# Is it really that necessary to rename files on import???



## David Malinowski (Apr 17, 2012)

Hi All,

I'm relatively new to LR and I've read lots of conflicting views about changing filenames from your camera's default naming system. For example changing 'IMG_9764.CR2' to something like 'house_party_2012_03_0031.dng' to presumably make it easier to track down outside of LR.

I'm now at a point where I'm more comfortable with importing all of my photographs into LR but my head is telling me NOT to change the default naming system from my camera. I used to be a PC user and my photographs are extremely well organised in folders and sub-folders so I can't see why I would need to think of a new naming system when I can easily add keywords after import if needed.
I've never had trouble in the past with finding my images but now LR has a function to batch rename on import I'm confused on whether or not I have to do it???
My recent test imports have included a naming system that I read somewhere in a tutorial book but the filenames are quite long and to be honest it takes me ages to think of suitable custom names! This is really frustrating when all I want to do is import and edit my work.

I guess the main point of this post is to find out whether I would be making a BIG mistake NOT to rename all of my images when bringing them into LR? If I choose not to rename my files will this cause major problems in the future using LR?

Sorry for the long post and I do hope it makes sense to everyone. Any advice would be appreciated...

Cheers, David


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 17, 2012)

David, that's one of the questions to which there's no right answer, merely different opinions.

Personally I don't think you'd be making a big mistake in not renaming, if you can't think of a good reason to do it then why do it? Although I *do *rename on import, all I do is add the capture date prefix (so IMG_nnnn.CR2 becomes yyyymmdd_IMG_nnnn.CR2, though this is already set up so happens automatically)....and that is only because I have two camera bodies which employ the same numbering scheme and I just want to avoid any possible conflict. Unlikely, but remotely possible. If it wasn't for that I wouldn't bother at all.

It all depends on how you feel about stuff like that, as I said I don't think there's a 'right or wrong'....just do what you're most comfortable with.


----------



## David Malinowski (Apr 17, 2012)

That's good to know, thanks Jim


----------



## clee01l (Apr 17, 2012)

I do not rename files on import.  I do use one of the default LR date named folder schemes so that even if my camera produced duplicate file names, these duplicate files would be in a different date named folder path.  IMO time spent on import thinking up clever folder names and file names can be put to better use applying meaningful keywords to each image.   LR does not use the file name to identify each image in the catalog but instead creates a unique key. It does record the name the camera or user chooses for the users reference.

Where I find renaming files useful is on Export where the derivative file needs to be associated with the master and identified without the benefit of a catalog database to manage the exported file.


----------



## David Malinowski (Apr 17, 2012)

Thanks Cletus. Please can you show me what your typical filenames looks like with a default date added so I know what to set-up in LR?
Cheers!


----------



## erro (Apr 17, 2012)

I import files without renaming, but then I rename once the photos are imported. The reason? Several:

- LR has internal metadata for "original filename". If you rename *during *import, LR will use the new filename as "original", and you have no way of getting back to the real original filename. Since I import without renaming, I can always revert back to the real original filename. Or I can use the real original filename in other renaming operations.

- I rename to make sure I have unique filenames. I personally have several cameras. I often swap photos with friends, for example while on vacation trips together. Since I let LR copy all photos for one day into an automatically created day-folder (YYYY\MM\DD) I want to make sure all files have unique names.

- Since I often swap photos with others, who are not very computer-savvy, it is really helpful for them (and myself sometimes) to have the photos named with date, time and a short description. It makes sorting easy, and it makes finding photos from that trip to Barcelona easy for them, since they are mostly using Windows Explorer as their photo browser. Plus it acts as a quick, first step, keywording in the filename.

So, my setup is this:
- Import without renaming (for example "DSC_4184.NEF")
- Once in LR, rename to YYYY-MM-DD hhmmss original_seq# (for example "2012-04-17 133812 4184.NEF"). This makes all files unique down to a second, and with the original sequence-number as well. The odds for two cameras to take a photo at the same second and with the same sequence# are low.
- Rename further with some "major" description (for example "2012-04-17 133812 4184^ trip to Barcelona.NEF"). The reason for the ^ is so that I can search for that character, to see if I have any photos that have missed this renaming step.

