"Best Practice" use of the Title/Product/ObjectName field

[David Burren]

I'm quite familiar with the distinctions between the Title, Headline, and Caption fields (I recently published an article on this, partly as a resource for my students).  What I'm interested in here is how other people (this means you) are using the Title field.  I've been using it for many years now, and would like to compare my technique with yours.  It's not something that gets discussed very often (thus this new thread).

Many people ignore it, some people populate it with the "original" filename during import in an attempt to allocate a "unique" (within their own DAM system) ID.  Derivative files will inherit the metadata and thus this field can be used to correlate all the versions of a file even if the filenames have been changed.

How do YOU use the Title field?

My own system allocates a unique ID from a SQLite database during import, putting that into the Title field and optionally using it as a component of the filenames.  The ID is actually derived from two components: a per-machine counter, and a per-machine identifier so that images can be imported on various laptops/desktops without generating conflicting IDs.
So a recent photo got allocated the ID A2_558, and the file coming from the camera was renamed to 200804052124_A2_558.cr2 (YYYYMMDDhhmm_ID.ext).
I don't have to worry about duplicate filenames from multiple cameras: I could use just the ID as a filename, but including the date/time has obvious advantages.  I don't put my name/initials into my internal filenames as that data's in the metadata, and will get inserted into exported files before shipping to customers.  Derivative files typically get a suffix (e.g. "-Edit", "_tonemapped") inserted before the extension, but when files are exported to be sent to a client the names are built up from the metadata into shorter things like DBP_A2_558.jpg
The A2_558 ID provides a shorthand reference to the image on proof sheets / invoices / etc, and is usually shown in web galleries at the end of the caption.  When selling prints of my work (framed or otherwise) it's printed on the label along with the Headline.

As far as I can see the fundamental difference between my system and other conventions is that I allocate a unique ID directly and then use that in the metadata and in generating filenames, rather than generating unique filenames directly and using those in the metadata.

My image ingesting is currently done with my own program and thus I've been free to generate IDs from a SQL database.  If tools like ImageIngester would allocate unique IDs directly this functionality could be reproduced through dynamic metadata templates, etc.  I have an AppleScript within Expression Media which can allocate new IDs for manually-imported images and for composite images (e.g. panoramic stitches where an ID inherited from _one_ of the component images might not be appropriate).  I haven't yet determined an efficient mechanism for this within Lightroom (other than saving metadata, updating it outside Lightroom, then reading the metadata back).  I haven't investigated similar functions for other software: iView/XM and Lightroom are what I use.


When Peter's book first came out I was interested to see that it contains no serious mention of using the Title field, encoding most of the information into the filenames.  Discussions of the use of the Title field are hard to find.
To me my system seems to have advantages of simplicity and utility.  But I'm sure I'm biased: this is the way I've been used to working for years (prior to SQLite I used PostgreSQL databases).  So I'm offering this up for critique: I'd appreciate feedback/opinions from others.  Recently I posted about this in a related thread but got no reaction.  Hopefully this post is focussed enough to generate some discussion.

How do YOU use the Title field?

Thanks!

[Mike Guilbault]

Very interesting read David.  I've been (still) struggling with filename convention but have not considered the use of Title as a component of the filename.  I tend to adapt to what the software offers.  Personally, I use the Title field for a Title of the image (narrowly thinking that's all I could/should use it for).  Not every image is titled, but I may use it for the subjects name, the location or some bit of information that I want to keep and possibly search for later. 

Since my personal photography is the area that filenames are more important (a slowly building library) that is where I use my a naming convention of YYMMCxxxx where YYMM are the standard Year, Month, C is the alpha character I assign to a particular camera, and xxxx is the unique number of the original filename.  I don't get out much so my personal photography doesn't go over 9999 images in a month - never has - doubt it ever will.  The YYMM is unique enough when combined with the camera's id that I shouldn't run into duplicate filenames.

For my professional work, I generally use the same convention but there it matters less as each 'job' is archived by client name rather than any image numbers.

[David Burren]

Thanks for the comments Mike!

Personally, I use the Title field for a Title of the image (narrowly thinking that's all I could/should use it for).  Not every image is titled, but I may use it for the subjects name, the location or some bit of information that I want to keep and possibly search for later.

Do you use the Headline field at all?  If you wanted to start using Title for something else and you're managing your files with iView/Expression Media or even just Bridge it's not too hard to script a function to copy that information out of Title and dump it into another field.  So you shouldn't feel tied down by your current system.

