# Best Image Naming Schemes?



## BoatPhotog (Feb 1, 2011)

I have recently moved to LR 3 from iPhoto 09 and am trying to pick a method for naming my images. From what I've read thus far most folks seem to favor a name that is date based. My problem is that I have 14,000 images in iPhoto that were named using a different naming convention and many of those images will wind up being moved into Lightroom. If I were to change from my old naming convention to a date based one I will end up with 2 different naming schemes which might be very confusing.

Presently I name my images like this:

D???R???- ???

The D refers to the folder # in which the images are stored as well as the DVD disk # that the image is archived to. The R # refers to the job being shot, and the final 3 digits refer to the image #.

While this is not a date based system the D and R numbers ensure that the folders are sorted in the order in which they are created and the image # does the same for keeping images sorted in the order in which they were shot. 

My real problem is that as someone new to Lightroom I don't understand the program well enough to know if retaining my old naming system will cause problems in Lightroom. Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Winston


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 1, 2011)

Winston

Personally, I would leave existing files named as they are, and adopt any new naming convention for images shot from now on. That means your backups will still correspond to the names of existing files. And you'll be relying on metadata like keywords to find your files - so it doesn't really matter if you have two filenaming conventions. 

I use a YYMMDD_1233 TextDescription convention for files, and the folder names include the DVD number, but I don't really have a problem with your existing method. As well as allowing sorting in order, does it also guarantee that different originals can never share the same filename? It sounds to me like it does, and that's another major criterion of a strong file name. If you want to stick with your current convention, Lightroom will be fine.

Also, maybe treat yourself to a copy of Peter Krogh's The DAM Book.

John


----------



## Mark Sirota (Feb 1, 2011)

I see no reason not to stick with your existing naming system.


----------



## erro (Feb 1, 2011)

Personally I import photos without changing their names, and store them in folders named:
YYYY/MM/DD/filename

Immediately after import I rename the files to:
YYYY-MM-DD HHMMSS seq#

Then I also add a short description to the filenames, so that a photo taken today shortly after 7 PM at Marks 37th birthday would be stored and named as:
2011/02/01/2011-02-01 190426 3185^ Mark turns 37.NEF

This way I can always get back to the original filename as created by the camera (DSC_3185.NEF), plus I have a natural sorting order by date and time for exported JPG-filenames, plus I have a basic searching functionality by the descriptive filename, all of which also work outside of Lightroom.

As for DVD-backups...... no, I backup to a USB-disk. DVD's are way to small in capacity.


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 1, 2011)

DVD's or other higher-capacity media like BlueRay are not subject to being overwritten and therefore have a place in a backup strategy. I recommend them, as well as backup to hard drive

John


----------



## clee01l (Feb 1, 2011)

I think you will find that most people do not bother renaming master image files and most people utilize one of the 'date naming' folder schemes that are available on Lightroom Import. I would not bother renaming your existing master images nor would I recommend using anything but the in camera generated names for future imports. It is a waste of effort to try to build some kind of intelligence and logic into file naming schemes.   In the grand scheme of things, file names are not important to Lightroom (and they probably should not be important to you).  The only thing critical about naming is from the OS perspective that two files can not reside in the same folder path with the same name. 

What you will do if you use LR effectively is make extensive use of multiple keywords and effective use of Lightroom's collections.  An image can have more than one keyword and a single keyword can be assigned to more than one image. Also, an image can reside in more than one collection.   This is dramatically different from an image file that can have only one name and can only reside in one folder.  Take some time to become familiar with LR's methods for image asset management before you jump in and start cataloging images.


----------



## BoatPhotog (Feb 1, 2011)

John,

My present system does ensure that no two files can have the same name so in that respect it's workable. As renaming the images I already have would be a task of huge proportions I was happy to hear that I can retain it and at the same time move to a more date based system such as Krogh advocates in his DAM book. I did, in fact, purchase the book but while I am very impressed with it it's really tough for me to find the time to read and understand Krogh's thoughtful approach and the images are really starting to pile up in the meantime. Not sure why, but I am finding LR's organizational structure confusing.

Recently, for instance, I imported  a few hundred images into LR 3. When I checked the folders at a later date I discovered that I'd mistakenly left the Into Subfolders box checked. Now the folders I imported into have a subfolder in them, worse yet, it has the name of a subfolder I created for an entirely different import.  I've tried moving the photos in the subfolder into the main folder so that I can then delete the subfolder but get the message that it already contains them. When I then removed the subfolder itself the main folder no longer showed the images. Any idea what's wrong here and how to fix it?


