Library module Keywords to Filename

[Mike Creighton]

Lightroom Version Number

Lightroom Classic version: 8.4

Operating System

1. macOS 10.14 Mojave

I use Keywords in my filenames and know my way around the renaming process, but here's a question (I suspect the answer is no - but you may know better).

Most of my keywords are taxonomic. If I tag a bird as "Atlantic Puffin - Fratercula arctica" then that will become the filename along with any other features I include in the auto-renaming process. However, I also use additional keywords for the usual descriptive stuff "blue, sunset, portrait..." and so on. Clearly I don't want those in the filename. And that's the question.

Has anyone any ideas about how to exclude subsets of keywords form the auto-renaming process. The simple way would be to do all my auto-renaming after I've tagged the taxonomic keywords, but before adding any other descriptive keywords but that restricts my workflow somewhat, particularly when there are global changes to the taxonomy at a later date.

Any suggestions gratefully received.

Mike

 

[clee01l]

As a part of the ITPC standard, keywords is a single field with comma separated phrases. There is no way to determine which comma separated phrase you might want. You would be better off using the Title field for taxonomic names (they can also be in the keyword field) You can then used the {Title} token to insert the Title in the field name.

 

[Mike Creighton]

I thought something like that would be the answer.

Thanks for the alternative suggestion. Unfortunately, title fields have to be typed (or copied) whereas as keywords can be simply added. I'm dealing with tens of thousands of images and thousands of taxonomic names. And my filenames need to be completely explanatory - not everyone I send them to has DAM software - which is why auto renaming is such a boon. I guess I'll have to stop using descriptive keywords until after naming. Or ask Jeffrey Friedl if he fancies creating a plugin [select from these keywords, not from those].

Anyhow, many thanks again for looking. Cheers

Mike

 

[clee01l]

Unfortunately, title fields have to be typed (or copied) whereas as keywords can be simply added. I'm dealing with tens of thousands of images and thousands of taxonomic names.

I consider Titles and Captions to be a part of my workflow. No image is complete until is has Titles and Captions and at least one keyword. I do not rename original images since these are only to be accessed inside of LR where I have search capability on keywords, Titles and Captions, etc. When I export, every image has a Title and Caption and keywords. The exported File name is irrelevant and used only to identify which cataloged image was used to produce the derivative file.
The reason you are using such complex file names is because you are trying to manage your images outside of LR. Lightroom is the best DAM tool for managing images, why not use it?

 

[Mike Creighton]

I am using LR for DAM and have been since version 1. I don't manage my images outside of LR. I think you misinterpreted that part of my response.
If I'm sending a file to someone who is NOT USING DAM then it is helpful that the filename is descriptive of the beast in question together with date and location. Not everyone I deal with is readily able to access metadata and therefore it saves errors (and/or me additional work) to have complex explanatory filenames. Not to everyone's taste, but that is not a problem.

Obviously I could just labouriously rename those files which I am sending to people who can't be relied on to read an image title, caption or keywords, but since I can automate renaming in my usual workflow and it takes seconds to complete it is just easier to do it for all images which meet the criteria for renaming (don't you just love a smart folder or three).

If I was only using the photographs for my own purposes and merely exporting the odd one or two then I wouldn't bother with anything other than rigorous keywording (maybe rating) but I'm not. I know that other people will have other workflows - as do you - but mine is fast, efficient and effective for my purposes. There is this one annoyance which, if I can't solve, I will have to workaround. Which is fine - life is often a compromise.

And obviously I title and caption my images as necessary.

Many thanks for your interest.

Mike

 

[johnbeardy]

I would not recommend using keywords in the filenames of images. Put simply, that's not best practice in DAM.

The issue is different though - allowing others to see keywords in filenames - and that's best done by renaming as part of the export process. But that's not easy or automatic because LR doesn't include keywords in the filename template. I would do the job using my Search and Replace plugin to copy keywords to any less-used field which can be used in the renaming upon export - headline is a good choice. So you would create a filenaming template that might be something like filename+headling. After automatically transferring keywords to the headline, you could edit the headlines manually or run the plugin again to replace certain words. Upon export, choose the naming template that uses your filename plus the headling.

So in your system you would manage pictures with a proper naming convention that meets good DAM practice, and rename upon export for the needs of others.

 

[Mike Creighton]

Keywords are in the filename template - or at least in CC. I don't know about the web-based version which has too many limitations (particularly around lack of hierarchical keywords) for my use.

I'm aware of your search and replace plugin and methodology (it's great) but it adds additional steps which is what I'm trying to avoid.

I'm afraid I just don't accept that just because one is using DAM one should not use complex filenames when they are incredibly easy to apply. All filenames are complex. Even a typical filename direct from the camera has in excess 1bn (US) possible combinations which is pretty complex if meaningless. The point of DAM is to make asset management easier. If I can add to that ease by having meaningful filenames with no extra work and little (seconds) time lost per thousand processed, then that's a win-win. Even you refer to "proper naming convention that meets good DAM practice". I have seen many variations of this, typically [event][serial number] or something that includes a date code. My naming convention is as simple [name][location][date] so to my mind I have a "proper naming convention" and better than most I've seen.

In a simple use example, I send two dozen images with random filenames for an annual report. The designer will have to check each image for content before placing it. If the filenames are meaningful they can be sure of placing the correct image without having to further examine the metadata. Yes, it could be done on or prior to export, but why create work? If I were to rename my current catalogue of 100k images now it would take about 15 seconds. Why wait until export to do it?

Of course, there are DAM purists who will say this is a misuse of DAM. Well, that's absolutely fine by me, but don't expect me to wear that particular hair shirt. I like my filenames to make sense. It may be idiosyncratic, but it keeps me happy and does not in any way detract from an efficient or proper use of DAM. And, of course, the original filename is preserved should I ever need to refer to it (I never have).

