Fully customize destination folder name

[Jiheffe]

I searched the forums but could not immediately find an answer...

I've been an avid ImageIngesterPro user for years, but unfortunately, since MacOS Sierra it has become unreliable, and Marc, the author, has announced it's end of life...
So I am turning to the LR import module as a replacement. I think I will be able to do more ore less everything I did with IIPro, but I cannot find a way to solve easily and foolproof two things:

• Naming the destination folder - In IIPro, each import gets a "job" name, from which I derive the folder name for the import. In LR this would be the "shoot name". Images shot on June 3, 2017 and with job name "Test" would go into "\Media\2017\06\170603_Test". I noticed different possibilities to structure folder according to dates, but not how to further customise the folder name. The best I could find would be "\Media\2017\06\03" but that's not satisfying as I could have more than one shoot on the same day. Am I missing something?
• Sequential numbering of file names - All my files are renamed to the scheme "YYMMDD_JFS_<shoot name>_123456.dng, where 123456 is a sequential incrementing number since "the epoch". That way, each image gets a unique 6-digit ID which makes is much easier to reference.I can do the same with the "image" tag, but apparently it is limited to 5 digits (and I am well over 150K photos now). I solved this by hardcoding a "1" in the template before the image tag, but this is not the most "elegant" solution

Any help or suggestion, especially for the destination folder naming, would be greatly appreciated! Thanks for your help,

JF

 

[Johan Elzenga]

In the import dialog, you can name a subfolder. However, Lightroom would create its dated folders inside that subfolder, not vice versa. That means you have to manually create a dated folder (in the Finder) first each day, and then you can have Lightroom add your 'shoot name' subfolder for each import that day. Not perfect, but the best I can think of.

AFAIK, Lightrooms sequence does not roll back to 1 when you go over the limit. So after 99999 you will get 100000 (not 00001), even though the template can only be set to 5 digits maximum. I'm not completely sure about it, however. This may be something that got 'fixed' in a more recent version than I used when I last tried it.

 

[Wernfried]

Recommendation from my side: Try to get rid (I mean mentally) of organizing your pictures by folder and file names. In principle there would be no problem to put all pictures in a single folder and rename all pictures randomly.

Let LR do the organization for you by using keywords, date/time when picture was taken, used camera, maybe GPS data, collections, smart collections, etc. It is really not necessary to apply an advanced folder/filename structure to organize your photos in LR.

 

[Jiheffe]

<...>That means you have to manually create a dated folder (in the Finder) first each day, and then you can have Lightroom add your 'shoot name' subfolder for each import that day. Not perfect, but the best I can think of.

Not perfect at all, let's hope Adobe will improve this in a future version ;-) Thnx!

AFAIK, Lightrooms sequence does not roll back to 1 when you go over the limit. So after 99999 you will get 100000 (not 00001), even though the template can only be set to 5 digits maximum.

I'll give it a try!

 

[johnbeardy]

In the early versions of Lightroom, you could in fact edit the folder names in the destination section. Few people complained when the ability was removed, so I wouldn't expect its return.

 

[Jiheffe]

In the early versions of Lightroom, you could in fact edit the folder names in the destination section. Few people complained when the ability was removed, so I wouldn't expect its return.

That's a bummer... So how do you guys out there manage your files on disk? I would be interested to learn some best practices

Recommendation from my side: Try to get rid (I mean mentally) of organizing your pictures by folder and file names. In principle there would be no problem to put all pictures in a single folder and rename all pictures randomly. <...>

Yes, I understand the idea and I actually am a big promoter of tag-based structuring and organisation of data... However, in this special case I really like to keep structuring in folder hierarchies, as it makes it so much simpler to locate shoots in the Folders tree in the left pane of tnhe LR library.

 

[johnbeardy]

After import, I just rename the default yyyymmdd folder names and add a word or two to help describe them, so I end up with "20170629 Charlton Park", for example. I used to take advantage of the old method in the import dialog, but I don't find it too troublesome to do so after the photos have arrived in Lightroom.

 

[Gnits]

In frustration with the Adobe import module, I have written my own Import App to copy images from cards (or folders) using a schema very similar to yours.

