File naming conventions?

[John Pilkington]

Perhaps the least interesting aspect of post processing is cataloging and generally keeping track of one's images; what, from replies to my previous post (Breaking free from Adobe?) I now know is conveniently referred to as Digital Asset Management. Software can help, of course, but fundamentally it seems sensible to organise and name the image files in a meaningful way. Would anybody be prepared to share comments on this?

Here are some thoughts.

1. Is it sensible to keep RAW files, DNGs etc separately from finished files, or is it better to locate RAW files and their finished counterparts in the same folder? Most likely a folder for each date on which I have used a camera.

2. RAW files I just keep with the camera name; ESG_1762.NEF or whatever. I am trying to work out a naming scheme for finished files. My objective is to retain the camera name so that it is easy to find the original file again; to include minimal information about the subject, and to indicate somehow the level of finishedness.

Thus, for subject I would include at least location, and I think of using that as a prefix. Level of finishedness I'm thinking of in three categories, "web", "print", "crop". "Crop" means I've just done post processing, probably but not neccessarily including a crop, but no sizing/sharpening for a particular medium. Other finishedess categories could be imagined.

This would yield filenames like Wakehurst_ESG_1762_web.jpg. Or, to give the tail of the path,
/2021-12-06/Wakehurst_ESG_1762_web.jpg

I like keywording but find it difficult to be consistent, whereas a file naming convention like this could give me consistency, making it easy to locate photos just by searching the file system, without any fancy DAM.

I know this is a dead bore, but I truly would be grateful to find out how friends at CiC tackle the problem.

Cheers!

John

[DanK]

I keep everything in folders by date, with short descriptions in the folder name, e.g., "2021_20_24 minuteman park".

I virtually never keep JPEGs. No need: I just re-export them from LR if I need them. I store only raw files and TIFFs from Photoshop or other external editors. I always keep the basic name from the raw file (or from Zerene, if I stack) and add to that, e.g., by adding a word or two about editing.

I use keywording only to a limited degree--less than I should. I also use collections. For example, if I pull together a set of photos for a demonstration of some sort, I create a collection in LR that has a virtual copy of the relevant images, which remain in their home folders.

I show files using Smugmug, and that allows me to find the original file names. I then search on the file name from the top folder level in Lightroom. That brings up every photo with that name or string, which can be quite a few if the cards have been reset. Right-clicking on any image gives you the option to view that photo in its folder. Choosing that option puts me right where I need to be, with all of the versions of that image lined up.

Dan

[John Pilkington]

Oh excellent, Dan. I had not thought of not saving JPEGs. I will need to meditate on that for a while ...

John

[John Pilkington]

Then, further to your suggestion, Dan, I suppose you maintain some kinds of Lr presets for the different "finishedness" states I was describing?

[DanK]

Then, further to your suggestion, Dan, I suppose you maintain some kinds of Lr presets for the different "finishedness" states I was describing?

No, I don't use presets much at all, and not at all for this purpose. There's no need. Once I get to the relevant folder by the method I posted, all of the photos are lined up next to each other in the LR film strip. For example:




You can see that the raw file at the far left is _6A4574.CR2. The photo immediately to the right (with the number 2) is the edited photo from photoshop; it's named _6A4574_EDIT.TIF. In this case, Photoshop adds the "EDIT" automatically (I don't know where that setting is), so I don't have to rename anything. If I'm going to do further edits but want to save this one, I'll rename the next one manually, e.g., _6A4574_EDIT_NIK.TIF. You can stack them in Lightroom, but I find that it's more convenient to have them lined up.

When I softproof in to print in Lightroom, LR will create a proof copy with the paper name and put it to the right of the image I'm proofing. So all of those are in line as well.

I find this approach easy and convenient.

[pschlute]

but I truly would be grateful to find out how friends at CiC tackle the problem.

1. You can keep your raw files anywhere. The important thing is to be able to find them again if you want to do more work on a finished image. For this reason I keep my raw/TIFF (working files)/JPEG all in the same folder by capture date.

