Q: Where are photo file names?

Hi, folks.  I've used iPhoto for years and am now coping with Photos.  I've read this thread, and find myself more confused than ever.

As I understand it, each photo is a file, with a filename followed by an extension such as .jpg, .tif, .png, etc.  iPhoto and Photos allow you to give the photo file a "title," which appears (or not, as this thread suggests) in Apple software and in products purchased from Apple, such as prints, books and calendars.  I guess the title becomes part of the photo file's metadata.  I have little use for titles, since they tie you to Apple's products, but I DO have uses for the filename. 

Your camera gives each photo its filename.  These filenames are useful in that they are sequential, but, frankly, names like DSCN3256.jpg do nothing for me.  I'd rather have a file named 2014 m12 25 opening mother's gift.jpg.  While it's easy to give files in iPhotos and Photos a TITLE, you have to go through **** to RENAME A FILE.  I've succeeded in changing filenames (renaming) by exporting the file to the desktop, using Finder to rename the file, finally dragging the renamed file into Photos when it is in "Last Import" mode. Most of the time, this works.  double-clicking on the thumbnail of a picture will enlarge it.  Then clicking on the "I" at the upper right, you will see "Add a title," and under that, the current filename.  If I've successfully renamed the photo file, I delete the duplicate with the original filename.

I came to this thread hoping to get some guidance as to why I can rename some files, mostly videos, on the desktop, and see the new filenames in Finder, but when I drag them into Photos (import them), they lose the new filename.  I've tried renaming these stubborn files several times, with no success.  I use the Title field to give these renegades some kind of ID.  Can anyone shed any light on this problem?

And please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the difference between filenames and titles.

Thanks!

Thank you, LN, I do appreciate it.  It seems to me that we are in agreement about the features I need and don't have, but it may not seem to be so.

I just want to manage and view my own photos on my own computer.

Ok - that is what iPhoto does - actually quiet well

AL - Yes, except that iPhoto is no longer supported, and obviously has a limited lifetime.  I need a photo editor for the rest of my life that is maintained.  Apple has chose Photos, not iPhoto.

I can't sort,

You can sort - you just have extremely limited sort options

AL: That is exactly the problem.  I have 22,000+ scanned images, all dated with the scan date, not the photo date.  The actual photo date (year, month) is in the filename.  I need to sort by filename. as I can't, I copied the filename into the title successfully (thanks to this discussion), but that does not solve the sort problem either.

I can't organize my images

Sure you can - you have an automatic organization with Moments and you can organize with as much detail as you want using Keywords, albums and folders

AL: I don't have any keywords at all.  I have the iPhoto events (folders) that contain one year's images.  I can sort the folders, but cannot sort the images inside the folders by filename, as I could in iPhoto.

I can't find help on anything

Photos has a decent Help section - have you used it?  What is missing form it that you need? 

AL: I looked for help on "albums", and wrote that into the search box.  It returns a picture of the location of the "albums" menu item, but contains no information about albums, specifically on sorting them.  I also found that if I create a smart album, which gives me more than what I want (the search parameters do not allow for boolean searches, only "one of, or all".  If I delete an image from an iPhoto album, it also deletes the image in the library.  Help provides no insight to this problem.

but how to share my images

Click on the Share icon - the rectangle with an up arrow in it - lots of share options there - if wha you want is not there check in the system references under extensions and enable the ones you want

AL:  I don't want to share with any on-line service, I just want to edit images on my own computer.  Many of the help items are about sharing on-line.

point me to the menu item with the same name

No idea what you want there

AL:  see my note two items ago

Can I get iPhoto back?

