Fast Picture Viewer Pro for fast cull before import into PSu?

[tstoddard]

gcorbin,

Out of curiosity, it doesn't appear to me that your script handles the case of multiple versions, e.g. raw + jpeg + tiff, etc... Is that not important to you?

Also, what about backup copies? Do you do anything to keep your backups named the same as the files in your catalog?

[gcorbin]

The script does not explicitly handle multiple versions but handles versions perfectly for me.

First, it is not really 'my' script. Hert wrote the original script which I adapted to my script to rename files based on the headline and now I have adapted to rename files based on the photo time. The smarts of keeping any XMP files associated with the photo after the rename is courtesy of Hert, so firstly, a big thank you to Hert for providing the guts of the script.

Now, back to your questions.

Out of curiosity, it doesn't appear to me that your script handles the case of multiple versions, e.g. raw + jpeg + tiff, etc... Is that not important to you?

I shoot RAW & JPG with my camera and import as a version set. The rename script handles this fine as long all files in the group you are renaming have the same number of versions which is what I always have. If you have three versions for every file, the rename script will rename all three versions correctly and each member of the version set will have the same sequence number. However, if you have photos with different number of versions, while the script will still work and rename all files to the correct format using the lowest possible sequence, members of the same version set will not always end up with the same sequence number, probably not the desired result.

Also, what about backup copies? Do you do anything to keep your backups named the same as the files in your catalog?

I don't keep backup copies in my workflow, so the script doesn't do anything for backup files. Logically, I would have thought for safety that backup files should not be touched irrespective of what you do with the working files, but I guess this depends on your point of view and workflow.

Bottom line is the script could definitely be enhanced to be version aware and always rename all members of the version set to the same sequence number so it supports differing numbers of versions in a single rename. It could also be enhanced to rename backup files at the same time, but this would need some thought and discussion on how this should work.

As I have said previously, scripts are possibly the most powerful function of PS as it allows you to automate tasks to make your workflow exactly as you require. It is an effort to create the script, but they are wonderful. My rename script, while not absolutely vital to my workflow, just makes things so much nicer when I use my photos outside of PS or share with others, both of which I do regularly.

[tstoddard]

I don't keep backup copies in my workflow, so the script doesn't do anything for backup files. Logically, I would have thought for safety that backup files should not be touched irrespective of what you do with the working files

I agree with this. My point was, if you use mirroring or using some other method of making backups during import, you would normally rename both copies alike so that you could find the original easily if you ever need it? If you save backups with the same name as the ones that you import into your catalog and then you start renaming the files in your catalog, your backups and "workflow" files will be out of sync. It may not be a big deal but I would think you'd want to keep them in sync.

I guess my point is that people might want to think twice about renaming files later in their workflow. It's just food for thought in case others are thinking about doing this.

[gcorbin]

Funny you should question renaming files. My current workflow ends with renaming the photos to the headline as this clearly shows the cataloguing is complete plus allows me to share photos externally with other applications and people with photos clearly identified by the headline (subject of photo), not a meaningless camera sequence name. While this works, I am starting to reconsider the need to rename my photos as the major benefit of as system like PS is to find your photos many different ways without worrying about file names or directory locations. Thus, the filename is actually irrelevent within PS. Renaming photo files actually makes things difficult if I want to merge directories.

I am thinking that what I actually should be doing is to leave the file names untouched and rename the copies when sharing. This makes more sense. I need to investigate this workflow further before committing to changing my current workflow.

[fbungarz]

Hi Gcorbin,
personally I can relate to your practice of renaming pictures using the headline so that file names are meaningful, especially if you share the photos with friends. Still, I don't think it is generally a good practice . In my opinion, file names should best be a unique identifier. Are you familiar with Peter Krogh's book on Digital Asset Management called the DAM book. While my personal workflow deviates from many of his recommendations I still think is worth reading. He makes some very convincing arguments against using subject matters as part of a file name.

And with respect to sharing files with friends & colleagues:
Do you know that you can have PSu attach XMP data like the headline onto a file name on the fly using the share button at the bottom of the application?
Also: Do you know that PSu makes it very easy to export all or part of your photo metadata to a CSV file, a table format with your file names and the data in the files?

I generally keep my file names very simple, just a prefix and a sequential file number. If I want to share the images with all their data with a colleague who cannot access the metadata I simply send the photos with a table that has the file names and relevant metadata.

However, if I just want to quickly share a file and make sure the file name includes some meaningful information, not just a code, I use the share button to append this to the file name.
This way I have both: a unique identifier for me and some meaningful file name for the person I share it with.

