Restore single photo from time machine

This isn't going to help you now, but may help you (and others) in the future...

I think it's an incredible shame that camera makers name files IMG_0001.JPG, and the like. The problem with this is that you end up with a bazillion photos named IMG_0001.JPG. Sure, they may be in different folders, but when searching, it quickly becomes a nightmare.

That's why the first thing I do when importing my images is rename them based on a subject prefix followed by date and time. Thereby no two images ever have the same name. And if I want to search for a file, I always have something to go on by subject and date.

The software I use is ExifRenamer and it does this (and more) with batch processing:

http://qdev.de/

It's donation-ware. There are others in the App Store that provide similar functionality. Really, this only adds a tiny fraction of time to the overall workflow and is well worth it when you need to fine something based on subject/date versus having it be one of a bazillion IMG_0001.JPG files.

Really, camera makers should have this built in.

Aperture provides this capability also. On import (or any time after) you can use Aperture's file naming presets to rename the masters based on many different criterion. I've just never had the need to do it. But thanks for the link.

regards

No need for additional software, afaict. I do this all the time (using Aperture's built-in tools). Every digital negative I import is renamed as described in this post:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4056496?answerId=18744862022#18744862022

(I don't usually have Aperture do any renaming but I understand how to do it upon import.)

This isn't a remark about the original question but to KevinePaloAlto, do you have your camera(s) set to begin at IMG_0001 every time you stick in an 'empty' card or reformat the card? I have my Nikon and Canon cameras set to 'wrap' at IMG_9999, so only one image in ten thousand is named IMG_0001 (or DSC_0001, in the case of Nikon). Hardly a 'bazillion' pseudo-duplicates.

In Nikon and Canon cameras there is a setting in the menus to tell it if/when to reset the counter.

Frank/Kirby,

I know I could have Aperture rename the files, but I bring the files in through the Finder and keep those original folders independent of Aperture, then copy them into Aperture, maintaining the originals for safety. But, I do want those originals to have useful names.

Neil,

I have images coming in from multiple cameras, some of them aren't mine, so I'm bound to get a large number of multiple duplicate file names. But even without that, without looking, can you tell me what the difference is between IMG_0037 and IMG_0370 (or DSC)? By renaming them with a short subject prefix + date + time, it's easy both to find the images and to know what the images are, and it's extremely easy to name them. It's just a shame that this isn't a feature built-in to every camera.

KevinePaloAlto wrote:

Frank/Kirby,

I know I could have Aperture rename the files, but I bring the files in through the Finder and keep those original folders independent of Aperture, then copy them into Aperture, maintaining the originals for safety. But, I do want those originals to have useful names.

On import, you can have Aperture leave files where they are (in whatever Finder folders you have set up), but still rename them.

What "safety" are you getting by using ExifRenamer to rename your files instead of Aperture?

KevinePaloAlto wrote:

By renaming them with a short subject prefix + date + time, it's easy both to find the images and to know what the images are, and it's extremely easy to name them. It's just a shame that this isn't a feature built-in to every camera.

But it is built-in: it's stamped in the EXIF. You are then taking some of the EXIF data and putting that in the file name, where, as data, it is less usable.

Your efforts are to turn a file browser (Finder) into an image browser. That's what Aperture is.

This -- "it's easy both to find the images and to know what the images are, and it's extremely easy to name them" -- is exactly descriptive of Aperture.

@Kirby,

"On import, you can have Aperture leave files where they are (in whatever Finder folders you have set up), but still rename them."

Are you sure about this? I just tested in Aperture 3.3.1 with "Rename Original File" checked and it renames the "Original" file in the Aperture managed library upon import, but the source file in the folder that I imported from remains unchanged. Maybe I'm confused on what you wrote... are you saying this only works for referenced libraries? That's not what I want to do; I want managed libraries.

"What "safety" are you getting by using ExifRenamer to rename your files instead of Aperture?"

1) I want folders of all of my photos taken off camera to exist in a world without Aperture (or any other photo software). If Aperture kills my library, my first defense is to restore from one of my backups. However, the second defense would be to go back to my source folders and rebuild a library. I lost a couple of albums in iPhoto, but instead of restoring a backup, it was easier to just re-import from the source folders. In another situation, I had trashed (and purged) all of the images that weren't good images from an event. However, I was then asked by law enforcement to go through and see if I had any images of a suspect. I was then able to search through my source folders to see every shot I took (although didn't find the suspect).

2) I often want to get images off the camera an on my hard drive, and sometime far later in time will I want to import them into Aperture. In the meantime, I want to have them be named properly.

"But it is built-in: it's stamped in the EXIF. You are then taking some of the EXIF data and putting that in the file name, where, as data, it is less usable."

I'm not *removing* it from the EXIF data, I'm copying it to the filename where it can be better used on a system level across platforms. It's not a question of whether the filename is more useful than EXIF, it's a question of whether the filename can be more useful than IMG_0001.jpg. Here's an example, in the Finder, I can search for Blue Angels and find every single photo I've ever taken of the Blue Angels over the years...in seconds. If I'm looking for a particular image, I can then go to the year, month, day, and time and then open just a few photos to find the shot I'm looking for.

Ya, I know, that's what Aperture is for, and yes it's better at it.

Now look at the original post on this topic.

I can do the same search via Time Machine and restore a single image without even knowing when I may have deleted it in Aperture.

Kevine,

I just tested in Aperture 3.3.1 with "Rename Original File" checked and it renames the "Original" file in the Aperture managed library upon import, but the source file in the folder that I imported from remains unchanged. Maybe I'm confused on what you wrote... are you saying this only works for referenced libraries? That's not what I want to do; I want managed libraries.

Rename will rename the original that Aperture manages, not the original it copies from. And I am very happy that I can import and leave the source files untouched. 😉

If you want to see the renamed originals outside Aperture, export them again.

I can do the same search via Time Machine and restore a single image without even knowing when I may have deleted it in Aperture.

If your managed masters are properly renamed, you can do the same Time Machine search and find the original files in the Aperture Library package, provided you do not exclude your Aperture Library from the Spotlight index, but the Spotlight index is a different story