Image Name - Necessary?

Question

Level 1

10 points

Image Name - Necessary?

I learned PP -- sort of -- on LightRoom 5. I chucked the program, along with DxO, because of the way it is organized. But I really got an education about allowing the database to organize your library of images. In other words, no filenames. That really opened by eyes.

I started with folder>folder>folder>file name. The date on the folder led me through the path.

Scott Kelby's book on LR convinced me to throw all 1900 of my images into the Pictures folder and then retrieve them selectively after quick searches.

The Aperture method of Projects in the Library leads to the same workflow. I think. But within one specific Album or Book or Vault is there a need to name individual shots?

I have an agenda. I'm just starting out with AP, and want to impose savvy organization before I build up too many images in the Library.

Aperture 3, OS X Mountain Lion (10.8.4), running an iMac

Posted on Aug 31, 2013 12:54 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Sep 1, 2013 2:47 AM in response to daikambu65

What is the question? all pictures in A3 are in projects (1 project or as many as you like) and the projects have a name. You can create as many folders as you like and move the projects (i.e. their pictures) into folders as you like.

Reply

Answer 2

daikambu65 Author

Level 1

10 points

Sep 1, 2013 9:17 AM in response to norbertmuc

Let's assume I shoot 450 images at a wedding. It is practical or productive to give names to any of them? Other than the camera generated DSC ######?

Reply

Answer 3

Sep 2, 2013 4:37 AM in response to daikambu65

Yes, I always give a meaningful name on 1 shoot , usually with a number that increments .

Reply

Answer 4

Sep 2, 2013 6:31 AM in response to daikambu65

daikambu65 wrote:

Let's assume I shoot 450 images at a wedding. It is practical or productive to give names to any of them? Other than the camera generated DSC ######?

If doing that enhances your workflow then the answer is yes, if not then it is no. Only you can answer if it is productive or practical to name the images.

Think of naming the original and/or versions produced from that original as adding one more bit of data to the image similar to keywords or ratings or comments. It's another way to make it easier to find and organize your library.

Reply

Answer 5

Sep 2, 2013 6:32 AM in response to daikambu65

There are several topics in digital photography which invoke passionate responses. For example; Aperture vs. Lightroom, Canon vs. Nikon, RAW vs. JPEG.

With that caveat, I would propose that it is really up to you. If you, like I, keep all of your images in Aperture and use Aperture exclusively to find them, then individual image or file names don't matter that much. I have some 15,000 images in my library (small by the standards of some here) and the vast majority simpy have whatever name the camera generated. I find images through the base layout of the library and tools like Faces, Smart Albums, etc. I have never, since 2006, searched for an image by image name.

As for searching using the Finder,

I paid for Aperture, why bother with the Finder?
You can't really find an image anyway, as all of the adjustments are kept in a separate file.

That said:

My base Project naming convention includes an embedded date and hint, as in 20130912 - Beach Trip.
I always name images that I export, so that others know what they are

But finally, Aperture makes it VERY easy to rename your images when you import, so why not, if it gives you the least bit of extra comfort? That is one of the nice things about Aperture, there are many ways to do things.

Reply