cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Prefix file name underscore versus 8

Zbadger
Contributor
I use Adobe color space for my 5D Mark 4 which uses a file name with an initial underscore. However I am finding that on some of my folders the majority of my files will be correctly labeled with an underscore but then a lesser number of them will randomly instead have an 8 starting off the name of the file. I contacted Canon technical support and they have never heard of this issue.
2 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"The RAW file metadata is supposed to describe the RAW file, not some edits that someone made."

 

WE AGREE!  Smiley Wink It is simply a matter of how each editor handles it but there is one.


Frankly, Gentlemen, if I've inadvertently done something to help bridge the gap between you, my day has not been wasted!  Smiley Happy

 

Well, actually, it has. I'm supposed to be spending my time cleaning out our old house so that we can complete our move to Philadelphia. But that's another story.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

View solution in original post

'Adobe is always behind the curve; they have to wait for Canon to tell them what's included in the latest RAW file format."

 

Canon does not document how their Raw files work. Others will always be "behind the curve" because they have to analyse how they work.

 

"DPP's RAW files have always reliably included all the edits I've made... I have no reason to suppose that I've been getting some special treatment."

 

Sorry ya lost me on that one.  I suspect DPP4 works exactly for you as it does for everybody.

 

"... if I've inadvertently done something to help bridge the gap between you, my day has not been wasted!"

 

I don't mind being shown where I go wrong.  It happens and it will happen again, I'm sure.  However, I don't like rude so I bow out then.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!

View solution in original post

48 REPLIES 48


@Zbadger wrote:

I am shooting both in RAW and jpg.  Back story:  these images are from a trip with 20 people,  I took most of the scenic and museum images - about 3000 total.  I offered like a similar trip last year to create a day by day electronic album for the entire group - using my photos as the base starting point.  So I am using jpg for the vast majority of images (and modifying my RAW images for the better shots).  I was relying on the visual jpg's to determine which images I was going to include in the album and expecting them to be in chronologicl order.  But as last year, 5 to !5% of them, are not in order because they have an "8" prefix.


Almost every program including Windows can sort the photos by Date (and time) Taken.


@TTMartin wrote:

@Zbadger wrote:

I am shooting both in RAW and jpg.  Back story:  these images are from a trip with 20 people,  I took most of the scenic and museum images - about 3000 total.  I offered like a similar trip last year to create a day by day electronic album for the entire group - using my photos as the base starting point.  So I am using jpg for the vast majority of images (and modifying my RAW images for the better shots).  I was relying on the visual jpg's to determine which images I was going to include in the album and expecting them to be in chronologicl order.  But as last year, 5 to !5% of them, are not in order because they have an "8" prefix.


Almost every program including Windows can sort the photos by Date (and time) Taken.


And while Windows doesn't make it particularly easy to assign chronological names to a large group of pictures, Canon's Digital Photo Professional (and I'm pretty sure also Lightroom and Photoshop) does. So I think you can treat the erratic naming, whatever its source, as merely a nuisance. It shouldn't be in any way a show stopper.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA


@RobertTheFat wrote:

@TTMartin wrote:

@Zbadger wrote:

 


Almost every program including Windows can sort the photos by Date (and time) Taken.


And while Windows doesn't make it particularly easy to assign chronological names to a large group of pictures, Canon's Digital Photo Professional (and I'm pretty sure also Lightroom and Photoshop) does. So I think you can treat the erratic naming, whatever its source, as merely a nuisance. It shouldn't be in any way a show stopper.


You should [add] the EOS Utility to that list.  It allows you to rename files and create folders based upon criteria contained within the EXIF data.  For me, it is THE reason that I use it.  I can easily sort images by camera and date into unique folders with unique names.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."


@Zbadger wrote:

Back story:  these images are from a trip with 20 people, 


Did you ever hand your camera to someone else to take a photo so you could be in it?

If you did that person might have known just enough to put the camera in Green Square mode.

In response to TTMartin, Bob and all who have contributed to this thread , my thanks and hopefully my final comments and question below.