My folder names are yyyy/ppppp_project name where yyyy is the year from the exif data and ppppp is a sequential project number. My app keeps a list of projects, so I can easily re-select the appropriate project at each new card ingest.

My file names are MoB_pppp_xNNNNN.ext where ppppp is the project number, x is a camera code and NNNNN is a sequential (never ending) number .... so that every image has a unique number.

My app does a whole lot of other stuff I do not want to bore you with.

I have been making suggestions to Adobe for years to improve the Import module but to no avail.

I am making these points for a few reasons.
1. Your naming convention is almost identical to mine, so I know you have put thought into it and have good reasons for such a scheme.
2. I would love to see Lr improve its Import module (and other things), but I have given up waiting for any good news from Adobe.
3. I was able to do most of what I wanted using PhotoMechanic... but gave up on PhotoMechanic becasue....
a. It regularly reset the sequence number with disastrous results.
b. No ability to preview the import, so obvious mistakes can be spotted before images are copied or imported to Lr.
c. The GUI interface on PhotoMechanic was just too painful for me to use and too easy to make mistakes.
d. Attempted and failed to encourage PhotoMechanic authors to improve.

One advantage PhotoMechanic has is it works for both Mac and Windows.

I hope you might get some good suggestions from the community here. As I just import to Lr with the files in situ and already renamed I would not trust myself to advise on Lr import renaming rules.

 

[Gnits]

JohnBeardy suggestion is good.

 

[PhilBurton]

In the import dialog, you can name a subfolder. However, Lightroom would create its dated folders inside that subfolder, not vice versa. That means you have to manually create a dated folder (in the Finder) first each day, and then you can have Lightroom add your 'shoot name' subfolder for each import that day. Not perfect, but the best I can think of.

AFAIK, Lightrooms sequence does not roll back to 1 when you go over the limit. So after 99999 you will get 100000 (not 00001), even though the template can only be set to 5 digits maximum. I'm not completely sure about it, however. This may be something that got 'fixed' in a more recent version than I used when I last tried it.

You can always rename after import, and reset the sequence number back to 0001 or 00001.

Downloader Pro, by Breeze Systems, is a far more capable importer. I would be using it in preference to LR's import function except for the "minor detail" that it does not recognize XMP files.

 

[clee01l]

It is really not necessary to apply an advanced folder/filename structure to organize your photos in LR.

In fact, you are better off to ignore folders and file names completely in LR. In terms of organization, LR is a paradigm shift from folder/filesystem types of organization. It eliminates the inefficiencies of a folder/filesystem based organization.
I import images using the filename generated in the camera and one of the date named default folder schemes. My import process consists of inserting the camera card, choosing an import preset and pressing the import button. As soon as the first image appears, I begin my initial culling of the newly imported images. By the time the import is complete, I can be halfway through the initial culling and rating process and have some keywords assigned.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

You can always rename after import, and reset the sequence number back to 0001 or 00001.

If I understood the OP correctly, that is exactly what he does not want. He said he is using

a sequential incrementing number since "the epoch".

 

[Pollok Shields]

• Naming the destination folder - In IIPro, each import gets a "job" name, from which I derive the folder name for the import. In LR this would be the "shoot name". Images shot on June 3, 2017 and with job name "Test" would go into "\Media\2017\06\170603_Test".

...snip...

• Sequential numbering of file names - All my files are renamed to the scheme "YYMMDD_JFS_<shoot name>_123456.dng, where 123456 is a sequential incrementing number since "the epoch". That way, each image gets a unique 6-digit ID which makes is much easier to reference.I

Take a look at Photo Mechanic Tour Photo Mechanic | Camera Bits, Inc. as a replacement for Image Ingester. It will copy files from your camera card to a folder on your hard drive with the name format you already use. It will at the same time rename your files exactly as you are doing now. It will also (if you want) save you time with automated metadata tasks which leave Lightroom standing.

Once you have your files on your hard drive in the folders you want and renamed as you like, import them into LR for processing.

 

[PhilBurton]

Take a look at Photo Mechanic Tour Photo Mechanic | Camera Bits, Inc. as a replacement for Image Ingester. It will copy files from your camera card to a folder on your hard drive with the name format you already use. It will at the same time rename your files exactly as you are doing now. It will also (if you want) save you time with automated metadata tasks which leave Lightroom standing.

Once you have your files on your hard drive in the folders you want and renamed as you like, import them into LR for processing.

Pollok,

Just wondering. Does Photo Mechanic always preserve the original file name? LR does not preserve the original file name during import, only if you do a rename once files have already been imported and then renamed.

Phil

 

[Wernfried]

I think LR keeps the original file name - unless the same file already exists in the folder. At least in my setup the file names are not changed.

 

[Gnits]

Working from memory, I was able to get PhotoMechanic to store the original file name in a specific metadata field. This was not default behaviour of PM, but was able to use standard PM tools to configure this behaviour. I will check later if I can dig up what I was able to do.

 

[Jim Wilde]

LR does not preserve the original file name during import, only if you do a rename once files have already been imported and then renamed.

LR does actually preserve the original filename in one of its tables (how else would it be able to do duplicates checking?) when you rename during import, it just doesn't show it in the Metadata panel.

 

[Gnits]

It is a standard feature of PM that you can configure how you want metadata fields to be updated. I simply applied the filename tag to a metadata field of my choice. I used the Iptc field of "Job Identifier"

I changed the original filename using PM to MoB_00696_E_02676.ext

696 is the project number, using a PM project sheet and 02676 is a unique serial number, both applied by PM.

 

[rob211]

A couple of things.

You're gonna have to add info at some point, i.e. "shoot" for some sort of folder grouping of images, and for each file; and the sequence.

Taking the "shoot" eg, and since you're a fan of tagging, why not start with keyword instead? It gets applied to each image, like a filename, and you could either add it manually to the few folders you create at import per John's suggestion, or use it as a basis for a collection. Sort of depends how you find things, but keywords are easier to filter and such in many ways. More so than filenames or folder names. And as keywords they can be just as hierarchical as folder hierarchies, but are more flexible.

Filenames aren't shown that much in Lr, and aren't very good for finding things. But you may need that in the filename for some other reason, I dunno. But note that the keyword would be in the file too, or sidecar.

The other advantage is that there are lots of tools in Lr to manipulate keywords quickly, and to use them for say renaming files. Not so much folders. So once you keyworded the shoot, it wouldn't be hard to rename files, as necessary, to include that. Or maybe even use the Search Replace Transfer plugin to move the "shoot" to the Job Identifier tag.

And look at Bridge too. Sometimes it's easier to do some stuff in Bridge before importing, and it might work better than presets in Lr. In Bridge, for example, there's an option to use when renaming to "Preserve current filename in XMP metadata." Perhaps that would be useful.

 

[MarkNicholas]

Recommendation from my side: Try to get rid (I mean mentally) of organizing your pictures by folder and file names. In principle there would be no problem to put all pictures in a single folder and rename all pictures randomly.

Let LR do the organization for you by using keywords, date/time when picture was taken, used camera, maybe GPS data, collections, smart collections, etc. It is really not necessary to apply an advanced folder/filename structure to organize your photos in LR.

I would strongly disagree. Whilst I do fully keyword etc. and organise within LR, some of us like a neat and tidy folder structure outside of LR. When things go wrong, which they do from time to time, it is nice to know where things are or ought to be, as the case may be.

 

[Wernfried]

I would strongly disagree. Whilst I do fully keyword etc. and organise within LR, some of us like a neat and tidy folder structure outside of LR. When things go wrong, which they do from time to time, it is nice to know where things are or ought to be, as the case may be.

Well, when you look at this forum people get much more problems like "LR does not find my photo/folder" rather than "LR lost the keywords".
Keywords are also stored in photos (resp. XML sidecar file), having such information also in folder or file name it is redundant.

Of course, there is no solely right way to make your work. But everybody should be aware of the pros and cons of different approaches.

 

[Gnits]

Recommendation from my side: Try to get rid (I mean mentally) of organizing your pictures by folder and file names. In principle there would be no problem to put all pictures in a single folder and rename all pictures randomly.

I would also strongly disagree. For some...using collections, keywords, etc in Lr will be a perfect solution but it is very bad general advice.

One principle reason is that there is a world outside of Lr. Also, because someone uses folders in a structured manner does not mean people cannot use collections, keywords and flags.

What is not a good idea is to use folders to replicate collections functionality as then there will be a scenario where the same image needs to sit in two different folders.

 

[rob211]

I disagree with the disagreements . Image metadata, from exif to IPTC and XMP, is far more tidy and resistant to mistakes than folder names or even filenames. And it doesn't get lost cuz it's in the file. And I disagree that filenames and file folders are more useful outside Lr. Indeed, I've found that both outside Lr on my own device and even more so outside Lr in the world of sharing with others, filenames and folder names are a very poor substitute for standardized IPTC and XMP metadata. I actually switched from a fancy filename/foldername organization in part on advice from folks here, and now I'm one of the metadata zealots, and it was mostly because of these concerns, not in spite of them.

Folder names are just info about what's inside. If IMG1234.JPEG is in "Mom's birthday party in Sedona" then that is sort of like having "Mom's birthday in Sedona" as a caption, keyword, label, etc. Kinda like how Gmail does "labels" but shows mailboxes, which are really nothing but smart folders in a sense. If IMG1234.JPEG goes out of that folder, it's relationship with "Mom's birthday party in Sedona" is done. Gone. So you send it to someone, accidentally move it, have a drive failure where you have to recover files sans folder/file names, etc, then you loose all the work you did placing stuff in the named folders.

A folder's just a metaphor. The filesystem attaches the folder name to bits of data hither and thither on a volume, and note how a path is basically the same as a keyword hierarchy. The difference is in where it stored, and that the path is more inflexible: there can be only one, so a file can only be in one folder, but a file can be "in" many different keyword hierarchies at the same time.

OTOH, if you had "Mom's birthday party in Sedona" even in captions for each image instead or in addition to being in that folder, then it's there as long as the file is a viable file. All photo software can find it. Anyone you send it to can find it. Finder on a Mac or File Explorer on a PC can find it. Even if the filename and file folder are erased, and Lr is deleted, you can find it and all the others with that caption, keyword, etc.

Not only that, but it's understood by others. Self-invented filename/file folders are fine but sometimes rather inscrutable to others outside Lr. That's why standardized metadata namespaces were created. So we know that "Washington" in a city field is a city, or a state, or a person. We know what is a description, and we know the meaning of different time and date stamps.

I agree that collections aren't at all robust, and the best advice I even got here was to just use them as temporary containers or saved dynamic searches. In any case, their info is easily replicated in the files by keywords.

And I agree that descriptive filenames and folder names are sometimes necessary. But it's often easier to go from keywords or other metadata to filenames. I appreciate that some, including myself, would sometimes rather look at a hiearchy of folders, and I wish Lr had a way to show the keyword hierarchies as folder hierarchies. But I also wish it had tag clouds, and some of the grouping views that say Photos, Google Photos, and others have. I don't wanna go all the way to deleting a file folder view, as say Apple's Photos does, but I can certainly see why Lr de-emphasizes it.

 

[Wernfried]

Actually I can imagine only one situation where it would make sense to organize your photos in folders instead of keywords, labels, collections, etc.

If you are for example a wedding photographer, then you will have one set of photos dedicated to one couple, resp. customer. This relations will never change and such a photo set will never interfere with any other customer, resp. wedding. Also in term of archiving it will be always the same set of photos.

In think in such circumstanced it makes sense to put each assignment into a dedicated folder, which could be named with customer name. Some people even consider to create a dedicated catalog for each assignment - in my opinion this is an overkill.

But for all other photographers like sport & events, wildlife and also your private photos I stay to recommend using LR keywords, labels, collections, etc. instead of folders and files.

 

[rob211]

If you are for example a wedding photographer, then you will have one set of photos dedicated to one couple, resp. customer. This relations will never change and such a photo set will never interfere with any other customer, resp. wedding. Also in term of archiving it will be always the same set of photos.

In think in such circumstanced it makes sense to put each assignment into a dedicated folder, which could be named with customer name. Some people even consider to create a dedicated catalog for each assignment - in my opinion this is an overkill.

I had to do this at work, but it wasn't so much for organization purposes, but for two other reasons: first, the folder contained not only images referenced by Lr, but lots of Word docs and PDFs too. And secondly, they had to have different permissions, since it was a shared folder. And because of security issues we also used a separate Lr catalog for it as well.