«

On 16/07/2012 9:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-07-15 15:51:41 -0700, Alan Browne
> <> said:
>
>> On 2012-07-15 18:14 , Rob wrote:
>>> Anyone with a D800 that has/had a problem with sequential numbering of
>>> files.
>>>
>>> Although the camera is set on sequential numbering each time the memory
>>> card is formatted it returns to 001.
>>>
>>> I have been through the instructions several times set and reset the
>>> item in the shooting menu to no avail.
>>
>> When you use "On" and "Reset" is the folder empty?
>>
>> http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D800_EN.pdf
>>
>> On
>> When a new folder is created, the memory card formatted, or a
>> new memory card inserted in the camera, file numbering
>> continues from the last number used or from the largest file
>> number in the current folder, whichever is higher. If a
>> photograph is taken when the current folder contains a
>> photograph numbered 9999, a new folder will be created
>> automatically and file numbering will begin again from 0001.
>>
>> Off
>> File numbering is reset to 0001 when a new folder is created,
>> the memory card is formatted, or a new memory card is
>> inserted in the camera. Note that a new folder is created
>> automatically if a photograph is taken when the current folder
>> contains 999 photographs.
>>
>> Reset
>> As for On, except that the next photograph taken is assigned a
>> file number by adding one to the largest file number in the
>> current folder. If the folder is empty, file numbering is reset to
>> 0001.
>
> That is a standard Nikon DSLR convention.
> On my D300S go to "Menu"-> "Custom Setting Menu"-> "D-Shooting
> Display"-> "d7 File Numbering Sequence". Select "On", Off", or Reset as
> above.
> You can also get in camera information on the highlighted menu selection
> by pushing the info or "?" button.
>
> I have mine set to "On" and it functions and numbers files as stated in
> both my D300S and the D800 manuals.
>

Thats all set OK.

On 16/07/2012 9:54 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-07-15 16:50:13 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>
>> On 2012-07-15 15:51:41 -0700, Alan Browne
>> <> said:
>>
>>> On 2012-07-15 18:14 , Rob wrote:
>>>> Anyone with a D800 that has/had a problem with sequential numbering of
>>>> files.
>>>>
>>>> Although the camera is set on sequential numbering each time the memory
>>>> card is formatted it returns to 001.
>>>>
>>>> I have been through the instructions several times set and reset the
>>>> item in the shooting menu to no avail.
>>>
>>> When you use "On" and "Reset" is the folder empty?
>>>
>>> http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D800_EN.pdf
>>>
>>> On
>>> When a new folder is created, the memory card formatted, or a
>>> new memory card inserted in the camera, file numbering
>>> continues from the last number used or from the largest file
>>> number in the current folder, whichever is higher. If a
>>> photograph is taken when the current folder contains a
>>> photograph numbered 9999, a new folder will be created
>>> automatically and file numbering will begin again from 0001.
>>>
>>> Off
>>> File numbering is reset to 0001 when a new folder is created,
>>> the memory card is formatted, or a new memory card is
>>> inserted in the camera. Note that a new folder is created
>>> automatically if a photograph is taken when the current folder
>>> contains 999 photographs.
>>>
>>> Reset
>>> As for On, except that the next photograph taken is assigned a
>>> file number by adding one to the largest file number in the
>>> current folder. If the folder is empty, file numbering is reset to
>>> 0001.
>>
>> That is a standard Nikon DSLR convention.
>> On my D300S go to "Menu"-> "Custom Setting Menu"-> "D-Shooting
>> Display"-> "d7 File Numbering Sequence". Select "On", Off", or Reset
>> as above.
>> You can also get in camera information on the highlighted menu
>> selection by pushing the info or "?" button.
>>
>> I have mine set to "On" and it functions and numbers files as stated
>> in both my D300S and the D800 manuals.
>
> Note: on your D800 that would be "d5 File Numbering Sequence" not "d7"as
> found on the D300S. Both cameras have the same 12 selections, just
> reordered.
>

Understood that.

