topic Re: File Names Changed in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

File Names Changed

RCP — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 11:40:16 GMT

When my camera (Canon 6D) imports into Lightroom 4, the file names are usually named IMG_#### (whatever number the photo is...) Now when it imports it's called _MG_### - I can't find where to change it back and that missing "I" is bugging me. I'm not sure if it's a setting in my camera, or in my LR4. Does anyone here know?

Re: File Names Changed

cicopo — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:04:49 GMT

You've changed the color space from sRGB to Adobe RGB. Look it up in the manual & I suggest changing it back to sRGB.

Re: File Names Changed

amfoto1 — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 14:30:49 GMT

Yeah, that's correct. It's the camera's settings - Adobe RGB vs sRGB. It has nothing to do with LR4.

However, I disagree about changing it back.

Adobe RGB is a larger color space and the one I use by default. You can always convert an image to sRGB later, reducing it's size a little. In fact, you should do so for images to be displayed online and for some (most?) printers, where sRGB is the standard. However there are other times that Adobe RGB is usable. And, although you can convert sRGB to Adobe RGB, the additional data not initially captured in the wider color space is unrecoverable, so a conversion from sRGB to Adobe RGB won't be the same as if the image were originally shot in Adobe RGB. It's sort of like why you shoot RAW rather than setting the camera to do the JPEG conversions at the time the shot is taken. RAW captures and retains far more data in a 16bit image file, data that's discarded and unrecoverable if the images are shot as 8bit JPEGs in-camera. The same is true of Adobe RAW, vs sRGB.

I always change the file names in Lightroom anyway, so I don't care very much what the camera labels them. I also don't let LR (or any other app) automatically import the files. I just do a drag and drop to a folder I've set up for them. Later to add the contents to LR's library I just navigate to that file folder in LR. And, you might already know, if you add more files to the folder, or remove any, simply synchronize the folder and LR will update the library as needed.

By the way....

Can't see your RAW files in Windows Explorer? There's an app for that.

If you're using a 32 bit system, Canon has a free RAW viewer codec you can download and install. If using a 64 bit OS, you'll have to spend a little money. For $15 I got Fast Picture Viewer and installed it. This not only allows viewing of Canon CR2, but also just about every other RAW file format known to man. There are times I am shooting with other photographers who use other camera makes and need to be able to see previews of their files, too. (Note: Windows Explorer and Picture Viewer are not color calibrated, so don't take them too seriously. They are only good for previews and general image checks.)

***********
Alan Myers

San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

Re: File Names Changed

cicopo — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 15:09:47 GMT

I understand what you're saying BUT could you explain how people could work in Adobe RGB's wider color gamut using standard monitors. My monitors can switch between the 2 but the vast majority of people own monitors that only work in sRGB. I personally can't see a way to work properly on a display incapable of displaying the rest of the color gamut.

Re: File Names Changed

ebiggs1 — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 15:35:19 GMT

I agree as 98% of us have no advantage in using AdobeRGB. Keep it at sRGB. Even if you do decide to use it, you must tell your custom printer service you did or they won't either.

sRGB came first and virtually everything is based on it. Is AdobeRGB better? Probably. Is it generally useable? No.

Aseverygame, website, monitorandconsumerprinterusessRGB. AndwebsiteswilldoamiserablejobofautomaticallyconvertinganyAdobeRGBphotoyouupload.

Keep it on sRGB.

Re: File Names Changed

amfoto1 — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:31:37 GMT

Well, for one thing I do my image editing on a calibrated, graphics quality monitor that's able to display most of Adobe RGB. Now I shoot professionally and my paycheck depends upon the quality of my images.

But really anyone serious about photography should carefully consider the monitor they are using to evaluate and edit their images (and I think it's pretty safe to assume most people who would buy a full frame DSLR such as the 6D are fairly serious (whether they're an unpaid but serious amateur or a paid pro). Standard, consumer grade monitors just lead to a lot of wasted printing supplies and frustration.

A graphics quality monitor is more expensive than a consumer grade, but doesn't have to be budget-busting expensive either. For example, I'm using an HP LP2475w. There are other, similar quality, that sell for $400 to $500. Way better when working with photos, than $100 to $200 general consumer quality monitors.

But regardless of the monitor I'm using, I shoot Adobe RGB for the same reason I shoot RAW. I can't send a RAW file to a printer or display it online, either. That's not going to make me switch back to shooting JPEGs, though. The RAW is my "digital negative", that I want to capture and retain as much image data as possible. The RAW is my starting point, not the end product. Heck, if the cameras could do it, I'd use Pro Photo or one of the other, even larger gamut color spaces! I can always scale them down. You can never truly scale them up.

I regularly convert to sRGB at the same time I'm processing RAW files and making online usable/printable JPEGs or TIFFs. There are no extra steps or effort necessary, so I really don't see any good reason not to use Adobe RGB for the original captures.

Five or ten years down the road... who knows? Maybe one of the wider gamut color spaces will become the standard. If my camera gear becomes obsolete, I can replace it. If my image files become obsolete, there's almost never any way to go back and reshoot them!

You are right that for a lot of people sRGB if fine and they have no need for Adobe RGB...Maybe the original poster doesn't, or maybe they do. I guess I just see it the opposite of you. I assumed that since OP bought a 6D and Lightroom 4 they likely are fairly serious about their photography, should be made aware of the differences, and allowed to make their own, informed choices.

For additional info about sRGB vs Adobe RGB, see http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm

***********
Alan Myers

San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

Re: File Names Changed

ebiggs1 — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:06:05 GMT

"I guess I just see it the opposite of you."

And therein lies the reason for choices. Use whatever does it for you or your personal needs.

BTW, I doubt you work for, or worked for, a larger photo and printing firm that I did for 40 years.

Re: File Names Changed

RCP — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 20:56:13 GMT

I didn't even consider the color space - but that was it! Thank you 🙂

Re: File Names Changed

hsbn — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 04:39:24 GMT

Color space is only applicable for JPG. If you're shooting RAW, it doesn't matter.

Re: File Names Changed

RCP — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:56:41 GMT

I do shoot RAW actually 🙂

Re: File Names Changed

hsbn — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:49:52 GMT

Then change the color space so it will generate the file name you want or you can change it in LR upon import. But at least, you don't have to worry which color space you'll end up with to get the desired file name.

Re: File Names Changed

hsbn — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:20:00 GMT

@amfoto1 wrote:
Yeah, that's correct. It's the camera's settings - Adobe RGB vs sRGB. It has nothing to do with LR4.

However, I disagree about changing it back.

Since he is shooting RAW, he can change it back. You know that RAW file doesn't have color space right. It's only applicable with JPG. So if you are shooting RAW, you can change the color space so that it will give you the desired filename.