Cheers,
Frank

[PhilBurton]

I follow two approaches. For cataloging purposes, I use a date-based filename. When I export JPGs out of Lightroom, I use a filename based on the subject or the event, whatever will be meaningful to the recepients.

Phil

[gcorbin]

Frank,
I am aware of the DAM book but have not read it. I have read lots of websites/forums debating the 'correct' way to catalogue photos and they all quote the DAM book. I came up with my workflow many years ago when I thought I would do a lot more outside PSU than I have ever done. As I thought I would do a lot outside PSU, I renamed files to the headline to make photos easily findable outside PSU, but I reality, I almost never do this as I just use share or Locate in Windows Explorer.

Doing the rename script for Phil and considering what it could do has made me think that my workflower is probably very wrong and I should stop renaming files. I am aware of the share rename features and export XMP data features, but I don't use them at this stage. This might have to change sooner than later.

[fbungarz]

made me think that my workflow is probably very wrong

Actually, I don't think there is a right or wrong workflow, just one that best suits your needs. I still am revising my own workflow almost every day, it kind of evolves with the options that keep changing, the software, the cameras, etc.
And again I can completely relate: the way I did things years ago is completely different from the way I do things now. Its quite a learning process...

[Stephen]

I don’t want to get too much off track but this is my input on numbering. All images are renumbered according to this scheme when importing into PSu. The originals are archived and never touched:

yyyymmdd-hhmmss-9999.
9999 are the last 4 digits from the original file number.
The numbering scheme caters well if you use multiple cameras at the same time, in which case use the hhmmss to check the consecutive order.
Slight modification might be needed if you shoot lots of images per second.

Correction: 25 July 2017:
My last comment about needing modification if shooting lots of images per second is not be true because the original file number would increment for every shot, so all image names would indeed be unique.

[PhilBurton]

Frank,
I am aware of the DAM book but have not read it. I have read lots of websites/forums debating the 'correct' way to catalogue photos and they all quote the DAM book. I came up with my workflow many years ago when I thought I would do a lot more outside PSU than I have ever done. As I thought I would do a lot outside PSU, I renamed files to the headline to make photos easily findable outside PSU, but I reality, I almost never do this as I just use share or Locate in Windows Explorer.

Doing the rename script for Phil and considering what it could do has made me think that my workflower is probably very wrong and I should stop renaming files. I am aware of the share rename features and export XMP data features, but I don't use them at this stage. This might have to change sooner than later.

I read the DAM Book years ago, and my reaction then was, "The audience for this book is professional and serious amateur photographers who are not very knowledgeable about computer systems." For me, the value then was the idea of star-rating images.

I just glanced through the book again. For archiving, it's seriously out of date, since no one today would archive on DVDs, in preference to an external HDD. And certainly for members of this forum and more broadly for PSu users, I suspect that the only value would be in how to approach star rating.

This is not to take anything away from Peter Krogh's book.

Phil

[fbungarz]

Hi Phil,
I would not denounce Peter Krogh's stuff all that easily.
Again, I quite agree there is no right or wrong workflow. And I am not one of his disciples either. I do a lot of things quite differently from the way he advocates doing things. But in his defense: the first edition of Peter Krogh's book is from 2006, that is 10 years ago! of course it is out-of-date!

I agree, the original concept of using "DVDs" is pretty much useless now, but the concept of fitting images into "buckets" not necessarily so. In my case, I differentiate between images shot for different general purposes and within those sort them into their folders by date. Again, I would not advocate to follow any workflow suggestions slavishly, but it is not a bad idea to plan your workflow thoroughly - and that is one thing I learned from reading Peter Krogh's books.
I don't think what he says about naming conventions is outdated. On the contrary. Also, as you point out, his suggestions on rating and culling images is sound, good advice, and what he writes about efficient keywording, the use of labels.... Well, it is not how I do things, but it still helped me sorting things out and adopt a workflow that is useful to me.
So, I wouldn't just through it out of the window all that easily.

Besides, you may not know that already the second edition of his book (from 2009, still 7 years old now) discusses using hard disks instead of DVDs. OK, now you might argue that hard disk technology has since then much advanced, software too. Again, I don't think that is the point.

And now he has published what essentially amounts to a third edition: "The DAM guide to organizing your photos with Lightroom". Personally, I find it disappointing that he now advocates Lightroom so strongly as a tool for Digital Asset Management (I find it so much inferior to PSu and don't even use it as my raw editor). But then, in his first book he even suggested using iView MediaPro! That program, in my opinion, always was a complete disaster. No surprise it eventually was abandoned. PhaseOne is trying to resurrect it, but they don't seem to be too successful (and the way Capture One treats metadata I am not too surprised!).