Works great for me, not necessarily for others.

_Edit: I do all this as batch renaming, so it just takes a few seconds._


----------



## David Malinowski (Apr 17, 2012)

Thanks for the informative reply Robert. Although unfortunately I don't think your naming system would work for me...I have a real thing for long filenames, sorry mate


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 17, 2012)

Folder structure (created automatically by LR during import) and corresponding file names (done on import, no need to do it after import as the original camera-generated file name is still there):


----------



## David Malinowski (Apr 17, 2012)

TNG said:


> Folder structure (created automatically by LR during import) and corresponding file names (done on import, no need to do it after import as the original camera-generated file name is still there):
> 
> View attachment 2140



May I ask why you add a date even though that info is imbedded into the file???


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 17, 2012)

As I said, I have two bodies using the same file-name format.....so it's entirely possible that without any renaming whatsoever then I would have files in my catalog with the same name. Not a problem, file-name is not usually a criteria I use for finding images in my catalog. However, there's a reasonable chance that I could end up including files with the same name in one of my publish services collections and this would result in the output name of the second of the 'same name' files being given a '-2' suffix, which would then break the link between original file and exported derivative. I'd prefer that didn't happen, so I prefix each file with the capture date.....of course, if I was really thorough I'd also include the capture time as well to offset the possibility of the same file name being used by both cameras on the same day. I keep telling myself to do that but haven't got round to it, and in fact as I shoot far far more with one particular camera that 'same day, same file name' risk becomes less and less. But the 'same file name, same collection' is more of a risk, so I add the date. Costs me nothing in terms of effort.


----------



## David Malinowski (Apr 17, 2012)

Great, Thanks Jim! I only have one camera so maybe it's not important for me to add a date then??


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 17, 2012)

Not imperative, no.....but advisable maybe? What happens when you change your camera and stay with the same manufacturer?

But sure, you can import without renaming now, and can easily batch rename later if you ever have the need.


----------



## David Malinowski (Apr 17, 2012)

good point, cheers!


----------



## clee01l (Apr 17, 2012)

David Malinowski said:


> Thanks Cletus. Please can you show me what your typical filenames looks like with a default date added so I know what to set-up in LR?
> Cheers!


The file that comes out of my camera is named by the camera "K2021138.DNG"  It is imported into a date named folder scheme that is "YYYY/MM-DD" After import it is located on my hard drive in the path as "/Users/cletuslee/Pictures/Lightroom/Master/Pictures/Working/2012/04-15/K2021138.DNG".  Since the path contains the capture date, it is redundant to add capture date information into the file name itself.  It is also not necessary to incorporate keywords into the file name either.  Image file names do not need to have human readable intelligence incorporated into the file name. The EXIF information (now available by all operating systems) provides all of that information and more.


----------



## clee01l (Apr 17, 2012)

TNG said:


> Not imperative, no.....but advisable maybe? What happens when you change your camera and stay with the same manufacturer?


Image file names will repeat if you have a Canon or Nikon, but since these non uniquely named file are in different folders, why is this a problem?
If I had a file in my catalog named "2012-04-17 133812 4184.NEF"  I am more likely to use the filterbar to search text for "4184" and never the whole file name (including spaces which introduces a layer of complexity in the search box criteria).


----------



## Pyrogerg (Apr 17, 2012)

I do rename on import, prepending the cameras original filename with the capture date-time. This results in rather long filenames, but they are almost guaranteed to be unique, which lets me keep them in a single directory.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 17, 2012)

clee01l said:


> Image file names will repeat if you have a Canon or Nikon, but since these non uniquely named file are in different folders, why is this a problem?



As I said, Cletus, it's NOT a problem while working in Lightroom because I don't typically search on file-name. It MIGHT be a (minor) problem on export (as I don't rename there either) if the source contains files from different cameras with the same name. If I can avoid that minor irritation by automatically renaming on import, what's the big deal?


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 17, 2012)

I would strongly disagree that "there's no right answer, merely different opinions." There's some variation in precise methods, but the underlying good practice is to rename your pictures.