No need - it is not gone - it is in your Applications folder - use it (you need version 9.6.1 - if you were not up to date see Get iPhoto 9.6.1 if you didn't update before OS X 10.10.3

AL: see my first note.  Yes, I can, but it's not supported anymore, according to Apple,  I just checked it:  check out a MacWorld article:  http://www.macworld.com/article/2375212/apple-retires-aperture-and-iphoto-to-be- replaced-with-photos-for-os-x.html .  A search for the answer to this question produced no results on the Apple website.  I believe Apple also announces that on first use of Photos, maybe when it asks if iPhoto should be imported.  And yes, iPhoto is up to date.

As to an alternative - nothing else comes close in overall capability for the price - LightRoom is a much more powerful system at a much higher price - Media View is another people have posted

AL: I did use LightRoom several years ago, that is a good suggestion.  However, if I can fix the Apple problem, that's better.

Most of your complaints are incorrect so Basically you need to calm down, learn Photos and ask specific questions giving details or you need to find and use a different package - and no one can do that for you - you have to do it

AL: Please note that each my issues is an Apple documented feature.  The problem is not "calm down", the problem is that the way that I have been photo editing for many years (by filename) is a feature that was removed from Photos.  I have learned Photos, went through all the lessons, and exercised every one of them.  Only after I do my homework, do I go to any form for help and trouble other people.  I really do appreciate your attention and trouble in answering, but I do see that extracting a few words out of sentences can yield out of context interpretation.

If you read the documentation on Photos, it is strongly focused on sorting "the way you take pictures, by the date and time of taking the picture" (paraphrased).  The stated assumption is that all images have a time and location stamp on them.  That does not apply to any film images taken from the 1800's to about the 2000's.  Trying to invent a time and location for each of the 22,000+ images, so that Photos can sort them is not reasonable.

Summary:  I believe that the only answer with Apple software is to adopt Photos, and either wait for, or write my own code to sort the information the way I need to in Photos. 

Much appreciated.

AL

Peki,

I went through the same.  The filename is the name of the actual file in digital storage (e.g., hard disk).  The picture "metadata" is the behind-the-image data that describes the image (e.g., date, faces, location, background).  Metadata is really a data base table that is related to the image you view.  Title is an entry in the metadata data base.  An alternative way to look at it is that it is a translator between the filename and other name.  As I understand it, the database can sort through database tables, which apparently include titles but not filenames.  I think that iPhotos automatically copied filenames into titles, then allowed manipulation of images by title (also keywords, location, time).  Photos does not automatically copy filenames in to titles, and does not allow some basic functions (e.g., sort) to be done on titles; only on date and time in the metadata.

I hope this helps a little?

- Andy

Thank you, Andy.  That did clear up my conclusion about metadata.  However, I remember that, when using iPhoto, there was always "Add a title" in the information dropdown for each photo.  If iPhoto automatically copied the filename into the title, then I would have seen the filename masquerading as a title in the dropdown box, no?

I happened on the thread thinking it might shed some light on why I can rename some files after exporting them, then import them and see that the new filename is there, and with other files, find that the new filename has not imported. (the imported file has its original filename).

@alazo

OK

basically you have two choices - use iPhoto for a while and see if Photos comes around or change to different software

Photos is better than iPhoto in many areas and not as good in others - El Captain will resolve some of these shortcomings and over time maybe all will be - maybe not

If iPhoto work for you now then use it and see what the future holds - it neither iphoto nor Photos works for you now then pick different software

All we can do i tell you what Photos is - we can not change it

and ov course it is important for you to tell Apple what you want  - https://www.apple.com/feedback/photos.html - as the more requests they get the more likely they are to include the change you need

LN

Peki wrote:

However, I remember that, when using iPhoto, there was always "Add a title" in the information dropdown for each photo.  If iPhoto automatically copied the filename into the title, then I would have seen the filename masquerading as a title in the dropdown box, no?

iPhoto displays the filename (less the extension) if the photo doesn't have a title, but it doesn't actually copy it to the file. Titles, like descriptions & keywords, actually are part of the file itself -- they are "embedded" in standardized Exif directory structures in photo files that many different applications can display or modify.