Sometimes I rename my files, but not often. I do keep my finished jpegs including ones that have been specifically created for printing. Storage is cheap.

I tag finished jpeg images and also place them in Collections in LR. So if I want to find all pictures from a specific holiday; or of a subject like one of my dogs; or all images taken with a specific lens, I can view them all in a matter of seconds.

[Stagecoach]

Perhaps off topic somewhat but I have just learnt a major lesson with regard to file naming.

For the first time ever I was switching between 'M' (manual) and a 'User' bank during an event of which I took some 450 images. My reasoning for doing this was that whilst I normally shoot in 'Dynamic Area AF mode' I wanted to experiment with 'Auto Area Subject/Face/Eye mode' so had the 'User' bank 1 set for this to enable quick change.

On downloading the images and viewing, my first reaction was that they did not seem to be in order or that there were some missing. Unfortunately my 'User Settings' bank had a different colour space assigned and whilst this has no significance with my raw images the file naming is structured differently. One colour space has the '_' at the beginning, in the other it is prior to the file number so sequencing is lost.

So far the only way I can find to correct this is to manually alter approx. 30% of the files

[pnodrog]

I import (copy) into LR and use the default? date folders. If I want to look at images from a specific camera, lens, ISO etc I use the meta data filter. Nearly all my photographs are geotagged. Keywords are used extensively and I sometimes add sublocation or titles to the metadata.

Usually I go to develop using a virtual copy as I often crop to 16:9,16:10, 1:1 etc as when I am searching I like to see the original as well as the cropped version. I have several basic presets that I have saved and nearly always start my develop edit by applying one of them so that lens correction, basic sharpening, vibrance etc are set to a prefered default.

Only recently I have been exporting full size JPGs of photos that I deem acceptable to albums that I manage using Adobe Bridge. Previously photographs were exported as required.

I do not add exported photographs to my LR catalog.

P.S. The actual file name of the photograph is ever only changed if required on export as I always like to be able to easily locate the original RAW file. If the photographs name is changed there is usually enough info in the metadata to enable me to locate the original but for security and convenience I prefer to retain the original file name as long as possible.

P.S.S. New files as a result of Photoshop edits are usually saved in the original folder.
Over the years composite images made using Photoshop have been saved in a variety of folders in a manner that I now struggle to understand and I must get on to sorting them out....

[John Pilkington]

Thanks Grahame. That's a subtle one!

John

[John Pilkington]

Usually I go to develop using a virtual copy as I often crop to 16:9,16:10, 1:1 etc as when I am searching I like to see the original as well as the cropped version.

I had been wondering how Dan managed versions, but I think he makes it clear from his second post above. I am interested that you use virtual copies - which, I believe, are no longer supported in Lightroom but are in Lightroom Classic? Virtual copies may be agood way to support versioning if one were not saving JPEGs.

P.S.S. New files as a result of Photoshop edits are usually saved in the original folder.
Over the years composite images made using Photoshop have been saved in a variety of folders in a manner that I now struggle to understand and I must get on to sorting them out....

Frustration understood. The reason I am going through this exercise now is that I did a lot of photography 12 years ago when we published our book on wildflower meadows, but the interest has lain fallow since. I started up again in July this year and have accumulated enough photos to be concerned about management, but not so many that it is too late to start a different system. This conversation is very useful to me.

Cheers,

John

[pnodrog]

I had been wondering how Dan managed versions, but I think he makes it clear from his second post above. I am interested that you use virtual copies - which, I believe, are no longer supported in Lightroom but are in Lightroom Classic? Virtual copies may be agood way to support versioning if one were not saving JPEGs.



Frustration understood. The reason I am going through this exercise now is that I did a lot of photography 12 years ago when we published our book on wildflower meadows, but the interest has lain fallow since. I started up again in July this year and have accumulated enough photos to be concerned about management, but not so many that it is too late to start a different system. This conversation is very useful to me.

