Renaming RAW Files

357mag · Apr 26, 2011

Was wondering if it's safe to rename RAW files. Right now I got a folder of final versions of images and inside is Photo #1 and Photo #2. But the corresponding RAW files for those are DSC_0001.NEF and DSC_0003.NEF.

Like just to keep the numbers in sync could I rename DSC_0003.NEF to DSC_0002.NEF?

Judobreaker · Apr 26, 2011

Yes that shouldn't be a problem, as long as the extension (.NEF) stays the same you can rename the file.

pikartz · Apr 26, 2011

You can use lightroom to do so ....

480sparky · Apr 26, 2011

As long as you're going to the trouble, why bother with the camera's naming scheme? Why not rename it something more like "Easter 2011 Image 2"?

357mag · Apr 26, 2011

Yeah I was thinking of Photo #1.NEF and Photo #2.NEF.

Stradawhovious · Apr 26, 2011

357mag said:
Yeah I was thinking of Photo #1.NEF and Photo #2.NEF.

That makes for finding your images 6 months from now a real pain in the ass.

Just sayin'

KmH · Apr 26, 2011

If at a later date you want to find photos you made months or years ago, you should decide on a standardized file naming convention that works for you now.

Essentially, what you are askingf about is digital image asset management, or DAM.

To cover the ins-and-outs of DAM requires writing a book. Fortunately, someone did: The DAM Book

357mag · Apr 26, 2011

Initially I thought of giving a descriptive name for each photo like "Robin on tree stump" or "Road Worn Strat" or "Water droplet on CD". But the problem with that I could have difficulty coming up with names for everything. What happens when I've taken 23 photos of fall foliage? How do I come up with 23 descriptive names for the same subject? Since I can preview photos in Windows using Photo #1 and Photo #2 seems to be a viable way of doing it. This is the same naming scheme I used to label my Elvis Presley and Jimi Hendrix Photos.

Let's say one of you guys has just finished working with a photo of a red barn in a green field of grass. How would you choose to name it?

digimg · Apr 26, 2011

Is RAW better than TIF? Both seem to be high quality when I open a PEF in AbleRAWer. What's the difference in types?

Judobreaker · Apr 26, 2011

You could name them something like: Location_date_time_number.RAW
I know Adobe programs like Bridge or Lightroom you can do a batch rename in which you could have it set time and date in the name, number them automatically (from 1 to the amount of photo's you're renaming) and add custom text.

KmH · Apr 26, 2011

357mag said:
Initially I thought of giving a descriptive name for each photo like "Robin on tree stump" or "Road Worn Strat" or "Water droplet on CD". But the problem with that I could have difficulty coming up with names for everything. What happens when I've taken 23 photos of fall foliage? How do I come up with 23 descriptive names for the same subject? Since I can preview photos in Windows using Photo #1 and Photo #2 seems to be a viable way of doing it. This is the same naming scheme I used to label my Elvis Presley and Jimi Hendrix Photos.

Let's say one of you guys has just finished working with a photo of a red barn in a green field of grass. How would you choose to name it?

The book I referred you to covers all of that. Most people include at least the month and the year. Plus, many people add keywords and ratings.

clanthar · Apr 26, 2011

digimg said:
Is RAW better than TIF? Both seem to be high quality when I open a PEF in AbleRAWer. What's the difference in types?

RAW files are proprietary to each camera manufacturer. They contain the image data with minimal to no software processing. RAW files have to be opened with a RAW converter and decoded into an standard RGB image which can then be saved in a variety of formats. TIFF is one of those formats. Once a RAW file is converted one can assume that at least minimal software processing (tone, white balance, sharpness) has been applied.

Different file formats support a variety of features relative to quality. TIFF for example will save a 16 bit image while JPEG will not. 16 bit images contain more information. JPEG applies damaging compression in order to make the files easily transferable via networks where bandwidth matters -- their small size however is invaluable, etc..

Joe