My image ingesting is currently done with my own program and thus I've been free to generate IDs from a SQL database.  If tools like ImageIngester would allocate unique IDs directly this functionality could be reproduced through dynamic metadata templates, etc.

So far with IIP I can see how to generate a unique ID by concatenating the per-ingest sequence and the ingest number, although the resulting ID is much longer than when using a single global counter.  But that ID could be used to populate both the Title field (and part of the filename if you wanted).

I have an AppleScript within Expression Media which can allocate new IDs for manually-imported images and for composite images (e.g. panoramic stitches where an ID inherited from _one_ of the component images might not be appropriate).  I haven't yet determined an efficient mechanism for this within Lightroom (other than saving metadata, updating it outside Lightroom, then reading the metadata back).

UPDATE: I've prepared a plug-in for LR that does this without having to leave LR.  It will be released at the same time as the official LR 2.0 (or another public beta: whichever comes first).
At the moment these functions to allocate new IDs use a different counter than the IDs we could generate through IIP, but at least they'd be unique (due to the ID prefix).

[Marc Rochkind]

Actually, IIP has a macro for generating a unique ID: {@uniqueid}.

--Marc

[David Burren]

Thanks for pointing that out Mark.
The IIP documentation only mentions this field in passing: "UniqueID (sample data): ABCDEF0123456".

Can you provide any further documentation?  Is it an incrementing counter?  Is it a decimal or hexadecimal number?  Is it left-padded with zeros out to 13 digits?  Or is it something else entirely?
(Sorry, I'll move this particular question to the ImageIngester forum)

Thanks

[ScottBuckel]

David -

Maybe I'm missing something, but I am having trouble distinguishing between using your id number and using the filename.  Assuming that your filenaming system generates an unique filename, aren't these the same, albeit less sophisicated than using a datbase to generate it? 

I started using the filename as a title for a very specific reason.  A couple of times had to sort out the name changes a client made on the evaluation images I sent them, I then saw the filename to metadata script by John Beardsworth and thought that would solve my problem for the future.  It has worked great, I have not to date had a client that changes any metadata.  Now, I do this upon ingestion with IIP.

Scott

[David Burren]

All I'm doing is allocating a unique ID for each image.
That ID is placed into the Title field, and is typically used as part of the filename.

Yes you can allocate filenames in a way that provides some guarantee of uniqueness (especially when they're long filenames that include shooting date/time info) and yes you can then copy those filenames to the Title.  But I find the shorter Titles that are just unique IDs without the other baggage of the filename much more convenient.

The filename also includes extra information to increase convenience and sort filenames in folders in sensible order (e.g. date/time).  There's no need to include that in the Title, keeping the ID short enough that you can type it in manually when searching without too much double-checking.  It can also be used in places where you don't need (or want) to make it obvious when the photo was taken (see my example above regarding labelling on the back of a print: that's enough metadata in that case that I can find it such as when sorting out a reprint).  Someone purchasing a print of a landscape doesn't need to know the date and time the photo was taken...
It's just shorter and more convenient.

But in the end, as long as your Titles are unique then everything will just flow on from there.

BTW, the LR 2.0 plug-in I mentioned also has functions for things like copying Filename to Title within Lightroom if you need to work that way.  I don't plan to use that function myself though.

[ScottBuckel]

David -

I just had an interesting observation. 

A potential editorial client has asked for the filename of submitted files to be inserted in the title field.  For once I finally have something done before a possible client asks!!!

I have also heard from a stock shooter that I know that a couple of stock agencies request this as well.  So i gues the idea of having nique info in the field is maybe becoming mainstream.

Scott

[David Burren]

A potential editorial client has asked for the filename of submitted files to be inserted in the title field.  For once I finally have something done before a possible client asks!!!

I have also heard from a stock shooter that I know that a couple of stock agencies request this as well.  So i gues the idea of having nique info in the field is maybe becoming mainstream.

Cool.  But for most of us wouldn't that still require rewriting the Title field on export?

I can see that some people start by copying the filename to the Title.  But when you make a derivative of that image, do you keep the same Title info or do you update the Title field when you change the filename?