 

TTMartin - If I did give it to someone in green mode, it may have been once and that should not account for the 150+ pics over 10 day folders that are with an 8 prefix.  

 

Bob - Windows does not do a good job or chronoligically correcting the date issue - I have tried and also screwed around a bit with Bridge and Lightroom.  Have not tried DPP though for reordering items.

 

Lastly and most importantly, I do not want this mix of _ and 8 prefixes to happen again.  So just to confirm with everyone  --  I will change my settings in the 5D MarkIV for color space to sRGB and not worry about that at all for my .jpg images.   But if after reviewing my RAW/.jpg images, there is a great image I want to have professionally printed, I can just go to my RAW frame and process it how I wish and the RAW frame will NOT BE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY by the sRGB setting I have inputted in the color space setting within the camera menu (red section, page 2)Correct????


@Zbadger wrote:

Lastly and most importantly, I do not want this mix of _ and 8 prefixes to happen again.  So just to confirm with everyone  --  I will change my settings in the 5D MarkIV for color space to sRGB and not worry about that at all for my .jpg images.   But if after reviewing my RAW/.jpg images, there is a great image I want to have professionally printed, I can just go to my RAW frame and process it how I wish and the RAW frame will NOT BE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY by the sRGB setting I have inputted in the color space setting within the camera menu (red section, page 2)Correct????


Correct the sRBG and Adobe RGB setting is the colorspace saved in the in camera JPG, and does not impact the information saved in the RAW file.

When you process your RAW file and then save them to JPG you can then choose sRGB for screen/web JPGs, and Adobe RGB colorspace for those images you wish to print with a Adobe colorspace compatable printer.

"I can just go to my RAW frame and process it how I wish and the RAW frame will NOT BE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY by the sRGB setting I have inputted in the color space setting within the camera menu (red section, page 2)."

 

OK, thinking I may make this more clear. Technically what I said in my last post is correct. In practice it doesn't actually happen that way specifically.  True, there is no WB or color space assigned to any Raw file. However, in order to view a Raw file a conversion must take place.  Your editor, LR or PS (best!) do that. How?  They us a small tag file created by your camera that does contain all the camera's settings. It is saved along with the Raw data file. That is what you see on your monitor. Or even on the camera's LCD for that matter.

 

You are now in your photo editor. The Raw file is unaltered and in most cases you can't even save back to the Raw file at all.  You have to choose a different format like jpg, tiff, etc.  That is where you set your color space.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I can just go to my RAW frame and process it how I wish and the RAW frame will NOT BE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY by the sRGB setting I have inputted in the color space setting within the camera menu (red section, page 2)."

 

OK, thinking I may make this more clear. Technically what I said in my last post is correct. In practice it doesn't actually happen that way specifically.  True, there is no WB or color space assigned to any Raw file. However, in order to view a Raw file a conversion must take place.  Your editor, LR or PS (best!) do that. How?  They us a small tag file created by your camera that does contain all the camera's settings. It is saved along with the Raw data file. That is what you see on your monitor. Or even on the camera's LCD for that matter.

 

You are now in your photo editor. The Raw file is unaltered and in most cases you can't even save back to the Raw file at all.  You have to choose a different format like jpg, tiff, etc.  That is where you set your color space.


What Ernie says is correct for the editors he uses, but not for DPP. DPP uses no "tag file", and does allow you to save back to the RAW file. (It remembers both the original image and the changes thereto, so no information is lost.) Whether the current color space setting is saved, I'm not sure. It probably is; but the safe thing to do, whatever editor you're using, is to always check the color space in use before saving to a JPEG.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

Thank you.  Right now under Adobe PS CC, it is set for sRGB.  I should make sure for professional printing that it states Adobe RGB.


@Zbadger wrote:

Thank you.  Right now under Adobe PS CC, it is set for sRGB.  I should make sure for professional printing that it states Adobe RGB.


Yes, ONLY for when you are processing the file to print with an Adobe RGB compatable printer.

 

Otherwise, for 'normal' processing for digital display (digital photoframe, computer monitor, web (social media)) then you will want to leave it set to sRGB.

Avatar
click here to view the press release
Announcements