re: " If they don't match, then something else on your system is changing it and very likely this could be the cause of all your problems." This sounds like the 2010 version of blaming the hardware (we only had punch cards in the 60's so we couldn't use the "virus" excuse...

Here's a screen print of the files:

Frame one shows the files as they are on the CF card (note that the "modified" and "created" dates are the same and the "date accessed" has defaulted to the same date with a 12:00 AM time (since it has not yet been accessed). This is a function of every Nikon DSLR I own.

Frame two shows the same fields after being transferred using Qimage. Note the field changes: "modified" is the same; "created" and "accessed" have changed to the time of the transfer. THIS IS INCORRECT AS THE “CREATED” DATE HAS NOT CHANGED, the files have only been transferred to a different medium. You’re re-writing the “date created” the same as Explorer does. I suppose you can argue that by placing it on the hard drive it has been “created” but that’s not how I see it. I believe a NEW DATE/TIME is “CREATED” when you edit the photo and CREATE a NEW ONE!

Frame three shows the same fields using Nikon Transfer. Note the changes. "Modified" and "created" remain the same; ONLY "accessed" changes to the time of the transfer. THIS IS CORRECT as the file has only been “accessed” for the transfer and has not been changed since it was shot with the camera. The “created” and “modified” date will change when the file is edited since it will now be a “new” file, hence, a new creation date. Their software also shows a “date shot” that NEVER changes and can be sorted within ViewNX or NX2, although only to the second (proprietary info, no doubt).

So I don’t have a virus, and yes, Qimage does have a minor flaw. It shouldn’t change the “creation” date of a file that has NOT BEEN CHANGED IN ANY WAY SINCE ITS CREATION (it’s only been “moved”). And, sadly for me, there is no way to sort the original shooting date. I’m sure the reason I never noticed this before is because I was using Qimage only to print edited files. When I started transferring and editing my photos using Ultimate I noticed the problem. Since I have no interest in changing my workflow, which has worked for me since the advent of digital, I’ll learn to deal with the flaw, whatever it requires from me (and thanks to all for the possible options). I really do like some of the functions in Ultimate and hope to learn to like it even more. Thanks for your time and patience.

PS – With all of the changes you have made, the sort is now almost non-functional. Can you put it back to the beginning?? and, PLEASE, DO NOT TAMPER WITH STUDIO’S SORT FUNCTION!!!!!!

PS - don't read Alan’s post He must have a virus, too….

Ray - re: "Hi, Utrachrome, download opanda, compare the times shown for your images."

I need to buy Opanda Pro for RAW files. Really don't need another EXIF viewer. I normally use Irfanview which works fine with all file formats I use. Thanks for caring  

Here's the EXIF data from Irfanview for the first shot in the series:
Filename - 300_1254.NEF
ImageWidth - 160
ImageLength - 120
BitsPerSample - 8 8 8
Compression - 1 (None)
PhotometricInterpretation - 2
Make - NIKON CORPORATION
Model - NIKON D300
StripOffset - 120320
Orientation - Top left
SamplesPerPixel - 3
RowsPerStrip - 120
StripByteCount - 57600
XResolution - 300
YResolution - 300
PlanarConfiguration - 1
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Ver.1.10
DateTime - 2010:09:13 13:44:59
Artist -
ReferenceBlackWhite - 0
Copyright -
ExifOffset - 600
DateTimeOriginal - 2010:09:13 13:44:59
ExposureTime - 1/50 seconds
FNumber - 5.60
ExposureProgram - Normal program
ISOSpeedRatings - 200
DateTimeOriginal - 2010:09:13 13:44:59
DateTimeDigitized - 2010:09:13 13:44:59
ExposureBiasValue - -1.00
MaxApertureValue - F 5.66
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Not fired
FocalLength - 105.00 mm
UserComment -
SubsecTime - 93
SubsecTimeOriginal - 93
SubsecTimeDigitized - 93
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - Other
SceneType - Other
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
White Balance - Auto
DigitalZoomRatio - 1 x
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 157 mm
SceneCaptureType - Standard
GainControl - None
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - High
Sharpness - Hard
SubjectDistanceRange - Unknown

GPS information: -
GPSVersionID - 2.2.0.0

Maker Note (Vendor): -
Data version - 0210 (808595760)
ISO Setting - 200
Image Quality - RAW
White Balance - AUTO
Focus Mode - AF-S
Flash Setting - NORMAL
Flash Mode -
White Balance Adjustment - 0
White Balance RB - 706
Exposure Adjustment - 68608
Thumbnail IFD offset - 8670
Flash Compensation - -67041792
ISO 2 - 200
Lens type - 234881024
Lens - 854
Flash Used - Not fired
Bracketing - 1114112
Contrast Curve - I0
Noise Reduction - OFF
Total pictures - 4373

re: "Bottom line: you should not be modifying NEF files so the date created and the date modified should be identical.  I'd love to know what you are doing that is screwing up the date modified.  Whatever it is, just stop doing that and it'll work fine."

