I have a friend (whom I have to qualify as very smart) who thinks that the mass acceptance of database-enabled programs (like Lightroom) makes precise file naming irrelevant. I disagree... In dialog boxes, search fields etc. it's faster to type a few letters of the subject name than to try and remember when exactly it was made.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
By your friend's argument, files are irrelevant too - just suck the images into a black hole and trust the database.... That's a very high minded principle similar to the idea behind Aperture 1.0's vault or the LR beta's Shoots, and we all know how quickly they both did a complete U-turn on those concepts. In practice, we shouldn't trust black holes with our work, at some unknown future point we will move to another database, and in practice we look at files outside the database, in Explorer/Finder for example.
Anyway, while I agree with Nat on the importance of filenaming, I disagree on placing the subject first. Purists like his friend would say filenames need no description, but it's more important to be practical, and descriptive text is convenient for when you're seeing lists of files in Explorer/Finder or in other programs' dialog boxes. Appending though, not prefixing, and because that way you can always use the filename to sort in sequential order of the unique identifier. At any time the collection of images one is reviewing can consist of mixed subjects, or an individual picture might itself have alternative subjects depending on the usage - eg it may be an image of a dog species or a dog might happen to be part of the composition with the Eiffel Tower. You lose that sequential sorting if the subject's at the front. The text element is too amorphous to play an important part in the filename - it's for convenience so tack it on at the end.
I recommend YYYYMMDD_1234 description, so you have the true unique identifier in the date_number, and then the more loosely controlled text for convenience. The 1234 sequential number can be applied either before or after the shoot has been edited down. If done before, the renaming can be fitted in as part of the import task but your folder will have gaps once you've edited out the duds. If done after you've finished editing, then you have a sequential control and in the future can review the file list for completeness (assuming you never deliberately delete an original afterwards and assuming you don't somehow lose images off the end of the sequence).
Some people like to prefix this with their own name, if it's short, or with their initials, and that can be handy when third parties get hold of the file. Obviously it's not very robust.
Some people also like to add a code for each camera body they use. It may be superfluous - most DAM programs show the serial number, while most adjustment software shows the model - but we're back to the Finder/Explorer argument. I don't, but I see why others might.
Something else I recently encountered was including a code for the compact flash card - so you can detect failures. The method was AB_YYYYMMDD_1234_BJ description, with AB being his name and BJ being the 36th CF card he'd ever used (AA-AZ = 26 plus BA-BJ = 10, total 36). I felt there was some validity to the idea as I've not yet seen any DAM programs or raw processors that retain the card serial number, but I don't see the need to have long term historical records of CF cards.
So YYYYMMDD_1234 description. With the description kept general, and after the unique identifier.
John