Cheers,

John

Yes I use Lightroom Classic and I use the virtual copy feature frequently.

It is only recently I have started creating and managing albums with what I class as final edits, cropped but at max resolution and quality sRGB, using Bridge. I find that when I want to produce a slideshow, book (personal use) or calendar it's far more convenient to start with a good choice of final images. The photos have the keywords assigned in LR but I edit them and add additional keywords with Bridge.

Sometimes I need to go back to LR in order to edit or recrop an image for some specific reason but it is easily done. Previously when doing a slideshow etc I would select my images using LR but I find selecting from the albums much more convenient. I am aware that LR has slideshow and book publication modules but apart from the print module I don't find them particularly user friendly. I must admit I haven't looked at the new versions.

[DanK]

I used to use virtual copies quite a bit, but I now use them less because I found I often lost track of which was which. I now generally use them for versions that are very different, e.g., B&W and color.

An alternative to virtual copies for minor revisions is the snapshot option in the history panel. You can name these whatever you want.

The history panel is clear enough that I sometimes don't bother with snapshots. For example, I usually crop to set an aspect ratio based on the image. That's what I would export to Smugmug, so the history panel has an "exported to Smugmug" marker in place. If I then want to crop to fit a standard frame, I just do that on top of the original edits. The original edit is marked, so I can go back to it easily.

For accumulating images for albums, demonstrations, or exhibits, I use the collections feature. It's extremely simple. Just create a collection with an appropriate name, go to a folder where a photo you want is parked, select the correct version, and drag it into the collection. The image stays in the folder where it's parked, but a virtual copy is placed in the collection, and you can work on these virtual copies as you wish.

If you print from Lightroom, as I do (even for images edited in Photoshop), Lightroom conveniently labels the soft proof copies (which are virtual copies) with the name of the paper profile, so if you use more than one paper for an image, all of the softproof copies are lined up and labeled automatically, right next to the base image.

In response to one part of this thread: I always have all versions of any image in the same directory. Years ago, I had software that put edits in a different place, but I had it set to create a subdirectory of the original directory. It would be impossible for me to find things if they were not in the original directory.

[John Pilkington]

Great insights, Dan. Thank you very much, I'll be taking some of that on board. I didn't know about snapshots; and creative use of the history panel makes a lot of sense. And I certainly hadn't understood that it is just a virtual copy that goes into the collection.

I don't really understand about soft proofing, I need to work on it.

John

[Manfred M]

As my work in post-processing started off long before the introduction of Lightroom, my workflow developed well before we had concepts like catalogs and virtual copies. My naming and storage conventions have always been based on file and directory structures and that still serves me well.

My upper level directory has four headings; Trips, events and projects, Models, Still Life and Miscellaneous. Within those structures I store by project name and below that sub-project. Everything else is by date.

As an example, under my trips,events and projects, I have a folder called India and South Asia. I have been there three times to date, so I have folders for 2014, 2015 and 2017. On the 2017 we spend time in Ladahk, Lathmar Holi, Delhi, Karnataka & Tamil Nadu as well as attending a birthday celebration for the son of one of our daughter's friends. I have a sub-directory for each. Everything is stored by data at the lowest level. Because this was a long trip, I have also created a consolidated folder for processed images, where I story my Photoshop master files and JPEG copies of these. For smaller projects, my worked files are stored in the folder where the original image can be found. I never rename the files and use the defaults, whether they be what my camera writes or when I use tethered capture, what the capture software (I use Capture One) creates.

Lightroom's (and others) virtual file system is a bit of a misnomer. The advantage of a parametric editor like Lightroom or Capture One is that they can store the parameters of each edit separately, so really a virtual file is a lot like version control, where you can store different versions of the same base data image in the same place; in the catalog or in the sidecar file. I don't use Lightroom for much (frankly only the map function to geolocate where the shot was taken) and delete the catalog immediate after I have finished with it. I do store different versions of Photoshop psd / psb files; they are large but storage is cheap when compared to what I did during the film days.