The real bottom line is that QIMAGE is changing the data. Here's a screen shot of the files used for my last example Note the date/times. These files were DIRECTLY downloaded from a CF card using the card copy function in Ultimate. I DID NOT TOUCH OR CHANGE ONE THING, PERIOD!

So what's up?
BTW - apparently, Nikon uses what Explorer calls the "date modified" for the "date shot" in their software. Are we confused yet? That field appears to be unchangeable by those of us who don't know how to program    If things are like they were in the 60's when I WAS programming, the next thing the software engineer says is "I'm blaming the hardware"!

So you are saying I cannot sort by the date/time that the photo was taken?? I'm just looking to sort in an order that the photos were CREATED, not modified, loaded, edited or whatever. Here are two photos of the problem, taken today from 13:44:36:531 until 13:44:44:765 (approximately 8 seconds worth of shots). I have renamed the files with a random name AND THE LAST NUMBER (prior to “dot” NEF) IN THE FILE is THE CREATED ORDER (#'s 1-15). The first shows the order that is created in QIU when sorted DATE MINUS (so it sorted them 8-15-12-4, etc). The second shows those photos in order. Sorry for the loss of detail - it is the best resize I could get with the file size limitation. I can email you a beautiful jpg if you wish.

Notice the photos are a DIGITAL CLOCK WITH MILLISECONDS. If you look at the second photo, you will see that the files ARE NOT IN THE CORRECT DATE/TIME order (the order they were TAKEN in).

In reality, the sort is of no use, period. And these photos were shot within 8 seconds of each other. Your sort becomes more random as file names are changed and the size of the directory grows. It’s not in any sensible order that would lend itself to being able to find a particular photograph for a particular time frame. Nikon software will keep the CREATION DATE sort within the SECOND (even with name changes) but fails the “millisecond” test. Oh well…

EPILOGUE:
Mike – you may be happy to know that I’ve now messed up my sorts in Explorer AND Nikon!! By renaming my files, NO date sort works right (which is what I was afraid would happen with new filenames). In the attached screen prints, the LAST DIGIT in the filename is the CORRECT sort order, 1 through 30 or 30 through 1. I’ve now got a ticket in to Nikon  <sigh>…

I see now that I have no choice but to acquiesce to renaming my files to include a reference to date/time/order shot in the first fields. It seems no programmer can actually accomplish this seemingly simple task – SORT BY DATE TO INCLUDE MONTH-DAY-YEAR-HOUR-MINUTE-SECOND-MILLISECOND. Why, then, capture that information if you cannot use it?

- 30 -

Final comment:
I shot in continuous order from 1224 through 1253. 1224 - 1235 were shot at 9am; 1236 - 1253 were shot at 2pm. The correct order for a sort should be either 1224 (oldest) through 1253 (newest) OR 1253 (newest) through 1224 (oldest). That's the order they came out of the camera and that's the order they were shot in (I shot photos of a clock with seconds to be sure they were in the correct order as they came out of the camera (as if my Nikon would misnumber them  ) and they were NOT shot within a single second). The files have not been modified by me in any way. Since it is obvious that you can't/won't fix this problem, I'll stop bugging you (pun intended). 'Nuff said...

Version 119: date/time sort: still incorrect

Test file #’s : 300_1224 (FIRST SHOT) through 300_1253 (LAST SHOT) continuous as shot in camera (30 shots)

Name sort works correctly (prefix "300_" dropped for clarity):
“Name +” shows 1224 thru 1253 continuously
“Name –“ shows 1253 thru 1224 continuously (direct reverse order)

“Date/time +” sort (which should be in the "name +" order: 1239:1240:1241:1242:1243:1244:1245:1246:1247:1248:1249:1250:1251:1252:1253 (LAST SHOT):1224 (FIRST SHOT):1225:1226:1227:1228:1229:1230:1231:1232:1233:1234:1235:1236:1237:1238

“Date/time –“ sort (which should be in the "name -" order::
1238:1237:1236:1235:1234:1233:1232:1231:1230:1229:1228:1227:1226:1225:1224 (FIRST SHOT):1253 (LAST SHOT):1254:1253:1252:1251:1250:1249:1248:1247:1246:1245:1244:1243:1242:1241:1239

“Close, but no pizza” I have attached two files for your perusal...

BTW - Explorer sorts them fine, + or -, using "date created".

For further testing, I shot two sets of shots today. SET ONE was numbered from 300_1224 to 300_1238; then two hours later I shot SET TWO numbered 300_1239 to 300_1253. FWIW, they were not shot in the same "minute". They were shot and named numerically in order from 1224 thru 1253 with correct time stamps according to Nikon ViewNX.