You have to think in the long run, and allow for change and exposure to risks - eg moving on to something else from Lightroom, moving files to other drives. DSC_1234 for example will be repeated over time or with other cameras, exposing you to the risk that sooner or later you'll make some kind of mistake and copy one DSC_1234 over another, or if lots of files do somehow get put into one directory. Even if you notice the error and can replace the file (how many DSC_1234's are in your backup?), there's inevitably a cost in time. 

It is a basic discipline of good asset management practice to ensure that a picture's filename uniquely identifies that picture. 

So at an early stage in your workflow (either on import or soon after), you ensure your pictures all have unique filenames, and a date plus number and descriptive text method is the ideal way to go. 

The date should come first, and in year, month, day - this is for sorting inside and outside Lightroom. Then the number. Add descriptive text if you wish, but after the date and number - this human readable text is simply for convenience and isn't really part of the discipline. It just doesn't hurt if you can do it automatically

My preference is for renaming after import. That's because LR will store the DSC_1234. So if something goes wrong and you lost the file in LR, then you can go to the backup copy made upon import. I go for a "YYMMDD_1234 {IPTC Title}.ext" scheme where the 1234 is a 4 digit sequential number. That acts as a sequential continuity control so I can see if a file is missing, but there are other uses  too (eg wedding photographers like clients to think they're seeing all the pictures and don't like gaps in the file numbers).

John


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 17, 2012)

johnbeardy said:


> I would strongly disagree that "there's no right answer, merely different opinions."



Indeed....I would imagine everybody with a strongly held opinion would feel the same.



> My preference is for renaming after import. That's because LR will store the DSC_1234. So if something goes wrong and you lost the file in LR, then you can go to the backup copy made upon import.



This I don't follow. If you rename on import, as I do, then both the second copy and later 'proper' backup will have the same name as the renamed file. So they are all in sync, so if I 'lost a file in LR' recovery by filename is a breeze. Thus I'm not seeing the perceived advantage of having the original pre-rename filename stored by Lightroom. What am I missing?


----------



## b_gossweiler (Apr 17, 2012)

I have the same naming scheme as Jim (date based folders, YYYYMMDD__originalImageName_ for files), because I'm a strong believer in the advantages of unique filenames. If I had several cameras with the same base naming, I probably would add a camera code into the name.

Beat

P.S: One place where unique filenames become handy is when using plug-ins that rely on the filename only, i.e. Syncomatic, LR/Transporter when tagging using an external list.


----------



## David Malinowski (Apr 17, 2012)

Thanks everyone...although I'm just as confused! :shock:


----------



## clee01l (Apr 17, 2012)

David Malinowski said:


> Thanks everyone...although I'm just as confused! :shock:


 While John Beardworth disagrees that _"there's no right answer, merely different opinions". _ There probably is no right answer.  The final recommendation (from me at least), If you find it useful, rename away.  If you don't see the benefit of getting creative with file names, then don't bother to rename. If later you wish you had renamed, then rename after import.  If you develop a fancy naming scheme that later gets you in trouble because it is a.) too long, b.) not accepted by the photolab, etc., you are pretty much hosed unless you want to rename your renamed image files


----------



## David Malinowski (Apr 17, 2012)

Thats great advice...thanks Cletus! Would you still recommend I at least add a date to the beginning to save duplicates?
David


----------



## clee01l (Apr 17, 2012)

No.  (OK so you got me.  It wasn't my last word  )


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 18, 2012)

Rename. That's not opinion, it's good practice. When, and with what renaming scheme, are personal choices.


----------



## David Malinowski (Apr 17, 2012)

Hi All,

I'm relatively new to LR and I've read lots of conflicting views about changing filenames from your camera's default naming system. For example changing 'IMG_9764.CR2' to something like 'house_party_2012_03_0031.dng' to presumably make it easier to track down outside of LR.

I'm now at a point where I'm more comfortable with importing all of my photographs into LR but my head is telling me NOT to change the default naming system from my camera. I used to be a PC user and my photographs are extremely well organised in folders and sub-folders so I can't see why I would need to think of a new naming system when I can easily add keywords after import if needed.
I've never had trouble in the past with finding my images but now LR has a function to batch rename on import I'm confused on whether or not I have to do it???
My recent test imports have included a naming system that I read somewhere in a tutorial book but the filenames are quite long and to be honest it takes me ages to think of suitable custom names! This is really frustrating when all I want to do is import and edit my work.

