Where are photo file names?

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.

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.)

"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? 👿"

I know that Macs are great in many ways, but still too pricy for me.

However I do have access to one of my client's MacBook Airs (she has 3 Macs) on occasion for limited use.

I recently updated her OS's from Mavericks and Lion to Yosemite mainly to allow easy syncing of all her photos across various devices.

But she was very disappointed when the names that used to show up in iPhoto didn't appear in Photos.

(The Info window that comes up with Command-I doesn't do it for her.)

I said I'd look for another solution and I'm glad I found this discussion, which is very relevant.

So I'm looking over some of the scripts listed here and will try them out when I get a chance.

Appreciate all the contributions.

- J

If she has entered titles in iPhoto they should show up in Photos below the thumbnails. If they don't, go to View > Metadata and add a check mark by Titles. If the "Name" is the file name, there is a script earlier in this thread to make the title equal to the filename.

Jay

Here's a use case for why filenames to titles are important.

It may also shed light on why Apple's current version did not implement it. For context, Photoshop released around 1990, iPhoto was available in 2002, USB 2.0 scanners in 2002-2004, the first digital SLR (under $1000) in 2003, Aperture in 2005, the first iPhone (including camera) in 2007. [I owned Macs from 1985 to 1993. PCs from 1993 to 2006. Macs from 2006 to present. When I moved back to Macs in 2006, the photos came over as files, mostly TIF.]

So therefore, the photos in my Photos library are of two main kinds: (1) scanned photos from prints or negatives in the era before digital photography. (2) Photos taken with digital cameras.

The scanned photos came from a flatbed digital scanner. They were scanned one by one. And the consumer level scanning software of the day did not allow entry of EXIF or IPTC data. The metadata was the file name and the file date. And the file date was fragile. File operation like copying or restoring from backup often changed it. So one carefully labeled the name of each file.

When I moved to the Mac, they were loaded into iPhoto and the file names showed up and they were useful because I had named each of the scanned photos carefully by hand. It’s this information that I’d like to automatically copy as the initial value of titles. These names are absolutely valuable. And being able to quickly copy them to titles would be wonderful. Applescript seems possible but quirky. I’m hoping Apple addresses this more directly

I agree with Apple that the file names associated with digital photography are much less useful. And also realize than many of their customers have few photos that came from scans. In fact all of this generation photos may be coming only for iPhones. But….....

It is still useful to do this, and I am keeping it up with my digital photos taken with the cameras. I always batch change the filenames on import in aperture to amore descriptive filename.

I agree with Apple that the file names associated with digital photography are much less useful.

It depends on how you are using your photos. The filename with a number is at least a reference to identify the file. A common use of the filenames might be to show the recent Photos in the moments and have the family, friends, or customers pick the ones they want copies from. Now the moments do not even show "IMG 111" or similar below the thumbnails, so that it can be referenced in a list. We have to directly create albums while the photos are selected. I would not want my friends to drag photos to albums while selecting photos from my library. I prefer them to say "Please send me photo 100, 200, 250" and "please delete number 50 immediately".

I have had some interesting discussion on the subject of picture Title and filename. I have a wonderful filename system that has served me well over the years. The pictures are easy to find and when someone wants me to do something on a particular picture all they need to do is give me the number.

BUT, that filename is not embedded in the picture file itself. However, the Title is embedded into the picture file and has a formal space in the IPTC world. The structure of the filename or what is allowed to be the structure of the filename may be different across different operating systems and may also change over time even within one operating system. Given this, the long term stability of a filename may not be as good as one would desire; however, the embedded IPTC Title 'should be more stable long term.'

Since it seems Photos is heavily focused on the iPhone, iPad with integration with the Mac and their different operating systems through the cloud, I can readily understand why Apple is pushing for the use/focus on picture titles.

To facilitate this process, I believe Apple should provide for a tool that takes the filename and inserts it into the IPTC Title field. There are a couple of Applescripts, one of which I can get to work and the other I can not get it to work.

This issue is #1 for me, and I have another thread started until I found this one. I have 22,000+ scanned images, all organized by filename, which iPhoto used. Apple then degraded iPhoto into Photos, without notice, and all my several years' work is negated. I desperately need to sort by, organize and view filenames -- I don't care and don't use the "date and time the photo was taken", it doesn't exist. Maybe moving the filename, or preferably the part to the left of the (.jpg) into the title, and then sorting by title is a good workaround to this bug.

Apple has never responded to any of the posts that I've followed over the years. I don't know what they pay attention to and what they don't. But, if Apple is reading this -- please, please, do not degrade capabilities for your software, especially with no notice. I spent a lot of time getting iPhoto to do my job, now anything I do on iPhoto is not transferred to Photos, and the sorting and the organizing capability in Photos is non-existent. This problem really needs help. I really do not understand how such a degradation can happen.

To those who wrote scripts, I will review them, and contribute to the solution of this important problem. Let's see if we can build a workaround together.

Thank you all!!! - Andy