# Powerful batch search & replace on filenames & metadata



## vicimac (Apr 17, 2010)

One would have thought a powerful batch search+replace on filenames (or indeed all metadata) would be a basic necessity in Lightroom, but it's simply not a feature. Ideally this would include, at least:

a) replacing/deleting a specified string of characters 
b) replacing/deleting a range of characters defined by position
c) and, in a dream world, understanding the wildcard symbol *

Lightroom 2's extremely limited renaming panel certainly can't achieve any of this, and I can find no plug-ins that do so either. Not even John Beardsworth's "Search, Replace, Transfer" - which can search & replace within metadata but* not filenames*, and only handles option a). 

Example: a catalogue with 2',''' files where I've decided to change my naming conventions, and therefore need to delete or alter a string of text from part of the filenames, but leave the rest of the name intact. It could be a word (same on every file, eg changing RD to ROAD) - necessitating alteration of a specified string. Or it could be a variable (different on every file, but same length, eg YY/MM/DD to YY-MM-DD) - necessitating alteration of a defined range of characters. It's simple to do at system level (eg in Mac Finder) with a batch rename utility, but then Lightroom loses track of all the images and necessitates rebuilding the database from scratch.

For people working in a professional environment or dealing with lots of different outlets, naming conventions are often vital - and can change over time. Therefore the lack of this feature is pretty restrictive.


----------



## areohbee (Apr 17, 2010)

I agree it seems like a glaring omission. Plugins can not change filenames, so you're unlikely to see a plugin solve the problem unless the requisite support is added to the new release. Please submit a feature request using the form at top of page (I already did a fair while ago but it may help if you do too).


----------



## clee01l (Apr 17, 2010)

ViciMac, Welcome to the forum. I would not be too upset with LR on this point. First, a good workflow will decide up front on a solid file naming scheme. With that said, files will be renamed following these conventions on import and not after they are in LR. 

Second, LR maintains file names in the database and uses the OS functionality to physically change the name of the files. Renaming files is an OS file operation and LR merely uses the underlying OS to make these kinds of changes. Do keep in mind that LR has to change not only the physical name of the file through the OS but also simultaneously must update the database pointer referencing the file. 

And lastly in a well ordered world, file names are irrelevant. Only the OS needs to keep a pointer to a location that holds the file. All organisational, searching, and referencing can and should be done using keywords and other metadata.  Characters such as RD or ROAD have no useful purpose in the file name. 
As for my files names, I use the 8.3 naming convention that is a part of the JEITA DCF Standards. It relates directly back to the Camera that shot the image and it along with the rest of the EXIF tell me everything I need to know about the origin of the image


----------



## areohbee (Apr 17, 2010)

Sometimes considerations _outside_ Lightroom come to play _in_ Lightroom.


----------



## vicimac (Apr 17, 2010)

Hi there

Thanks both for such quick replies. Obviously I agree with areohbee, so I will submit a feature request as you suggest.

clee'1|, I knew someone would come straight in with the "file names are irrelevant" argument. I have read this one-sided view over and over and do not want to get sidetracked into it; however, I will, briefly. To quote you: "... in a well ordered world, file names are irrelevant … Characters such as RD or ROAD have no useful purpose in the file name." 

Descriptive file names may be irrelevant in your world, but please accept that in the worlds many people work in, they are not. To me, your own "file name" – clee'1| – is incomprehensible: it looks like a typo, and I can't even work out how to say it ("clee-oh-one-pipe?"). But in your world, it probably has some logic and meaning - it works for you. And descriptive file names work for me. 

I work in the worlds of art, design and journalism. I, and all my colleagues and clients, are picture and word people. It is very important to the visually-led work I do that the actual files are named descriptively; it helps non-techy people follow them, and it helps me with intuitive picture editing. The images get used in many places, not just Lightroom, and can't be reliant on metadata for vital info. And, as many have pointed out, the most robust and transferrable archiving system is a basic folder and file structure named to actually give, as briefly as possible, the vital info about a file. All I have to do is look at a file name (and I keep them short!) to know what's in it - and that's across thousands of files. 

Having, however, a techy and systematic bent too, I like all the descriptive file names to follow a system. But a naming system for a long-running creative project can often need changing as the project and its requirements evolve. This is certainly true in publishing, my particular field, where things are generally made up as they go along, and there's no way to plan in advance for, say, a magazine that involves an ever-changing roster of people and goes through many developments over the years. Batch-changing ROAD to RD was simply an example, but I can assure you there are plenty of times such an operation is necessary in my environment. 

I would just really like people who presumably work in a more hardwired, predictable environment than some of us do, to understand why descriptive file names ARE important to probably a large proportion of people in the creative industries - ie a lot of Lightroom's customer base - and you should just accept that it's a different, but equally valid way of file-naming, to your own. 

So, to slightly reword my original point, for people working in an *art, writing, editing and publishing* environment, naming conventions are often vital - and can change over time. Therefore the lack of a powerful batch rename feature in Lightroom is pretty restrictive.