All recent versions of iPhoto display either the title or the filename below the thumbnails, & in the Info sidebar on the right side of the iPhoto window if that is visible -- there is no dropdown with "Add a title." Instead you add or alter a title by clicking on this text in either place. If the photo had no title to begin with, typing anything there adds it to the file's Exif metadata.

If is much the same in Photos, except that it does not display the filename as a substitute for the title if the photo does not have one, & to see the titles below the thumbnails you need to enable that in the View > Metadata submenu.

Hi Peki and Larry -- and all who contribute to this thread,

Thank you for comments, feedback, and arguments (I mean that in a good way, it's part of problem solving).  I think that there are a few conclusions that seems to stick -- and I will assemble them into a coherent feedback to Apple (thanks for the link, Larry).  In my problem-solving training, I know that complaining about problems can help define a problem, but solving it requires proposing solutions (even if not complete).  So, here goes:

1.  The sorting issue highlights that there are two large categories of stored images:  Modern images that store metadata, specifically date, time and location; and legacy images that have no metadata at all (about the first 200 years of photography).  The two are managed differently.  Metadata is better, but if there is no metadata, then filenames is the typical choice.  Apple needs to consider that difference as a user need.

2.  There is a generational difference in dealing with data.  I am 64 years old, and have done very sophisticated programming for work projects -- but today's techniques, methods and organization philosophy is very different.  I'm trying to carry my tried and true methods into today, without expending significant effort to modify my techniques.  I use public sharing very little.  The young person today has little need, and likely understanding, of the requirements to manage data without the metadata layer.  The young person uses sharing a lot.  I propose that much of this discussion shows that difference. 

3.  Taking a step back, I think that there is a good solution to this dilemma.  For the images without metadata, many filenames contain some metadata information (mine have year, month, subject (sometimes) and location (city, state, country) and time sorted index.  For example:  201505-SailingBostonMA-001.jpg.  Some of my oldest images, I can only guess at the decade.  I'm sure that there are as many file naming conventions as there are people....  I think that the best solution is to write a script that will convert filenames of a defined format, into the metadata of individual images.  The order of time of the legacy image can be set by using the sort index (e.g., each sequential image is one minute newer than the last).  While the metadata would not be accurate by today's standards, it would be good enough for legacy images. 

So, I'm going to try to write a script to do just that.  Reading the filename is already included in the scripts in this discussion thread.  Parsing the date, subject and location will take some logic design, as there are variations in that part of my filenames.  Perhaps a better programmer than I, familiar with current standards and methods, could write an app to do just that.  I would buy that in a heartbeat.  In the meantime, I'll write one myself and see it it solves this type of problem.

I will send a variation of this note to Apple as feedback.

- Andy

alaz0 wrote:

1.  The sorting issue highlights that there are two large categories of stored images:  Modern images that store metadata, specifically date, time and location; and legacy images that have no metadata at all (about the first 200 years of photography).  The two are managed differently.  Metadata is better, but if there is no metadata, then filenames is the typical choice.  Apple needs to consider that difference as a user need.

A couple of points to consider about that:

• Regardless of the source, once an image is digitized, it can be managed in a uniform way. Ideally, this should be in accordance with the metadata standards in use worldwide as defined in the exchangeable image file format (Exif) & by the IPTC.

• Filenames are metadata attributes of file systems, not of image files. They are a poor choice for digital image management systems because different file systems impose different limits on filenames regarding length & allowed characters, & because filenames can be changed independently of their content. IOW, they are not very portable, nor do they follow any well defined naming convention that relates their name to their content.

Because of this, it would be very difficult to write software that converts filenames to titles by parsing what could be any of many different user-defined filename conventions.

