Q: Where are photo file names?

e2photo wrote:

Not persuaded there is much value to two things describing the file.

There are actually dozens of things describing different aspects of photo files, all defined by global standards bodies like IPTC & ISO's standard 16684-1 (Adobe's XMP).

But I am not aware that Aperture ever used 'Titles'

Aperture "Version Names" correspond to the "Titles" in iPhoto.  By default the filename is displayed as the version name of the edited version. Photos will display custom version names entered in Aperture, but not the filenames.

All of my Aperture images have Version Names in the Photo Info Box which are identical to the filename.  None of those show up, BUT if in Aperture I created a new version then that ......version x does show up as the title of the picture.  Both show up in the Photo General Info Box in Aperture so there is some subtle difference between filename inserted into the version name field and the creation of a new version insertion of that name into the version name field.

R-C-R... I am absolutely sure you are correct, BUT why force me to use 'Titles' when the filename is sufficient for my purpose.  Why not give me the option to display the information most useful to me?

BUT if in Aperture I created a new version then that ......version x does show up as the title of the picture.

When you create a new version, Aperture creates a version name different from the original file name, at least it appends a "version 2" to the default name. Photos will show this version name as the title.

Yep I agree.

e2photo wrote:

All of my Aperture images have Version Names in the Photo Info Box which are identical to the filename.

By default the filename will be substituted for the "Version Name" (which, as léonie said is equivalent to the title) in Aperture, just as in iPhoto. But it isn't actually a title, just something both apps do that obscures the very real difference between the title of a photo & the name of the file it is stored in.

R-C-R... I am absolutely sure you are correct, BUT why force me to use 'Titles' when the filename is sufficient for my purpose.  Why not give me the option to display the information most useful to me?

Consider the broader question: Why would you not want to take advantage of the benefits of global metadata standards that are already in wide use & will only become increasingly more important in the future to make possible new ways of using & managing all the info in your photo files?  

Filenames are not stored in photo files like titles & all the other IPTC/XMP/Exif metadata. They don't even tell you or the operating system where a file is stored -- for that, the full pathname is required. Together with the restrictions on filenames & pathname lengths in different file systems & operating systems, there is no guarantee they will be preserved or even usable if the file is moved, copied, or uploaded to anything not using the OS or file system of the original storage device.

IOW, they are neither very portable nor future-proof. Sooner or later, any organizational method based on them will fail to support new features built into new applications, at least some of which you probably will not be happy about being unable to use.

But, considering all of that, if you still want Photos to obscure the difference between filenames & titles, let Apple know about it, using the form at https://www.apple.com/feedback/photos.html. Chances are not that great that they will add that but it can't hurt to request it.

R C-R  Interesting discussion....my perspective

1. Most importantly, I understand the need to take advantage of global metadata standards.  Something I had not considered was the fact that title can be embedded in the image file, but filename is not stored in the image file.  And this might make the image more discoverable from an OS perspective

2. So a question I would ask is why not take the filename and make it the title?  What is the downside to such an approach?  One reason I am asking is there is an AppleScript that does exactly that.  Is it a bad idea to use that script?

3. I am not asking them to change the data structures or obscure anything.  I am asking for the ability to display the filename as an option.

4. The implication of titles is I now will have to generate titles for some 300-400,000 images in order to see some identification of the picture.  I have a very explicit filename structure that allows me to find 1 picture in the 300-400,000 very quickly. 

5. Sort of an implication of your note as I understand it:  Once I import my Aperture libraries into Photos, address the title issue in some way, that the probability of locating those files in the future is improved.  Is that a correct understanding? 

e2photo wrote:

2. So a question I would ask is why not take the filename and make it the title?  What is the downside to such an approach?  One reason I am asking is there is an AppleScript that does exactly that.  Is it a bad idea to use that script?

There is no downside of that I am aware of, other than the need to be aware that the filename could change when the file is stored somewhere else.

3. I am not asking them to change the data structures or obscure anything.  I am asking for the ability to display the filename as an option.

That seems a reasonable request to me, as long as it is made clear in the app that it isn't the title.

5. Sort of an implication of your note as I understand it:  Once I import my Aperture libraries into Photos, address the title issue in some way, that the probability of locating those files in the future is improved.  Is that a correct understanding? 

Yes, because the title is a part of the file & less likely to be changed by anything other than intentional user action.

I have your exact same problem.  Very frustrating.  Perhaps the Apple software engineers could have foreseen this problem.  Overall, Photos 1.0 is disappointing in many respects.

I am trying to figure out how to display Keywords under the thumbnails as you can do with Aperture.  Still no success.

Fortunately, Aperture is working perfectly.

Not persuaded there is much value to two things describing the file.

Depends on your professions.  The International Press Telecommunications Council has established 86 fields for information:  Guide To Photo Metadata Fields.  Not all apps use all of them but many users need to precisely identify the image.

Those fields can be use to answer the familiar "where, what and who".

I am trying to figure out how to display Keywords under the thumbnails as you can do with Aperture.  Still no success.

You have to write the keywords as text into the title, since the title is the only thing displayed below the thumbnail.

That is one of the areas where Photos is really lacking - the comprehensive display of information for set of images.

Keep writing feedback.

Question:

If you can get titles to show beneath the thumbnails in Photos, are all the titles visible

at the same time, or do you have to hover over an image to get the title to appear?

(I don't have a Mac myself to test this; I'm trying to help a client who uses Macs.)

jremde wrote:

Question:

If you can get titles to show beneath the thumbnails in Photos, are all the titles visible

at the same time, or do you have to hover over an image to get the title to appear?

They are all visible, assuming View > Metadata > Titles is checked. (That can also be toggled on & off with command+shift+T.)

Thanks, R C-R.

Now to learn AppleScript to try and convert the filenames to titles for 8000+ photos.

Hope this makes my client happpy.  - J

I think learning Applescript without a Mac would be extremely difficult. Perhaps it is time to break down & buy a Mac to see why so many people like them?