinked in normal use. you have to work at
it for that to happen.


Agreed. I had tried an early version of LR, I don't remember if it was 2
or 3. I didn't like it. Evan after I uninstalled the program vestiges
kept coming up. I finally did a manual registry clean and physical
deletion of folders.

LR is a good program, but just doesn't seem to help my workflow.



--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I forgot to mention that most of the image organizers store the metadata
in a separate database file which can easily be corrupted or unlinked from
your pictures' directory structure.

anything can get corrupted. that's why you make backups. also, the
database file won't become unlinked in normal use. you have to work at
it for that to happen.

Agreed. I had tried an early version of LR, I don't remember if it was 2
or 3. I didn't like it. Evan after I uninstalled the program vestiges
kept coming up. I finally did a manual registry clean and physical
deletion of folders.

what does that have to do with database corruption?

LR is a good program, but just doesn't seem to help my workflow.

that's fine, but i don't think you've given it a fair shake.

On 8/17/2013 12:03 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I forgot to mention that most of the image organizers store the metadata
in a separate database file which can easily be corrupted or unlinked from
your pictures' directory structure.

anything can get corrupted. that's why you make backups. also, the
database file won't become unlinked in normal use. you have to work at
it for that to happen.

Agreed. I had tried an early version of LR, I don't remember if it was 2
or 3. I didn't like it. Evan after I uninstalled the program vestiges
kept coming up. I finally did a manual registry clean and physical
deletion of folders.

what does that have to do with database corruption?

You brought up the issue. Iagree with you. You attack. Wow!



LR is a good program, but just doesn't seem to help my workflow.

that's fine, but i don't think you've given it a fair shake.

And the basis for your conclusion is?




--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I forgot to mention that most of the image organizers store the metadata
in a separate database file which can easily be corrupted or unlinked
from your pictures' directory structure.

anything can get corrupted. that's why you make backups. also, the
database file won't become unlinked in normal use. you have to work at
it for that to happen.

Agreed. I had tried an early version of LR, I don't remember if it was 2
or 3. I didn't like it. Evan after I uninstalled the program vestiges
kept coming up. I finally did a manual registry clean and physical
deletion of folders.

what does that have to do with database corruption?

You brought up the issue. Iagree with you. You attack. Wow!

you brought up uninstalling lightroom and registry cleaning. what does
that have to do with database corruption? nothing whatsoever. why did
you even mention it?

LR is a good program, but just doesn't seem to help my workflow.

that's fine, but i don't think you've given it a fair shake.

And the basis for your conclusion is?

what you've posted.

lightroom might be a little different than your current workflow but it
offers a *lot* of advantages. if you immediately dismiss it, then you
won't ever see the advantages.

On 2013-08-17 08:55:30 -0700, PeterN said:

On 8/17/2013 11:31 AM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

I forgot to mention that most of the image organizers store the metadata in a
separate database file which can easily be corrupted or unlinked from your
pictures' directory structure.

anything can get corrupted. that's why you make backups. also, the
database file won't become unlinked in normal use. you have to work at
it for that to happen.


Agreed. I had tried an early version of LR, I don't remember if it was
2 or 3. I didn't like it. Evan after I uninstalled the program vestiges
kept coming up. I finally did a manual registry clean and physical
deletion of folders.

LR is a good program, but just doesn't seem to help my workflow.

Lightroom has simplified my cataloging and arranging.
All of my imports into LR are filed by capture date. I apply some
general keyword(s) (location, event, trip, project) at import and more
specific ones later. It is easy to rate the individual images
Once that is done I can, and do rename the folders(with the date
included) for easier identification. Then it is a simple matter to
create "Quick collections", "Smart collections" (based on whatever
criteria you establish), or plain old "Collections".

....and Lightroom runs a regular backup protocol. Also on import, it can
write duplicates to a second or third drive for backup purposes.

Integration with Photoshop is simple, access to the plugins I use is
seamless, I find the two go hand in glove.

....and I know LR doesn't have the face recognition the OP desires, and
he has settled on Picasa for now, but I suspect that Picasa might choke
on the quantity of files he intends to feed it.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Lightroom has simplified my cataloging and arranging.
All of my imports into LR are filed by capture date. I apply some
general keyword(s) (location, event, trip, project) at import and more
specific ones later. It is easy to rate the individual images
Once that is done I can, and do rename the folders(with the date
included) for easier identification. Then it is a simple matter to
create "Quick collections", "Smart collections" (based on whatever
criteria you establish), or plain old "Collections".

All my photos in LR are also filed by capture date and the file names
represent that: 2013-08-17-01, for example. Any other aspect to be
retrieved is done by keyword.

lightroom can sort by capture date no matter what the name is.

The only thing that is different about my system is that images are
downloaded to C: drive under one folder for the year in which they
were shot and then imported in LR.

that's fine. lightroom doesn't care.

I do it that way because no one else in my family even knows what LR
is, let alone how to use it or what the desktop icon means. They do
know how to use a folder/file system to find and view or print images.
If I'm not around, I've left them a system they can work with.

No one has evidenced any interest in learning about it.

and because of that you lose the advantages of using lightroom. worse
you insist everyone do it your way when they have no such restrictions.

On 2013-08-17 14:50:03 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 14:21:25 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-08-17 08:55:30 -0700, PeterN said:

On 8/17/2013 11:31 AM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

I forgot to mention that most of the image organizers store the metadata in a
separate database file which can easily be corrupted or unlinked from your
pictures' directory structure.

anything can get corrupted. that's why you make backups. also, the
database file won't become unlinked in normal use. you have to work at
it for that to happen.


Agreed. I had tried an early version of LR, I don't remember if it was
2 or 3. I didn't like it. Evan after I uninstalled the program vestiges
kept coming up. I finally did a manual registry clean and physical
deletion of folders.

LR is a good program, but just doesn't seem to help my workflow.

Lightroom has simplified my cataloging and arranging.
All of my imports into LR are filed by capture date. I apply some
general keyword(s) (location, event, trip, project) at import and more
specific ones later. It is easy to rate the individual images
Once that is done I can, and do rename the folders(with the date
included) for easier identification. Then it is a simple matter to
create "Quick collections", "Smart collections" (based on whatever
criteria you establish), or plain old "Collections".

All my photos in LR are also filed by capture date and the file names
represent that: 2013-08-17-01, for example. Any other aspect to be
retrieved is done by keyword.

I use the Lightroom dated folder label and add my specific event,
location, project when I rename.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_282.jpg

The only thing that is different about my system is that images are
downloaded to C: drive under one folder for the year in which they
were shot and then imported in LR.

C: drive! who uses a C: drive? I am driving a Mac. ;-)

I have a Lightroom folder on my hard drive which was created when I
installed Lightroom. In that folder are the following:

Backups folder; those are the routine backups of the LR Catalog files.
The Catalog Previews file: "Lightroom 4 Catalog Previews.lrdata"
The Catalog file: "Lightroom 4 Catalog.lrcat"
The Journal file: "Lightroom 4 Catalog.lrcat-journal"
The Lock file: "Lightroom 4 Catalog.lrcat.lock"
....and then there is a folder labelled "Lightroom Import & Adjust" this
contains a folder created by LR for each year of imports. All movement
of images into various "Collections" is done virtually and recorded in
the catalog files.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_283.jpg


I do it that way because no one else in my family even knows what LR
is, let alone how to use it or what the desktop icon means. They do
know how to use a folder/file system to find and view or print images.
If I'm not around, I've left them a system they can work with.

No one has evidenced any interest in learning about it.

Are they trying to tell you something?


--
Regards,

Savageduck