3.  Taking a step back, I think that there is a good solution to this dilemma.  For the images without metadata, many filenames contain some metadata information (mine have year, month, subject (sometimes) and location (city, state, country) and time sorted index.  For example:  201505-SailingBostonMA-001.jpg.  Some of my oldest images, I can only guess at the decade.  I'm sure that there are as many file naming conventions as there are people....  I think that the best solution is to write a script that will convert filenames of a defined format, into the metadata of individual images.  The order of time of the legacy image can be set by using the sort index (e.g., each sequential image is one minute newer than the last).  While the metadata would not be accurate by today's standards, it would be good enough for legacy images.

Take a look at one of the Applescripts in the Photos for Mac User Tips. There's one what will give you this type of title:  YYYY-MM-DD-xxxx-01.jpg.  The date is the short date format you setup for your Mac in the System/Language & Region/Advanced/Dates preference pane.  The text is whatever you want and the sequential number can have as many padded zeros as needed.

Interestingly if you select some pictures to print and then in the preview screen select CAPTIONS and within the options offered tick TITLE, then the preview and subsequently printed photos will use the filename as the title if no other title has been added manually.  CAPTIONS also has an option to tick FILENAME that as it says prints the filename, which will be the same as the TITLE if a title has not been added manually.

Since Apple can do this for printing why can't they do this for viewing pictures in PHOTOS?

It would be nice if the filename had an additional option of just filename or filename plus directory (especially for those pictures that are not in the Photos library).

Since Apple can do this for printing why can't they do this for viewing pictures in PHOTOS?

They can and do. They just left out the writing of the file name into the Title field during import.  That can be recitified by using this Applescript to do it manually: Photos for Mac: Batch Changing the Titles to the Filename

Then keep telling Apple what missing features you'd like restored or new features added in Photos via  Apple-Photos Feedback.

The feedback is working as can be seen from the following paragraph in this Apple webpage: Apple OS X El Capitan.

Photos has been fine-tuned to make it even easier to manage your library. Now you can add a location to a single image or to an entire Moment. Naming your favorite people in Faces is faster with a streamlined workflow. You can also sort your albums — and the contents inside them — by date, title, and more.

Old Toad wrote:

They just left out the writing of the file name into the Title field during import.

To avoid any confusion, note that iPhoto does not automatically write the filename to the title field either. It just displays the filename (less its extension) if the file has no title embedded in it. To write the title field to the file in iPhotos, you have to manually add a title in the space where it displays the filename as a substitute for that.

Just a couple of thoughts.

1. There needs to be a professional tool built into Photos that gives the user the ability to insert the file name into the IPTC Title field.  Perhaps as a user selectable process

2. Photos needs to have the same DAM and search, sort capabilities as Aperture.  This includes the ability to merge together different libraries and to export user defined unique libraries.

3.  The image editing cabilities are probably sufficient as long as they provide a mechanism for external editor use.

Failure to achieve these rather straight forward goals will allow me to leave the Apple ecosystem for image processing.  I will never ever use photos to share my photos across platforms without those capabilities.  Lightroom already allows me to do that.  My hope is they will address these issues, but Photos needs a lot more than fine tuning. 

telling the other users here accomplishes nothing as does threatening us

if you want tot tell Apple https://www.apple.com/feedback/photos.html

And if you are using LightRoom then Photos has nothing for you - it is not a professional App like LR - it is a consumer app

LN

e2photo wrote:

1. There needs to be a professional tool built into Photos that gives the user the ability to insert the file name into the IPTC Title field.  Perhaps as a user selectable process

Photos does give users that ability, although it is a manual, one-at-a-time process unless you use an Applescript or Automator process like those you can find in the User Tips section of this forum (see the Incoming Links section at the end of the page for a couple of examples).

As for the rest of it, like iPhoto before it, Photos is not intended for professional use. Not only is it free, it provides substantially more extensive editing tools than iPhoto, plus a way to add inexpensive editing tools to the app itself, which may appeal to non-pro users unwilling to shell out big bucks for third party pro level apps, in no small part because those apps frequently require paid upgrades or subscriptions to use with upgraded OS X versions.

So if you want a pro level app, like LarryHN said, this isn't the app for you.