When sorting in QI Ultimate, if I sort by "name +" they appear correctly (#'s 1224-1253). If I sort by "name -" they appear correctly (#'s 1253-1224).

If I sort by date +, they appear as follows: #1239-1253 then #1224-1238. Sorted by "date -" changes NOTHING (no reversal of order, they show up EXACTLY the same way as the "date +" sort). In "date +" they should appear #1224-1253 (same as if sorted by "name +"); in "date -" they should appear "#1253-1224" (same as "name -"). It looks as if it tried to sort them in a "date -" order but messed up the date order within the "set".

RE:
With v118 sorting by date + or - is fine too. The file data shows I was getting up to 3 images with the same time to the second as expected and all are in sequence.


I assume the sort is done AFTER you have renamed every file? What happens to your sorting if you just transfer the files directly to disk from the CF (or whatever) card in your camera without a rename? Does the "date sort" sort them correctly, + and - ? Thanks.

I've tried the new version. It looked promising when I tried sorting 12 files in "date +" order. Then I sorted in "date -" order and the order did not change at all. Then I tried a larger directory area (containing jpg, tiff and raw files, and it seems the date sort is TOTALLY unusable. It seems to have no order at all, and, worse yet, it won't even retain the same incorrect order if you select between + and - (i.e. it does not "mirror" the order) . It IS consistent in its inconsistency, however. I think some problems (although not all) may have to do with the use of special characters. The Nikon naming system uses an underscore "_" as the first or fourth digit to determine the color space used. For example, if I shoot sRGB, the file will be named _xxxXXXX (with the xxx being selectable by me using any character and XXXX being the 4-digit frame number assigned by the camera). If I shoot AdobeRGB, the file will be name xxx_XXXX.

I did go back and reload Qimage Studio and I notice it has the same problems I originally posted here (but that's better than whatever you did to Ultimate). I never noticed it before but was not using QI Studio the same way I would like to use Ultimate.

As for what field I use for my data given in my posts, I have been using Nikon's "date shot" field.  Their software  displays "created"; "modified" and "shot" dates/times. The "date shot" shows milliseconds, both in Nikon ViewNX and Nikon Capture NX2. FWIW, I haven't really dealt with any programming since in the 60's when we used punchcards in Fortran or Cobol...

EDIT For my info, what are the hex locations of the fields you are using for the date sort (it looks like you use the one starting on line 400 which is the second date I see)? It may help me shake this down. All I want to do is get a correct  date by milli-second sort! Am I the only one that shoots more than 1fps?

EDIT (file removed) See the attached file for HEX locations...not really sure if that helps as that location seems to change...

It would be good to at least keep the "seconds" in order. Thanks for listening. Here's my latest "date" sort:

Without going into the entire sequence of shots, here’s how it sorted when I selected date/time. The sort was – (minus) and should list LAST SHOT FIRST:

File Name      File Date Time (hh:mm:ss)
1202         09:24:22
1201         09:24:21
1200         09:24:21
1205         09:23:23
1204         09:24:23
1203         09:24:22
1197         09:24:20
1196         09:24:19
and so on.

Order should be (from first to last):
1205-1204-1203-1202-1201-1200-1199-1198-1197-1196

The numbers missing from the above example are further down in the preview window. Obviously the sort is way off.

I'm guessing Nikon is using the shutter count field for the correct order. Changing the name of a file NEVER interferes with the correct date sort I get on Nikon software. Just curious - is this a problem only with Nikon or do other file formats not sort correctly if shots are fast?

Just because I feel like arguing with you:

The sort function of QU does NOT work for date. To have to rename a file in order for a function to work is, to me, the same as not working. As I have said before, Nikon Capture and View BOTH sort correctly on date, every time, every frame, no matter the frames per second, WITHOUT modification, over 50,000 frames sorted from FOUR different Nikon DSLR cameras, so it IS POSSIBLE and the data IS THERE.

End of rant....

Thanks for the clarifications and comments. I really was just curious as to why QU wouldn't sort by date correctly - I guess the answer is "that's the way it is and the way it will stay". Not really a big deal, but it does nullify the date sort function.

If you only have the yy-mm-dd in your name sort, how do you keep it in correct shooting order? That's not enough info unless you only shoot ONE photo per day! I'm dealing, theoretically,  with shoots that typically have over 1000 shots per day, occurring in 50-75 frame bursts (such as a NASCAR road race in a given corner - although I shoot motorcycles, mostly  )...

Mel - don't look them up for my sake! You might want to send them to Nikon though   They are the only ones that have the know-how to see the correct fields in the file as it is well below basic EXIF. The "creation date" is the sort field they use in their software and you can't change that with any basic editor I have found. It would be pointless to post anything here since the visible filename is changeable at will.

As for the issue, I'll just keep sorting, and editing, in Nikon NX2 and transfer only those I wish to print to QU. Unfortunately, that kinda defeats MY purpose of going from Studio to Ultimate.