The workflow that makes the most sense to me is to keep the same Title until you decide that this is a distinctly different image.  That way we can tie together the various treatments of an image.  When working within Lightroom, all the Virtual Copies of an image will share the same filename (and start off by inheriting the Title of the master).  Within other software where a derivative MUST be stored in a different file then obviously the filename changes, but I think the Title should remain the same by default.  Either way, the filename is just an artifact of the way we're storing the physical data.

When you're exporting images to send to a client, it would seem to be reasonable to re-write the Title fields to match the exported filenames if that suits that client, but keeping it the same as the filename during your own internal workflow would seem to lose you significant functionality.  To do this you can either generate (or copy) the output files and then update the metadata in a second pass, or you can get the Title updated during the file generation (which would obviously be a much simpler workflow).

Anyone's input on their current or intended use of the Title field would be appreciated at this point!

In my own workflow I put something in the Title at the beginning although it's not the full filename, but for the rest of the above discussion that seems to be irrelevant.

[David Burren]

A potential editorial client has asked for the filename of submitted files to be inserted in the title field.  For once I finally have something done before a possible client asks!!!

I have also heard from a stock shooter that I know that a couple of stock agencies request this as well.

I forgot to ask: are they asking for the full filename (e.g. FILENAME.TIF) to be put into the Title field, or just the "base name" (e.g. FILENAME)?

[ScottBuckel]

David -

I did not ask since I just write the filename without the extension to the title as that will link all files I have related to that image. 

I keep it with any derivative files I generate from the raw file as that seems to be the simplest way for me and since there is no extension in the filename I do not need to change it upon export.

I am curious as to what others have been doing and what their expereinces are using the various fields like title.

Thanks,

Scott

[billseymour]

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I push the filename into the title field; and then I use the 'core' part of the filename as the start of any derivatives, so originals and derivatives are grouped together in iView, EM, etc.

original:    wcs_080523_002.jpg  (wcs=initials, YYMMDD, img#)
drv:          wcs_080523_002_4x6crop.jpg

When I do extensive Photoshop modification, where I opened up a Ps project number, I also add the Ps number to my filename so I can find the project easily:

Ps drv:     wcs_080523_002_Ps0033_Master.tif

I just push the whole filename (including .jpg, .tif) into the title field. (I was referred to a John B. script, which I modified a little, so I can batch this action).

When I make a derivative, I push the derivative name into the title field. (Since I am using the 'core' part of the original filename, nothing is lost).
--Bill

[David Burren]

Thanks for chiming in Bill.
The structure of your filenames makes sense: making derivative filenames be the source plus a suffix is common practice.

So for each new file in the system you simply copy the filename to the Title field.  What advantage does this give you?  In iView/EM and LR you can search on filenames just as easily as you can on Title, you can access filenames within web templates, etc.  So do you copy all filenames to Titles just because you can and so that they're set when you distribute copies of the files?

Do the Titles get _used_ in your own workflow in preference to filenames somehow?

[billseymour]

David-
My main reason for putting filename into the title is for the Photoshop workups- until I finish a Ps project, I leave the title field alone; this way, my project Ps0023 files still carry the original filename (in the title).

This is handy for me, since my Ps filenames DO have 'content naming' in them, until they are finally finished. In the Ps working stage, knowing what the file is about IS important to me, since I am looking at folders and am not using catalog software to pull up the Ps files. I can use a 'loose naming' convention in the Ps files, since I know exactly which project I'm on because of the unique project number (so I can have Ps0055_sunset v01, and a totally different image Ps0123_sunset. I know they are separate projects)
So:

original image:   wcs_080524_002.jpg                (title: wcs_080524_002.jpg)

Ps 'in progress':  Ps0055_vermont_sunset.psd     (title: wcs_080524_002.jpg)

Ps completed:    wcs_080524_002_Ps0055_Master.tif  (title now becomes: wcs_080524_002_Ps0055_Master.tif)


As with everyone's system, this makes perfect sense to me, probably looks overly complicated to you!
I just wanted to always have the original filename somewhere in every file variant (especially the Photoshop files, while 'in progress').

And again, when the Ps project is finished and the Master is saved:
- the Master gets the 'core filename'-plus-Ps####;
- the new Master filename gets pushed into the title;
- and since everything has the 'core name' throughout, I don't get lost!

Whew.
--Bill

[David Burren]

Thanks, that's a bit clearer.
I'd missed the part about your intermediate files (which I would refer to as derivatives of a sort, thus my confusion) keeping the title of their source.