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 -

No, there's simply no issue with the date sort in 119.  I don't sort by "am", "pm" or anything like that.  File dates are stored as integers by the operating system: no way to get them out of order.  I will not be making any more changes because 119 works perfectly.  If it isn't working for you, Ultrachrome, then your file modified dates/times are wrong as I said before.  If you want to post any further info, please post a screen shot of Windows Explorer showing the 1224-1253 files and sort by the column "date modified" in Explorer.  Better yet, enter the folder name in the address bar in FireFox and look at the date/time that way because FireFox will show down to the second on the date/time stamp.  I guarantee you that if you look at the date modified column (which is how Qimage sorts), you'll find that 1224-1238 have a later date modified than 1239-1253!  That's what I've been trying to tell you since 118.

Mike

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…

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"!

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: " 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….

What I was actually proposing was that some ANTI-virus software was opening the files to check them and might be erroneously resetting the date/time, not that you HAD a virus!  Now that you posted the full picture, I can see that Qimage is transferring correctly, i.e. the file modified date is carried over as it should be and the creation date is changed, just as it should be when a file is created in a new location.  That is the standard and as you observed, the way Windows does it.


Well I guess Bill Gates and Mike Chaney are wrong and we should just to it the "Ultrachrome way".  Please!  I've given you the proper technique for sorting by date.  You rename your files to date/time plus the numeric part of the file name.  End of story!  That method sorts properly EVERY time and you retain the ORIGINAL file date/time as part of the file name so that any program can read it and sort by it.  If you want to fool around with file creation dates, file modified dates, and hope that no one ever modifies the file, restores it from a backup, or does anything that might change those dates, just realize the consequences.  Rename your files to something meaningful and include the date/time in the file name, else you are subject to the whim of ANY program that copies, moves, or modifies files.  That's just the nature of the beast.  In the mean time, Qimage is sorting properly by the file modified date/time.

Mike

Well, 120 looks pretty good. At least it now shows the same order ("last edit") I see in my directory on the disk, which I can live with. At least it is back on par with Studio. The basic "problem" is that you and Mr. Gates think like programmers; Nikon and I think like photographers. Gee - it was a software glitch   in the last two versions! Who'd a thunk it! And I had another 4 screen shots to send you from version 119...

PS - and, as a matter of clarification, I DO NOT habitually mqke ANY changes using an editor. That only started when I determined that Qimage was not able to sort the same way my Nikon software can.

Thanks for the changes and you're welcome for the debugging....