----------



## vicimac (Apr 17, 2010)

Oh, one final point. Till now, I have been using iView Media Pro. It's a pretty basic lightbox programme, but even so has a batch search and replace file-naming function that's far better than Lightroom's, and renames files directly to disk. If iView can do it, it shouldn't be too hard for Adobe.


----------



## dj_paige (Apr 17, 2010)

[quote author=vicimac link=topic=9583.msg64774#msg64774 date=1271474433]
Oh, one final point. Till now, I have been using iView Media Pro. It's a pretty basic lightbox programme, but even so has a batch search and replace file-naming function that's far better than Lightroom's, and renames files directly to disk. If iView can do it, it shouldn't be too hard for Adobe.
[/quote]

Yes, there's no doubt Adobe has the technical ability do it. There are probably a gazillion requests on their list, all submitted by users, for Lightroom enhancements. They can't do them all, and the question really is, will they?

My guess: don't hold your breath. I don't think we are going to see major file renaming enhancements in Lightroom. In my opinion, this suggestion simply doesn't fit in the global "concept" of the Lightroom Library module, which is a database that works primarily via metadata, where the use of file and folder names as meaningful constructs is minimzed. This opinion of mine is based on absolutely zero information, and zero conversations with Adobe. It is a guess.


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 17, 2010)

[quote author=vicimac link=topic=9583.msg64774#msg64774 date=1271474433]
Oh, one final point. Till now, I have been using iView Media Pro. It's a pretty basic lightbox programme, but even so has a batch search and replace file-naming function that's far better than Lightroom's, and renames files directly to disk. If iView can do it, it shouldn't be too hard for Adobe.
[/quote]
Yes, file renaming is better in iView.

As for changing metadata, that's why I wrote my Search and Replace plug-in.

John


----------



## vicimac (Apr 17, 2010)

Ha! You are probably right, Paige. And I realise I am erring more to a Library / Digital Asset Management usage of Lightroom, ie as a USER of images, than the Darkroom / image editing side of Lightroom, ie as a MAKER of images (though I both make AND use photos). However so much of this program is so promising I would find this basic lack of data management incomprehensible. It is sorely needed for metaadata too, and EVERYBODY seems to use that.


----------



## vicimac (Apr 17, 2010)

[quote author=johnbeardy link=topic=9583.msg64783#msg64783 date=12715'3881]
As for changing metadata, that's why I wrote my Search and Replace plug-in.
[/quote]

Hi John - great to hear from you, your plug-in is excellent. I was so excited when I found it - it's wonderful that people like you create such powerful utilities for the benefit of the rest of us. But then I realised it couldn't change filenames, which is what prompted me to post here. From Rob Cole's helpful reply, I gather that this is because plug-ins can't actually change filenames. Bummer.


----------



## areohbee (Apr 17, 2010)

Photoshop may be 2' years old but Lightroom is only 3 - just a baby. It won't surprise me if they don't tackle a search & replace this year - lots of features will no doubt be left undone in the pursuit of better image quality for this year's release. Still, I won't consider Lightroom a mature product until they do - I consider the ability to rename one's files as needed to be core-level support for a professional grade photo management tool.

_*Warning*_: a plug for plugins follows - *do not read* if you're tired of hearing me talk about plugins:

Search & replace could easily be done with a plugin if the SDK just adds support for changing a photo file's _name_. Likewise, being able to change a file's _path_ would allow restructuring plugins to spring up...


----------



## dj_paige (Apr 17, 2010)

[quote author=vicimac link=topic=9583.msg64784#msg64784 date=12715'4'35]
Ha! You are probably right, Paige. And I realise I am erring more to a Library / Digital Asset Management usage of Lightroom, ie as a USER of images, than the Darkroom / image editing side of Lightroom, ie as a MAKER of images (though I both make AND use photos). However so much of this program is so promising I would find this basic lack of data management incomprehensible. It is sorely needed for metaadata too, and EVERYBODY seems to use that.
[/quote]

There have been many many calls and pleas for Adobe to add DAM features into Lightroom. You are not alone.

As we can see from Lightroom 3 Beta 2, they did add the ability to import videos into the Lightroom catalog; but other DAM features remain absent. I'm sure some of them will happen, as my crystal ball tells me so, I just can't predict which ones and when they will appear.


----------



## vicimac (Apr 17, 2010)

I just checked iView Media, and it keeps track of file names and paths on disk, which is another way of solving this problem. So, in iView you can simply rename a file on the HDD and this is automatically reflected in iView. And you can move files around on the HDD - even putting them in new folders - and it'll keep track of the path too. This means I can organize and rename files directly at system level, using whatever utility I like, and my iView catalog isn't screwed up - unlike Lightroom's. Amazing! I hadn't appreciated how good this feature was before, seeing as a giant company like Adobe doesn't implement it. But sadly sweet little iView (heart heart) can't handle the number of files and smart sets I now need to work with.


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 17, 2010)

That's only on Mac, and only with internal hard drives. It may have once happened in LR on Mac too (v1).