On 16/07/2012 11:40 AM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:54:10 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-07-15 16:50:13 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>>
>>> On 2012-07-15 15:51:41 -0700, Alan Browne
>>> <> said:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-07-15 18:14 , Rob wrote:
>>>>> Anyone with a D800 that has/had a problem with sequential numbering of
>>>>> files.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although the camera is set on sequential numbering each time the memory
>>>>> card is formatted it returns to 001.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been through the instructions several times set and reset the
>>>>> item in the shooting menu to no avail.
>>>>
>>>> When you use "On" and "Reset" is the folder empty?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D800_EN.pdf
>>>>
>>>> On
>>>> When a new folder is created, the memory card formatted, or a
>>>> new memory card inserted in the camera, file numbering
>>>> continues from the last number used or from the largest file
>>>> number in the current folder, whichever is higher. If a
>>>> photograph is taken when the current folder contains a
>>>> photograph numbered 9999, a new folder will be created
>>>> automatically and file numbering will begin again from 0001.
>>>>
>>>> Off
>>>> File numbering is reset to 0001 when a new folder is created,
>>>> the memory card is formatted, or a new memory card is
>>>> inserted in the camera. Note that a new folder is created
>>>> automatically if a photograph is taken when the current folder
>>>> contains 999 photographs.
>>>>
>>>> Reset
>>>> As for On, except that the next photograph taken is assigned a
>>>> file number by adding one to the largest file number in the
>>>> current folder. If the folder is empty, file numbering is reset to
>>>> 0001.
>>>
>>> That is a standard Nikon DSLR convention.
>>> On my D300S go to "Menu"-> "Custom Setting Menu"-> "D-Shooting
>>> Display"-> "d7 File Numbering Sequence". Select "On", Off", or Reset as
>>> above.
>>> You can also get in camera information on the highlighted menu
>>> selection by pushing the info or "?" button.
>>>
>>> I have mine set to "On" and it functions and numbers files as stated in
>>> both my D300S and the D800 manuals.
>>
>> Note: on your D800 that would be "d5 File Numbering Sequence" not
>> "d7"as found on the D300S. Both cameras have the same 12 selections,
>> just reordered.
>
> The numbering system evidently is meaningful to the OP, but
> camera-produced numbers are not necessarily the best way to identify
> images.
>
> Immediately after downloading, I rename all of my images with the
> date. Today's images would be 2012-07-15-001 and up.
>
> I wouldn't even notice the camera's system.
>
>


I would - but if I reformat the card I loose the last number - the
camera is not storing the highest number.

On 16/07/2012 12:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-07-15 19:06:39 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:40:50 -0400, tony cooper
>> <>
>> wrote:
>> : The numbering system evidently is meaningful to the OP, but
>> : camera-produced numbers are not necessarily the best way to identify
>> : images.
>> :
>> : Immediately after downloading, I rename all of my images with the
>> : date. Today's images would be 2012-07-15-001 and up.
>> :
>> : I wouldn't even notice the camera's system.
>>
>> You would if you were shooting with two cameras. You have to worry about
>> whether the cameras' internal numbering will result in a naming
>> conflict when
>> you copy the images to the computer. In some photo shoots I have to
>> juggle the
>> numbers from three cameras: two of mine and one of my wife's. My two main
>> cameras are 7Ds, and Canon is planning a firmware upgrade that's
>> supposed to
>> give a 7D user some control over the file names, not just the sequence
>> number.
>> Can't happen too soon for me.
>>
>> Bob
>
> For in camera labeling, Nikon allows any three letters + four digits
> along with tagging for Adobe RGB or sRGB colorspace with the use of a
> leading understroke. So an Adobe RGB might look like this _ABC_0000.NEF
> and an sRGB file ABC_0000.NEF.
>
> Nikon default is DSC_0000
> My D70 files appear as DSC_0000.NEF.
> D300 as DSC_0000.NEF
> and I changed one letter for my D300s to differentiate between the D70
> and the stolen D300. Those read DNC_0000.NEF.
>
> Then for some specific shoots, I might change the batch by substituting
> the three letters for an obvious identifier. For example DSC_0375.NEF is
> now TracyArm05_0375.dng.
>
>

I know which camera all my digital shots have been taken with.