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Feb 1, 2011)

The other reason a lot of users choose a date based folder and filename structure, is that it's easy to back up new images.  It sounds like you already have that covered with your existing naming, so I wouldn't be too concerned.  You can always stick with your current naming at the moment, and then change it later once you fully understand how it works.

As far as your folder problem goes, I'd go to Library menu > Show Photos in Subfolders and turn that off.  That will make it clear exactly which folder the photos are in, as sometimes the composite views can throw you.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Feb 1, 2011)

I don't understand why so many people are suggesting changing the existing scheme.  It seems very straightforward.  I'd continue to use it going forward if I were you, for at least as long as you stick with your DVD archive scheme to which it is tied.


----------



## Replytoken (Feb 2, 2011)

clee01l said:


> I would not bother renaming your existing master images nor would I recommend using anything but the in camera generated names for future imports. It is a waste of effort to try to build some kind of intelligence and logic into file naming schemes. In the grand scheme of things, file names are not important to Lightroom (and they probably should not be important to you). The only thing critical about naming is from the OS perspective that two files can not reside in the same folder path with the same name.


 
Cletus,

While I agree that the OP should not rename his existing master files, I have a different take on file naming in general. Granted, I agree that LR does not care about a file name or its location. But, once a file is exported outside of LR, file naming can be very helpful, and I do not find the default camera numbering scheme that useful. For example, I maintain four separate LR catalogs that are completely discrete (personal vs. work vs. pro bono etc...), and derivitive files from these catalogs are often uploaded to cloud storage/sharing sites. Having a 3-letter client code in my file naming is very useful for quick identification. And, it is helpful if a client is also working with other photographers, or if I am having to handle their images on behalf of a client. And, while I do believe that Nikon will allow me to modify the camera's file naming structure, it is much easier to let ImageIngester handle this task on import and backup. It may not be for everybody, but it works for me.

--Ken


----------



## clee01l (Feb 2, 2011)

Replytoken said:


> Cletus,...But, once a file is exported outside of LR, file naming can be very helpful...


 Yes, Exports are a very different animal.   Once outside the LR database, the only visual information available to the viewer is what intelligence you build into the file name.  While most of that information can be contained in an Export file's EXIF, you have to open the file for read to see it.  All of my export image files have a different name from the master.  And I always include the first 8 characters of the master file name in the Export name to always have a visual link back to the master.   Still for that reason, perhaps more than any other, short (8.3) file names are best.    Most OS have some physical length limit on path and name, and a very long file name at the end of an even longer path can push you over the OS limitations.   Keep it short and sweet is always a good policy.


----------



## Replytoken (Feb 2, 2011)

clee01l said:


> Still for that reason, perhaps more than any other, short (8.3) file names are best. Most OS have some physical length limit on path and name, and a very long file name at the end of an even longer path can push you over the OS limitations. Keep it short and sweet is always a good policy.


 
I agree.  While I do not keep my names to 8 characters, they are reasonably short - containing the date, a 3-letter client/catalog code (and I only use 4 discrete catalogs), and a 5-digit serial number.  Anything beyond that (exif data, keywords and/or collections, etc.) should be handled by LR.

--Ken


----------



## erro (Feb 2, 2011)

I rename my files as I replied earlier. I can use the filename outside of LR for date/time sorting. I can also use it for quick searching of "main event" so to speak.

Another benefit with file renaming is that you can add text to an existing filename. I don't believe that is possible with the metadata fields.

Example: after coming home from a long vacation trip to Malaysia I will rename my files like this:

1. Import without renaming (DSC_6271.NEF)
2. Batch rename all files with date, time and sequence number (2010-02-18 210425 6271.NEF)
3. Batch rename all files based on the "main event" (2010-02-18 210425 6271^ Malaysia vacation.NEF)
4. Batch rename some files based on "main location" (2010-02-18 210425 6271^ Malaysia vacation (Kuala Lumpur.NEF)
5. Batch rename some files based on "minor location" (2010-02-18 210425 6271^ Malaysia vacation (Kuala Lumpur, Hilton Hotel).NEF)

Then when I share these photos with my travel-mates, it's easy to see when/where/what.

Of course, I also add the information in step 3/4/5 as hierarchial keywords. The file-renaming is mostly for "outside LR" purposes, while the keywords are for "inside LR" purposes.


----------



## BoatPhotog (Feb 3, 2011)

Cletus D. Lee ... are you the guy who used to post on Bentrideronline? Small world isn't it?

All best,
Winston


----------



## BoatPhotog (Feb 3, 2011)

Mark,

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my present naming scheme. It has worked very well for me since I switched from film to digital 2 years ago allowing me to instantly locate the appropriate DVD archive when necessary while at the same time allowing my clients to order images based upon an easily copied image number. I am currently reading the Dam book (love that title) and am very impressed with what I am encountering so I may eventually switch to a different naming scheme by for now it would appear I'm safe with my old one.