Cheers,
Frank

[PhilBurton]

Hi Phil,
I would not denounce Peter Krogh's stuff all that easily.
Again, I quite agree there is no right or wrong workflow. And I am not one of his disciples either. I do a lot of things quite differently from the way he advocates doing things. But in his defense: the first edition of Peter Krogh's book is from 2006, that is 10 years ago! of course it is out-of-date!

It was not my intention to "denounce" Peter, just to set a context. He did a huge favor to the broader photo community with his book.

I agree, the original concept of using "DVDs" is pretty much useless now, but the concept of fitting images into "buckets" not necessarily so. In my case, I differentiate between images shot for different general purposes and within those sort them into their folders by date. Again, I would not advocate to follow any workflow suggestions slavishly, but it is not a bad idea to plan your workflow thoroughly - and that is one thing I learned from reading Peter Krogh's books.
I don't think what he says about naming conventions is outdated. On the contrary. Also, as you point out, his suggestions on rating and culling images is sound, good advice, and what he writes about efficient keywording, the use of labels.... Well, it is not how I do things, but it still helped me sorting things out and adopt a workflow that is useful to me.
So, I wouldn't just through it out of the window all that easily.

I don't. For people who have essentially no understanding of why to back up, how to do it, etc., his book is invaluable. For people with more experience, it's still a good reminder and a good starting point. I'm sorry if I came across so negatively. That wasn't my intention.

Besides, you may not know that already the second edition of his book (from 2009, still 7 years old now) discusses using hard disks instead of DVDs. OK, now you might argue that hard disk technology has since then much advanced, software too. Again, I don't think that is the point.

No I didn't know that.

And now he has published what essentially amounts to a third edition: "The DAM guide to organizing your photos with Lightroom". Personally, I find it disappointing that he now advocates Lightroom so strongly as a tool for Digital Asset Management (I find it so much inferior to PSu and don't even use it as my raw editor). But then, in his first book he even suggested using iView MediaPro! That program, in my opinion, always was a complete disaster. No surprise it eventually was abandoned. PhaseOne is trying to resurrect it, but they don't seem to be too successful (and the way Capture One treats metadata I am not too surprised!).

Cheers,
Frank

On this last point, the issue here is a symptom of a broader issue, which is that Photo Supreme is not that well known by the larger community, and Lightroom certainly is. To serve the larger community, a book about using Lightroom with his methodology is definitely good.

I find it frustrating when I read articles about DAM solutions and Photo Supreme is not mentioned, but vastly inferior products like Daminion are.
How to address this broader issues, that's a new thread. I will be happy to write up my ideas IF Hert invites me to. Otherwise, I might come across as "negative" or "carping" or "overcritical" or "unrealistic" or possibly advocating a direction that Hert has chosen not to follow.

But yes, in my "day job" as a software product manager, I definitely have some ideas.

Phil

[fbungarz]

OFF topic warning

On this last point, the issue here is a symptom of a broader issue, which is that Photo Supreme is not that well known by the larger community, and Lightroom certainly is. To serve the larger community, a book about using Lightroom with his methodology is definitely good.

Agreed. On the DAM forum I have read a couple of posts that Peter Krogh is quite aware of PSu, though. It would probably be a bit of a boost for PSu if he did not promote only Lightroom, but at least discuss some alternatives. I am sure, when iViewPro went out of business he must have tested quite a few alternatives. You are probably right why he chose to go with Lightroom. A win-win situation for him, from a marketing point of view. Still disappointing...

I find it frustrating when I read articles about DAM solutions and Photo Supreme is not mentioned, but vastly inferior products like Daminion are.

Yes, that annoys me as well. And: yes that is quite a different topic...
Frank

[rau]

I find it frustrating when I read articles about DAM solutions and Photo Supreme is not mentioned, but vastly inferior products like Daminion are.

What about Daminion causes you to assess it as "vastly inferior"?

[Stephen]

Sorry, still off topic, but the thread is mutating...

I think Krogh does mention PSu in his book and believe that is how I got here. My memory might not be correct. However, I have written to him begging that his future works are not too Lightroom-centric. Perhaps others might like to do the same, especially if they have bought his previous work His tips about file naming were invaluable to me and I now have a very good scheme, which is:
yyyymmdd-hhmmss-9999.
9999 are the last 4 digits from the original file number.

My original memory cards are cloned unchanged to a backup, so the original file number never changes and can be easily found (with the help of the date), regardless of how many hundred thousands of images I have - or how often the camera zeros and starts renumbering.

Does a file name really need to contain the subject name, which you might forget in 5 years? PSu will remember it. If you export (share) copies then you can change names at that time, but I mostly avoid changes as it saves hassle. I also automatically put the file name in the Headline AND Document Title on import