メインコンテンツへスキップ

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Batch Renaming to Original file names

NN8926212
Ok...I am at a loss. I batch renamed about 500 files just now and want to retain the original file name out of the camera, but added a date and realized I was off a day with the date and cannot figure out how to revert to my original file names...ie. _D3X7981 If I go ahead and batch rename it adds all the info again and I get something that looks like this... _D3X7981_20100421_BleedingHearts_20100420_BleedingHearts

HELP!!!! 😕 What the heck can I do to just get back to ground one and where I started??? Thanks. I can not believe that once you rename the files you are stuck able to get back.

@.
0

コメント

4件のコメント

日付 投票
  • Jim_DK
    Hi,

    If C1 session is still open you can CMD+Z undo the batch rename command. If you close C1 you cant and you are stuck.

    As a work around you could rename it to the original assuming you know the name of the first file (?)

    Order by date
    Select all and batch rename
    choose Job name and 4digit counter
    set job name to "_D3X" or whatever your prefix is
    Choose the triangle in the corner> set counter to start from the file name number (eg. 7981)
    Rename
    Files will be renamed _D3X7981, _D3X7982 etc.

    Now you can batch rename again this time with the "image name and job name" and add your date/whatever.

    Hope this is useful. If you still have issues, create a support case and we'll take it from there.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    I also find that the "batch rename" function is much too limited. In my case, I would like to always retain the "camera counter" as the last 6 digits of the file name. But that does not appear to be an option. And the "camera counter" no longer appears in the meta data. Is there any way to access that counter for renaming, or is that a feature that could be added?

    Carter
    0
  • Christopher821
    Yes, the batch rename ability is sorely limited. Plenty of image handling applications can do so much more. There are work arounds for now, but things get messy quick once in Capture One and especially if you've started making adjustments. Submit a feature request so you are heard by Phaseone.

    JamesJ has the good idea.

    Work arounds for the future:
    -Bridge script "Filename to Metadata", you can embed a file name in the metadata. So for instance if you wanted to rename your images by your own scheme you could embed the original camera name in metadata for later reference/retrieval.
    -Photomechanics software can do some sophisticated metadata/naming manipulation
    -Rname, a free app that I use on Leopard (not sure if works on Snow Leopard). Basically allows a bunch of file naming features independent of images. For instance my Canon makes filenames: _MG_xxxx. Sometimes I want: Job#-xxxx (using camera counter), well Rname allows me to remove the "_MG_" and then I can batch rename in C1. If you let C1 import first and want to save adjustments and previews, you can Rname to truncate each file set (raws,prefs,and previews). Re-open C1 and the software couldn't care less. (Make sure to have C1 shutdown when manipulating files!)
    -ImageIngesterPro, a nice importing tool that is very robust. I won't go into it at length, but you can do a lot.

    All this said and more, Phaseone needs to up their game with file management and metadata handling.

    Chris G
    0
  • NN8926212
    Thanks everyone for your suggestions and input and I will submit a feature request so this is heard loud and clear by Phase One for future versions. It is odd that this seems to be the top "Pro" software to be using to capture and process images out of and after all these versions it still seems underdeveloped on some of the simplest of levels....in MY opinion at least. For this renaming thing...there should definitely be some easy way to program a way to revert back to your original file names I would imagine. I am not a programmer, but with the complex softwares out there today that does not seem like too much to ask or too much work to do.

    I still preferred version 3.7.9's interface over this and although now used to 4 and 5 and love the power of the current version, there still seems to be something not there to really make it a solid package I am completely happy about. I still felt better for some reason about using version 3 than I do using any current version now for whatever that reason may be.

    Anywho. That's my 2 cents. 😕
    0

投稿コメントは受け付けていません。