So I have sequential folders which contain sequential images, this is
what is archived.(148-001 to 999). After that each trip, job what ever
images are copied to a working titled folder.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >> The numbering system evidently is meaningful to the OP, but
> >> camera-produced numbers are not necessarily the best way to identify
> >> images.
> >
> >exactly why there is software designed to manage images based on
> >content. the file name is irrelevant.
>
> Only if you have go-arounds that make it irrelevant. It can be very
> relevant, and useful, it build your system around it.

what go arounds are you talking about?

apps such as lightroom take care of managing photos. it's *so* much
easier it's not even funny.

> That's why we
> have software that allows us to re-name image files. FastStone (free)
> does a very good job.

renaming is old school.

> >> Immediately after downloading, I rename all of my images with the
> >> date. Today's images would be 2012-07-15-001 and up.
> >
> >that info is already in the file.
>
> Of course it is, Sherlock.

so you admit it's redundant.

> However, you don't see it when you're
> looking through folders for a particular image.

nonsense.

> Most importantly, to
> me, is that using this system sequences the files in Lightroom by date
> in Library and on my hard drives.

they'd already be sequenced by date even without you renaming them, but
more importantly, who cares? lightroom takes care of managing it.

> No search is required to find
> images in a known date range.

you're searching. you just don't realize it.

> I add a year keyword, but not a month.
> Besides, my wife can open Lightroom or a back-up on an external drive,
> but she doesn't know how to execute searches. Or need to.

you're making it much harder than it really is. click on the desired
date.

<http://www.frankhollis.com/temp/month.jpg>

> Also, the file name is the image name in this system. When I post a
> link to an image I've uploaded to SmugMug or Dropbox or whatever, the
> image name provides the date the shot was taken. No need to look in
> EXIF. That's especially useful when emailing shots to relatives that
> think "EXIF" is a shirt size for fat people.

lightroom can export images in various formats and name them whatever
you want and even directly upload them for you. it's very, very simple,
and the name of the original files makes no difference.

> It's easy to do, it works, it carries over to disks burned and sent to
> others, and I like it.

actually it's more work.

> Are there other ways? Probably. That doesn't make it irrelevant.

of course there are other ways. the point is that some of those ways
are more time consuming that others.

> Once again, you are naysaying without good cause.

wrong.

> What's your system, by the way? I don't recall ever seeing an image
> of yours. You do take photographs, don't you?

i sure do and i shot 300 yesterday. my photos shared with whom i want
to share them, but more importantly, my photos have absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with the topic.

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >>>keep the photos from different cameras in separate folders and there
> >>>will never be a name conflict and manage them with an app designed to
> >>>manage photos, such as lightroom, aperture, etc.
> >>
> >>Can't always be done.
> >
> >I wouldn't say "can't". Simply downloading into separate folders and
> >then assigning an initial or initials in the numbering system and,
> >finally, merging into one folder per destination would do it:
> >2012-01-01-ES-#### and 2012-01-01-BS-####.
>
> If you (finally) merge them into one folder per destination then you
> are not keeping "the photos from different cameras in separate
> folders". That was the part I said "Can't always be done".

each camera has its own subfolder.

lightroom or aperture will sort them by content, not by folder.

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >keep the photos from different cameras in separate folders and there
> >will never be a name conflict and manage them with an app designed to
> >manage photos, such as lightroom, aperture, etc.
>
> Can't always be done.

nonsense. of course it can always be done.

> I've just completed an exercise wherein my
> travel shots and my wife's were merged into a circa 120 x A3 page
> printout of some 1500 photographs. The photographs were organised on
> the basis of one folder per destination. I had to renumber all my
> wife's photographs to ensure they stayed clear of mine.

one destination, with one subfolder per camera.