John


----------



## vicimac (Apr 17, 2010)

[quote author=johnbeardy link=topic=9583.msg6479'#msg6479' date=12715'7224]
That's only on Mac, and only with internal hard drives. It may have once happened in LR on Mac too (v1). John
[/quote]

Sigh. Maybe I should be looking at Apple's Aperture, but I ruled it out without even testing on the grounds that being so closely tied into the Mac OS was an extremely bad idea. That and the fact that the Aperture demo wouldn't run because I currently prefer to use OSX 1'.5, not 1'.6 (for compatability reasons which speed up my workflow) - case proved.


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 17, 2010)

Being tied to one brand of computer has big disadvantages too.

I'd also reflect on what Paige said "Lightroom... is a database that works primarily via metadata, where the use of file and folder names as meaningful constructs is minimised." In other words, use metadata rather than relying on too much on renaming files.

John


----------



## vicimac (Apr 17, 2010)

John, I take your point, but I work in an environment where not all users have time, ability or inclination to use the metadata, and where file names also do important work, eg so users don't need to peer into the file to see the most vital info. Kind of like looking at a record sleeve rather than playing the record (in the olden days). Re Macs, been using them for over 2' yrs and it works for me, so unlikely to change - but still need to take cross-patform issues seriously. I'm sure I'm not alone in all this.


----------



## dj_paige (Apr 17, 2010)

John's point, other than changing my spelling to the British version of "minimized", is that you work one way, and Lightroom works a different way. There's nothing inherently wrong with either way of working, but there is a mismatch.

And you need to recognize the mismatch, and that Adobe probably isn't going to move in the direction you wish (or it will move slowly), and perhaps other software will meet your needs better. Honestly, Lightroom wasn't meant to do everything for everyone.


----------



## areohbee (Apr 17, 2010)

vicimac - I recommend waiting 'til Lr3-final is released before making any decisions. As, Paige said: if there is no adequate way to rename files and this is something you need, it may be a deal breaker. I considered Aperture but it had 1 deal-breaker, so no deal there for me... (I considered CaptureOne & DxO too but they both had deal-breakers...) For me, Lightroom has more than one glaring omission but none that I haven't been able to work around - i.e. no deal-breakers) Anyway, Adobe _will_ be tossing in a few selected features before releasing Lightroom 3, and there _will_ be some new functions for plugins too... It'll be out soon


----------



## touchstudio (Jun 29, 2010)

BUMP...
Actually, there is always a need for searcha and replace (with filenames). I do a lot of e-commerce work for various clients, and deal with back-end database systems that need files to be named a specific way (and do NOT read any metadata). Sometimes the naming conventions are not set at the time of the shoot and need to be modified. iView Media Pro was great that I could change certain name things (like convert all "-" to "_" and little things like that. now, I have about 4'' items that need to be renamed, and I'm having to removing them from the library and re-import them after using an automator action. Not ideal...


----------



## areohbee (Jun 29, 2010)

Since this is a Lightroom Feature Request forum, and not a Plugin Feature Request forum, I'll refrain from off-topic discussion regarding potential plugin work-arounds - I will be posting about it in other forums though.

+1 vote: search & replace file renaming - native.

Rob


----------



## vicimac (Jun 30, 2010)

[quote author=areohbee link=topic=9583.msg69472#msg69472 date=1277847138]
Since this is a Lightroom Feature Request forum, and not a Plugin Feature Request forum, I'll refrain from off-topic discussion regarding potential plugin work-arounds - I will be posting about it in other forums though. Rob
[/quote]

Thanks for the pointer. Since the last thread I've done all my renaming in iView Media (still excellent for that task) then imported to LR. I've made much use of the powerful LR/Transporter plugin, which I couldn't have managed without, and occasionally the Search + Replace, Append, Transfer plugin, which has some differences. But I'm coming to hate the fact that native LR has so few fields that are searchable on or sortable on. Really you should be able to filter on all native metadata fields, and from every filtering menu. Currently they all offer varying options - it seems really random. I ended up doing a massive excel chart of all the fields available in Library / LR Transporter / Search + Replace, Append, Transfer, and which ones could be sorted on / filtered with / swopped between. Took forever and now I can't be bothered to use it! Doh.


----------



## areohbee (Jun 30, 2010)

I conjecture that the Lightroom Team thinks too much when it comes to choosing fields to support - I say: "just do 'em all" and let the users decide which ones make sense! Drives me crazy going down a long list, not finding the field I want, then going through it again, still not finding the field I want, etc... - finally accepting that the field I want was not deemed important to the Lightroom developer... Aaaarghhh....... I don't care how long the list is, as long as I know the field I want will be on it! (assuming its well organized of course...)


----------



## vicimac (Jun 30, 2010)

[quote author=areohbee link=topic=9583.msg6948'#msg6948' date=1277853763]
Aaaarghhh....... I don't care how long the list is, as long as I know the field I want will be on it! 
[/quote]

Yes! Exactly! So glad it's not just me. LR would be so powerful if ALL metadata was available for everything. Let the users work out how they want to use it!


----------