So we may have to agree to disagree on that aspect - I didn't realise it would even be contentious.

Thanks for reminding me of the plugin.

Cheers

Mike

 

[PhilBurton]

As a part of the ITPC standard, keywords is a single field with comma separated phrases. There is no way to determine which comma separated phrase you might want. You would be better off using the Title field for taxonomic names (they can also be in the keyword field) You can then used the {Title} token to insert the Title in the field name.

Cletus. Where do you insert the {Title} token? Which panel in Library?

 

[Conrad Chavez]

Just a couple of perspectives…

Another reason to put keywords in filenames is that on the web, it's supposed to be better for SEO.
I'm not currently doing that, though.

If I'm sending a file to someone who is NOT USING DAM then it is helpful that the filename is descriptive

This is probably going to be an academic point, but anyone using the current versions of macOS or Windows doesn't need a DAM to see keywords in images. Both OSs have ways to display the keywords for a selected image on the desktop (for common formats, typically not in raw formats). And before that was possible, the system-wide search features on both OSs did look through image metadata when you enter a search. If I type "Paris" into macOS Spotlight or Windows search in the taskbar, both OSs are going to list images that do not have "Paris" in the filename, but do have it in the keywords.

But I'm not going to press this point because on both OSs, you have to train people to set up their desktops to see these keyword displays. It's not hard, but if you work with a lot of clients then of course they can't all be expected to break their normal habits.

 

[Tony Jay]

Just a couple of perspectives…

Another reason to put keywords in filenames is that on the web, it's supposed to be better for SEO.
I'm not currently doing that, though.

It is easy enough to rename an exported image to anything one wants...
Within Lightroom there are far better ways to name and rename images!

The point is that to try and manage images within Lightroom based on how images might be used outside Lightroom is a recipe for disaster....

Just saying...

 

[MarkNicholas]

I thought something like that would be the answer.

Thanks for the alternative suggestion. Unfortunately, title fields have to be typed (or copied) whereas as keywords can be simply added. I'm dealing with tens of thousands of images and thousands of taxonomic names. And my filenames need to be completely explanatory - not everyone I send them to has DAM software - which is why auto renaming is such a boon. I guess I'll have to stop using descriptive keywords until after naming. Or ask Jeffrey Friedl if he fancies creating a plugin [select from these keywords, not from those].

Anyhow, many thanks again for looking. Cheers

Mike

A possible work around.
1. Create a duplicate Catalog
2. Using the duplicate Catalog delete all the non taxonomic keywords from the keyword panel. That (in theory) should mean that each photo has only taxonomic keywords.
3. Batch rename using the {Keywords} field.

 

[clee01l]

A possible work around.
1. Create a duplicate Catalog
2. Using the duplicate Catalog delete all the non taxonomic keywords from the keyword panel. That (in theory) should mean that each photo has only taxonomic keywords.
3. Batch rename using the {Keywords} field.

I think there needs to be an additional step to use the "Import from another Catalog" function to import the non taxonomic keywords back into the new master catalog with the files renamed.
I would test this with backup copies of the new master catalog as I don't know how the import would handle the keyword if the master catalog has had the files renamed and the imported catalog has not. I expect it would work since the database for the cataloged files uses an index value (the same index value on both catalogs) as the key field making the file names are irrelevant to LR.

 

[PhilBurton]

A possible work around.
1. Create a duplicate Catalog
2. Using the duplicate Catalog delete all the non taxonomic keywords from the keyword panel. That (in theory) should mean that each photo has only taxonomic keywords.
3. Batch rename using the {Keywords} field.

I think that duplicate catalogs is planning for a disaster. Unless you are shooting for stock, when you export photos, it is for a specific person or business. Do the rename on export. Use keywords to manage photos internally in LR.

 

[johnbeardy]

You are right - keywords are in the template and I was wrong. So the plugin is not so relevant.

We're talking at cross purposes, which is probably my fault. I am not a purist and advocate filenames having short descriptive information so the names make sense in Explorer/Finder, for example. Packing lots of metadata into filenames is a different issue, and I like the way Tony put over the general point:

The point is that to try and manage images within Lightroom based on how images might be used outside Lightroom is a recipe for disaster....

If you're using keywords in the filename template, I can't see an easy way to exclude certain keyword groups other than by applying them after you've done the renaming. That may not be practical. But it's a lot simpler to rename on export. Metadata often changes between the time a set of pictures feels "done" and the time when you send them out - eg you add new keywords.

 

[MarkNicholas]

I think that duplicate catalogs is planning for a disaster. Unless you are shooting for stock, when you export photos, it is for a specific person or business. Do the rename on export. Use keywords to manage photos internally in LR.

Ok instead of duplicating the Catalog, how about simply creating virtual copies of all the photos.
1. Work on only the Masters
2. Delete unwanted non taxonomic keywords from those Masters.
3. Batch rename.

 

[clee01l]

I think that duplicate catalogs is planning for a disaster. Unless you are shooting for stock, when you export photos, it is for a specific person or business. Do the rename on export. Use keywords to manage photos internally in LR.

This is why I amended Mark's original post to merge the streamline keyword catalog with renamed files and the old master catalog with the old file names and all of the keywords. The streamline keyword catalog with renamed files becomes the new master and the complete keywords ought to get added to the files with the new names. A Test should be run to verify this before committing the whole catalog, which is why I recommended making copies of both catalogs as insurance.

I have restored accidentally deleted keywords by combining a Master catalog (with missing keywords) with a 6 month old backup catalog that still had the keywords assigned. The only difference from what I am recommending and what I did is my files were not renamed on the master. The filename is an irrelevant piece of metadata. So, LR should ignore the metadata and key the merge on the key field which is the unique index field.