In article <ju0foo$qpq$>, Rob <>
wrote:

> I would - but if I reformat the card I loose the last number - the
> camera is not storing the highest number.

there's no need to reformat each time, but regardless, the camera
should be storing the last number. i've yet to see a camera not do
that, including several nikon cameras. if you insert a brand new card,
the numbering continues from where it left off.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:04:04 +1200, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:54:27 -0400, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:18:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
>><> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:35:49 -0700, nospam <>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <>, Robert Coe
>>>><> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> : The numbering system evidently is meaningful to the OP, but
>>>>> : camera-produced numbers are not necessarily the best way to identify
>>>>> : images.
>>>>> :
>>>>> : Immediately after downloading, I rename all of my images with the
>>>>> : date. Today's images would be 2012-07-15-001 and up.
>>>>> :
>>>>> : I wouldn't even notice the camera's system.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would if you were shooting with two cameras. You have to worry about
>>>>> whether the cameras' internal numbering will result in a naming conflict when
>>>>> you copy the images to the computer. In some photo shoots I have to juggle the
>>>>> numbers from three cameras: two of mine and one of my wife's. My two main
>>>>> cameras are 7Ds, and Canon is planning a firmware upgrade that's supposed to
>>>>> give a 7D user some control over the file names, not just the sequence number.
>>>>> Can't happen too soon for me.
>>>>
>>>>keep the photos from different cameras in separate folders and there
>>>>will never be a name conflict and manage them with an app designed to
>>>>manage photos, such as lightroom, aperture, etc.
>>>
>>>Can't always be done.
>>
>>I wouldn't say "can't". Simply downloading into separate folders and
>>then assigning an initial or initials in the numbering system and,
>>finally, merging into one folder per destination would do it:
>>2012-01-01-ES-#### and 2012-01-01-BS-####.
>
>If you (finally) merge them into one folder per destination then you
>are not keeping "the photos from different cameras in separate
>folders". That was the part I said "Can't always be done".
>>
>>It may not be to your liking, but it can be done.
>
>Now you are giving me recomendations as to how to not do it.
>>
>>>I've just completed an exercise wherein my
>>>travel shots and my wife's were merged into a circa 120 x A3 page
>>>printout of some 1500 photographs. The photographs were organised on
>>>the basis of one folder per destination. I had to renumber all my
>>>wife's photographs to ensure they stayed clear of mine.
>>>
>>>Why my wife's? Thats another story.

I thought you wanted them - both yours and your wife's - in one folder
per destination. It seems that's what you say above.

I'm not making recommendations. I'm stating what could be done if you
want to do it differently from what you are now doing.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:43:01 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, Eric Stevens
><> wrote:
>
>> >>>keep the photos from different cameras in separate folders and there
>> >>>will never be a name conflict and manage them with an app designed to
>> >>>manage photos, such as lightroom, aperture, etc.
>> >>
>> >>Can't always be done.
>> >
>> >I wouldn't say "can't". Simply downloading into separate folders and
>> >then assigning an initial or initials in the numbering system and,
>> >finally, merging into one folder per destination would do it:
>> >2012-01-01-ES-#### and 2012-01-01-BS-####.
>>
>> If you (finally) merge them into one folder per destination then you
>> are not keeping "the photos from different cameras in separate
>> folders". That was the part I said "Can't always be done".
>
>each camera has its own subfolder.
>
>lightroom or aperture will sort them by content, not by folder.

I didn't know Lightroom sorts by content. I can't seem to train my
version to do that. It will sort by file name, capture time, added
sequence or some other ways in Grid view, but it doesn't know the
content of the image. It will sort out by keyword if I give images
keywords, but I have to tell it the keyword.

I can make "Collections" as a substitute for a folder, but I have to
determine what goes in a Collection.

Tell me how Lightroom can sort by content.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida