Could this be broken in QU?

I use ?y?m?d?h?n?s?. Qimage Studio renames a file taken at 09:51 on Oct 11th as 20101011095136. Qimage Ultimate renames it as 20101016150556. If you ask QU to have another go, it renames it 20101016150556(0001), even when it's the only file in the folder!

This has caused complete chaos in my image database :-(

That's not the behaviour I'm seeing here. As you say QU is renaming according to the modified date but QS is renaming according to the date taken, which is what I'm used to and also what I need. I've taken that same file and put it in a folder all by itself. QU gives me 20101019161414. I then use QS on that same file (after QU has renamed it) and I get 20101011095136

Hi Anthony,

interesting sort of related thread here - if you've not seen http://ddisoftware.com/tech/qimage-ultimate/thumb-sort-order/ - At the end Mike says ' I'm happy to think like a programmer and not a photographer' so you'll really have to explain the importance of what you want to do 

Readily visible in the exif info are three dates, any of which could be useful, and are different to each other. Then there is the windows file date, which is different from those, too. I guess to do what you want, you will have to write iptc info and sort on that.

Best wishes,

Ray

Hi Mike,

The basic problem is that not everybody wants to do things the way you think they should. It should not be difficult to give folk choices. I believe you added something wrt the sort in the link I referenced, once the op in that post had explained what he wanted. I was pointing out to Anthony that there was a similar request in that thread, with presumably a satisfactory outcome, after the op had persistently argued his case.

There are, I expect, many photographers who would like to sort images by the time when the images were originally taken, perhaps in the situation where more than one photographer/camera were present at an event*. A similar need may be if the images are edited/processed at a later date, or in some other order than originally shot.

Think yourself lucky I am still able to  'give you a jab' now and again. If I didn't care, I wouldn't bother   

Best wishes,

Ray

* and then possibly sort within that by lens or owners name or whatever   

That's not really the problem.  My job isn't to pick what I like best.  My job is to sort through a thousand requests and pick: (1) what appears to be the best option to satisfy the most people while (2) avoiding feature creep and bloat.


True... I made a change in that case since I could do it without adding new features or selectable options to complicate the interface.  And I'd also like to point out the fact that the entire problem was that we had one person shooting at 9 fps which was faster than the Windows operating system could handle with respect to date/time.  That's really dealing in the minutia which I normally don't do but I did it in that case because, like I said, I could make a change to improve it without changing anything at all in the interface or adding more options that would likely appear obscure to 99.9% of people.  Sure, it wouldn't be difficult to add choices, but I have to be convinced it is needed because choices add complexity.  I have to factor in the fact that: (1) the same renaming convention has been used in FlashPipe for over a year and Ultimate for three months without a single complaint or even a reference to this renaming issue and (2) this really shouldn't be an issue as I said earlier if the file is being handled properly.  So why add complexity that is likely to not be used by the vast majority of people and that would only be there to correct a (non Qimage related) problem of the file modified date being changed which should really be addressed at the source.


Absolutely!  Why do you think I let you "get your digs in"?  If they really bothered me, I'd just delete them.   

Mike

Ray,
I'm fortunate and realised the date was important, so from the beginning of my digital photography I used a date based folder names. 
Rename Master software maybe of help to you, it's free:
http://www.joejoesoft.com/cms/showpage.php?cid=108
It will pick up the original date of an unmodified jpeg from the exif and if that date has been copied across to any child copies it would work for those too. Otherwise you'd have to use the file modified date.
It will not read original date from raw files. It's a useful program to have in your collection.
Terry.

I've looked at this a bit more closely and I can confirm that QS (2010.209) renames based on date taken, whereas QU renames based on date modified. As you say it shouldn't matter as they are normally the same but, in my case, I have managed (somehow and no idea how) to get QU to alter the date modified field for a whole range of photos. As I need all photos to be renamed based on date taken, this means that I can't use QU to rename if the modified date should ever get divorced from the taken date. Just as well I didn't uninstall QS!

I haven't a clue  :-\
I never made any donation!
The only free software I've donated to is Pegasus Mail, which is a somewhat more significant program, and I donated £10 a year ago when development was in danger of stopping altogether.
Terry