I guess the main point of this post is to find out whether I would be making a BIG mistake NOT to rename all of my images when bringing them into LR? If I choose not to rename my files will this cause major problems in the future using LR?

Sorry for the long post and I do hope it makes sense to everyone. Any advice would be appreciated...

Cheers, David


----------



## David Malinowski (Apr 18, 2012)

OK, Thanks John. I think I'll do a test import with the following criteria 'YYMMDD_IMG_9645.CR2'. Unless anyone else advises otherwise that is 
Please speak up if you have any advice...
David


----------



## Mark Sirota (Apr 18, 2012)

I personally don't see the value in preserving the IMG_ portion of the filename, unless you are customizing that by camera.  I also prefer four-digit years, but if you have nothing from before 2000 and don't expect to be using this naming scheme past 2099, then that's probably just me being pedantic.


----------



## erro (Apr 18, 2012)

I'm for the 4-digit years also. If you start scanning old slides, or your grand-mothers old faded family-portraits you'll be in the 1900's and 1800's.


----------



## Jeremygb (Apr 24, 2012)

I do rename my camera's default file names. This is because I want to maintain unique filenames and my camera will reset back to xxx0000.nef after xxx9999.nef. Even though I keep my files separated by folders named with the import date, it is still easiest for me to search for a raw file by the file name. Now this may be a little off topic, but I don't rename my files via Lightroom.  I use Nikon Transfer to copy my pictures off my camera and to rename on import because it will remember the last file name that I imported and start the new import were the last one left off. (My naming convention is a just a serialized number) Lightroom seems to not have this abililty. I always have to manually set the starting filename of each import which is a bummer because I would like to have a pure Lightroom workflow.  Is there a setting that I cannot seem to find that will enable this or is Nikon's software prowess superior to Adobe's?


----------



## StuMac (Apr 24, 2012)

johnbeardy said:


> Rename. That's not opinion, it's good practice. When, and with what renaming scheme, are personal choices.



It is an opinion actually - it may be an educated, well thought out and rational opinion, but it is still an opinion.


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 24, 2012)

And by that score anything to the contrary must be uneducated, ill-thought out, irrational - and wrong.


----------



## StuMac (Apr 24, 2012)

johnbeardy said:


> And by that score anything to the contrary must be uneducated, ill-thought out, irrational - and wrong.



No - you're 100% wrong there. 

You're obviously very, very good at rational thought and logical processes, and your suggestions are very sound and well thought out. I am a professional scientist and I appreciate logic.

 People have diferrent opinions to you because they are different from each other. Some may be more stupid, some may be less experienced and, whether you like it or not, some may be actually have much better grasp of the problem than you.


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 24, 2012)

It may not be a scientific fact, but I'm perfectly happy to label contrary opinions on this as stupid, if that makes you happier.


----------



## StuMac (Apr 24, 2012)

Doesn't bother me in the slightest to be honest! I do like your suggestion but.....open mind and all that!


----------



## clee01l (Apr 24, 2012)

johnbeardy said:


> It may not be a scientific fact, but I'm perfectly happy to label contrary opinions on this as stupid, if that makes you happier.


John, while normally I hold you in high regard, I don't think there is any justification for this dialog.  I happen to hold a contrary opinion to yours. I don't think I'm stupid.  My approach to my workflow saves me time by not needing to rename files. It has not caused me any problems.  
I would hope that you would not think anyone stupid for holding an opinion different from yours. I certainly would not.


----------



## johnbeardy (Apr 24, 2012)

You know, I wrote "if..." and was picking up someone's else's word. The exact renaming scheme is to a great extent a matter of judgement, but renaming is simply best practice. People are obviously free to define that as an opinion if they can't see it's a statement of fact.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Apr 24, 2012)

Alright, there are clearly some strongly held views here.  How about we all agree to disagree and let's get back to normal!!


----------

