Where are photo file names?

I appreciate this dialog.... No, I don't use ICloud for anything, I just want to manage and view my own photos on my own computer.

I did try the script (first one), and although it's a little manually intensive, I did assign my filenames to the title for each image. Thank you!!!! That helps me identify each image, but without the ability to sort on anything but "date taken" (which is completely useless for me), my albums remain a complete mess. I clicked on a folder name, and chose "sort by name", but that sorted the menu, not the contents. No help.

I tried to create a new smart album, see if I can figure out a way to bypass all these problems, but when I edit an image (e.g., delete), it deletes the image no only from my smart folder, but also from the library. So, i clicked on help "delete photos in album", and related variants, but all I get is a list of instructions how I can share these images on line with my family and everyone else..... No help. I cannot figure out how to remove an image from an album only, and leave it in the library).

I looked at my iPhoto albums. All my images are there -- but is that my library? It acts like it's only an album. If so, I can't find the library. Also some of my albums that I used to have, now have no contents. One printed album that I had was called "obsolete", and removed from my collection altogether -- and replaced with a random print album template -- with no content at all.

Waiting for El Capitan to get useful sort options, means waiting at least four months for the first release. In my experience with Mac OS releases so far, every first release, and usually two, have significant bugs. So I don't update my OS for at least three releases. That means, I can't get image sorting for about 4-9 months from now. That's interesting, as sorting algorithms are always included in the most basic programming courses -- this is not difficult.

Being a complainer is not in my character, but so far, with Photos, I can't sort, I can't organize my images, I can't find help on anything but how to share my images, or point me to the menu item with the same name -- neither is useful.

Can I get iPhoto back? That did the job just fine, but most of it's features were simply deleted in Photos....

Finally, I tried other photo organizers: Adobe charges $10/month, but does not simply sell it. Picassa is owned by Google, and I read its "Terms and Conditions", and Google reserves the right to take any an all my images and market or distribute them any way that they want. Figures.

Does anyone have some advice on a good photo organizer, where I can just organize and view my photos?

My apologies for the long list, but this problem is getting rather ridiculous. I can't even help myself....

- Andy

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!

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

R-C-R,

You make good points.

However I would offer the following.

There is a middle ground between the novice photographer and the professional. In my own case, I like the editing and complete "cloud based" access to my library from multiple computers.

However, with 33,000 photos, I need better tools to simply organize and access my photos in ways that fit my work flow. Sorting, list views, and some of the other things I used regularly in Aperture would be extremely helpful.

Certainly Photos is free. But I was happy to pay $199 for Aperture to obtain much greater flexibility on managing my photos.

Anyway, the iCloud base is the real draw for me and I am willing to live with the shortcomings of managing my library for the present. I just hope and assume that additional features find their way into Photos over time.

Rex - I feel exactly the same way. I'm definitely missing some tools from Aperture but the advantages/fun of having my 52K photo library on two Macs, an iPad and an iPhone is making me very happy. I used to really struggle with how photos came into Aperture from my iPhone and now other than a slightly longer wait I'm not doing the duplicate dance. The tools are more powerful than most people realize but definitely limited.

One oddity I'm noticing on my devices with optimized images, I take a photo with my iPhone and then want to post it immediately, but iCloud Photo Library has already moved it up to the cloud so I have to wait for it to come back. Have you seen that?

Allison Sheridan wrote:

hmmm... How about this one? When I take a picture with my iPhone there's a very long lag before I can access the photo right from the camera app.

Since this does not involve Photos for the Mac I suggest you ask in the forum for your iPhone

LN

? It's not really a phone issue, it's more to do with the fact that photos are stored in the cloud. I'll be cool though!

iCloud cannot be causing this, unless you are connected to Wi-Fi while shooting the photos. Photos will only upload to iCloud when connected to Wi-Fi, and the Camera app is closed. You should be able to apply filters in the Camera.app immediately. But ask in the iPhone forum.