My final Photoshop output is my master file. If I print or send to a web-based location, I rework that master file and create the output and then throw away the working files. These only take a couple of minutes to produce, so on the rare occasion I need to redo something, I will start with the master file.

My usual tools are Adobe Bridge (as my asset management tool), Adobe Camera Raw (mostly identical to Lightroom's Develop Module, but more flexible) and of course Photoshop. I use other Adobe products in my workflow, so this makes more sense than using Lightroom.

I do a lot of printing (I suspect Dan and I are the most prolific members when it comes to that) and always print out of Photoshop because of the higher level of control I get.

[DanK]

Manfred's reply and mine are a good illustration of an important point: what works well for one person can be very different from what works well for another. Manfred and I use fundamentally different approaches, but what we do is what works well for each of us.

I wish I had been an onlooker to a thread like this many years ago--not because I would necessarily have followed in any one person's path, but because it lays out a lot of options.

Manfred--I am curious about your comment that ACR is more flexible than the Lightroom develop module. I use both, and the only practical difference that comes to mind is that Lightroom has a history panel, snapshots, etc. Am I missing something?

[Manfred M]

Manfred's reply and mine are a good illustration of an important point: what works well for one person can be very different from what works well for another. Manfred and I use fundamentally different approaches, but what we do is what works well for each of us.

I wish I had been an onlooker to a thread like this many years ago--not because I would necessarily have followed in any one person's path, but because it lays out a lot of options.

Manfred--I am curious about your comment that ACR is more flexible than the Lightroom develop module. I use both, and the only practical difference that comes to mind is that Lightroom has a history panel, snapshots, etc. Am I missing something?

The two main areas are that I can natively work in CMYK and L*a*b*. CMYK I rarely use (two years ago was the last time) , but I use L*a*b* fairly often, especially in files where the colour is solid and I will do a lot of dodging and burning; I prefer doing that with the L* channel.

[DanK]

The two main areas are that I can natively work in CMYK and L*a*b*. CMYK I rarely use (two years ago was the last time) , but I use L*a*b* fairly often, especially in files where the colour is solid and I will do a lot of dodging and burning; I prefer doing that with the L* channel.

I'm confused. Are you saying that ACR allows you to work in Lab mode? I didn't think it did.

BTW, I don't work in Lab mode much, although I too often do dodging and burning--and other tonality adjustments--on the L channel. I do it by using the luminosity blend mode in Photoshop, which yields essentially identical results. In fact, that's one of the main reasons I move images from LR into Photoshop.

[Manfred M]

It lets you natively export to the L*a*b* colour space to Photoshop.

[DanK]

Helpful. I didn't know that was there. But I just experimented, and it looks like this doesn't change the editing in ACR itself from RGB to Lab. It just puts the image into Lab when you close ACR and move to photoshop. Is that right?

If so, the only differences is that using Lightroom, one would have to convert to Lab after opening the image in Photoshop. Not a big deal, if that's the case: just image_mode_lab color.

[Manfred M]

Helpful. I didn't know that was there. But I just experimented, and it looks like this doesn't change the editing in ACR itself from RGB to Lab. It just puts the image into Lab when you close ACR and move to photoshop. Is that right?

If so, the only differences is that using Lightroom, one would have to convert to Lab after opening the image in Photoshop. Not a big deal, if that's the case: just image_mode_lab color.

The main difference that I have seen is for some highly saturated, deep colours. Doing the native workflow through ACR means that software has access to every pixel that the camera recorded. Doing so in Photoshop means we are using data that, at best, is a subset of the colours collected by the camera and adjusted to the gamut of the export colour space.

In theory, going directly from ACR is the preferred method, according to a couple of high end retouchers that I have asked. Both use the L*a*b* colour space for their high end work.

Does it make any practical difference. that I can't say for sure, but from a theory standpoint, the data would be cleaner.