All best,
Winston


----------



## henk86 (Feb 3, 2011)

I would normally use the default naming structure when doing importing and add in the theme wording to the folder for example DD/MM/YY DSC or what ever it is and followed by the theme or category name likes "Outdoor building" or so.


----------



## Replytoken (Feb 4, 2011)

henk86 said:


> I would normally use the default naming structure when doing importing and add in the theme wording to the folder for example DD/MM/YY DSC or what ever it is and followed by the theme or category name likes "Outdoor building" or so.



I am curious as to how you would name an image that might fall into two or three themes or categories?

--Ken


----------



## DoorGuy500 (Feb 5, 2011)

Good thread, I'm back to Lightroom again. Actually been here since it started, just haven't been around visiting lately. Victoria was GREAT help when I had problems a couple years ago. Now I'm trying to avoid a potential problem in naming conventions.

I've been shooting with my Canon 20D for many years now. I had a 5D Classic briefly before an unfortunate visit to a watery ... well, the camera is gone and has been a couple years now. So sad... 

Now I've recently added two new cameras to my bag, Canon 7D and the Canon 5Dm2. When I start the import process, I see I have basicaly the same numbers from the memory card as I had a few years ago when the other two camera's were new. I usually just keep track of the photos by keeping the original filename from the camera and then keep them in date based sequences on my hard drive and server. 

I use lightroom to stay organized and use a 3rd party cataloging system to find lost photos (SuperCat 4.4) and keep track of my hard drives, CD's, memory cards and DVD's. I prefer to keep the duplicate file names to a minimum, but it looks like if I continue down the path I'm on, I'll develop at least 3 or 4 files identical names from the 4 camera's I either now own or have sent off to the great camera land above..... 

Any suggestions I should consider would be appreciated!

John


----------



## dj_paige (Feb 5, 2011)

I think Lightroom is smart enough to know that files with the same name, but different capture time, are different photos. Sometimes, the programmers at Adobe get it right.


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 5, 2011)

dj_paige said:


> I think Lightroom is smart enough to know that files with the same name, but different capture time, are different photos.


 But humans often aren't....

John


----------



## MoreThanWords (Feb 6, 2011)

Hi Cletus, I agree with you that for exported files, it's more convenient to have information in the file name itself. But, I also find it handy to have my exported files carry - as much as possible - the same name as the originals: in case a client asks to change a file, or orders a file or whatever, it's handy if the names he's using correspond to what I have in my LR Catalog. So I'll use the same scheme or at least one that unambiguously lets me find the image in the catalog based on whatever filename the client gives me... I guess the need for this will depend on whether you expect to hear back from people you give jpg's to.



clee01l said:


> Yes, Exports are a very different animal.   Once outside the LR database, the only visual information available to the viewer is what intelligence you build into the file name.  While most of that information can be contained in an Export file's EXIF, you have to open the file for read to see it.  All of my export image files have a different name from the master.  And I always include the first 8 characters of the master file name in the Export name to always have a visual link back to the master.   Still for that reason, perhaps more than any other, short (8.3) file names are best.    Most OS have some physical length limit on path and name, and a very long file name at the end of an even longer path can push you over the OS limitations.   Keep it short and sweet is always a good policy.


----------



## erro (Feb 6, 2011)

I also agree that there are times when you want short, original filenames that also don't contain any special extra information. And then there are times when you want the actual filename to carry information that allows someone to identify what is in the photo without actually looking at the image.

I import files with original filenames, and then I rename them once inside LR. This way I can export with different file naming conventions:
- "original filename" to get "DSC_8261.JPG"
- "filename" to get "2009-04-23 175218 8261^ the Eiffel tower.JPG"

The original sequence numer 8261 I keep also in the renamed filename in order to have backwards searchability to the original.

I suppose there are also differencies between working rofessional photographers needs, and the needs of amateur hobby photographers like myself.


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 6, 2011)

erro said:


> I suppose there are also differencies between working rofessional photographers needs, and the needs of amateur hobby photographers like myself.


 
I don't think that's true. People who make their living from photography are often very amateur with such things, often continuing with methods that have worked (or haven't broken) in the past and not having the ability or time to stand back and improve their back office procedures. Amateurs are often more professional individuals.

John


----------



## designweb0111 (Feb 6, 2011)

Interesting discussions... I always prefer to name my files with a four letter character combination to describe the photo, along with a sequential numbering system (with 3 digits).  Apart from this, I used to store my photos in a folder structure with year/month/week tree.  By the way, it is completely up to us to formulate a convenient naming system... only thing is that it should not make us messed up.


----------

