Sorting images

As far as I can see,sorting images by date is done only yyyy mm dd hh mm, but without considering the seconds. ( hh:mm:sec ). So a false order of images can be created, e.g. when renaming.



1 Like

That’s easy. Pause for breath between shots :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: :rofl:

Unique shotnumbers? Which is corrupted when using multiple body’s in one task…
So kill the burst modes. Then you can’t shoot every second you finger isn’t fast enough.
(Most of the time burst is for picking one or two of a pack. Which would be sort out the second thing.)

Actually I shoot bursts a lot (with a camera that shoots VERY fast.)
Newer cameras capture “Subsectime” in the EXIF data which is added to the time in milliseconds.
i.e. YYYY-MM-DD HH.MM.SS.mmm

for ordering shots in a burst (which is often helpful in selecting the best shot during the burst) this would be helpful too. (Since we are talking about time ordering.)

So, as Peter says, why not sort by filename, which, presumably, end in a number?

You can sort by filename. And that works until your camera filenumbers wrap back to zero.
I think the point simply is if you’re sorting by date/time, it should work. Not only to the nearest minute…

My camera is set to start from 0 every time I empty the card, and each shoot goes into its own folder. If, as you say, you are going to rename them anyway, restarting numbering form 0 each time should work fine.

Sorting images – 2 cameras
Time stamp expansion for image --DXO PL4 Elite - #2 by Wolfgang

For burst mode the addition of milliseconds could help.

1 Like

Actually it’s not so simple in my case with multiple cameras and some days with thousands of pictures and culling in a separate tool. And with sometimes a long time before the cloud backup completes I don’t always format the card after each day. (since the backups are not often completed)

Suffice it to say that there really is no reason why Photolab shouldn’t at least handle seconds, and shouldn’t handle milliseconds for images that have that information.


(that’s maybe the same as placing the “19”/“20” before the '99=> '00 :joy:)
But yes they should keep up with the pro camera’s in speed of storing images.
if it’s dated in mmsecondes it should be sorting that and if it’s nano seconds then that’s the new target.

Ha. When we get to the point where cameras are recording 1000 images per second we can start talking about microseconds. :slight_smile:

And even the cheapest cameras now shoot 5-10 Frames per second. Or more.

My camera shoots 50MP RAW images at 30 frames per second.

@A77user, contact @sgospodarenko to make this thread a feature request, if you’d like to see this implemented in a future release.


@ platypus:
I’ll do so. I have requested more than once, that image data should show hh:mm:ss.
I’ll try again.


You folks can’t change the thread category? I’ll do it for you. Be sure to vote!

After copying the files from the memory card to the computer and backing them, I make a copy and use exiftool the batch rename the files with the date/time from the exif.
exiftool also add a counter if there are several pictures taken in the same second (burst shot).

See 2. on this page for an example.

Imagine now the Nikon Z9 with 120 images per second… I guess it is time we check if we can sort picture taking milliseconds into account :joy:

Certainly, thats a possible way.
Your example about the Nikon Z9 demonstrates, that using hh:mm though hh:mm:ss is available, really is not up to time.

So my pledge only was, to use in PL5 the available information and not to suppress it.



1 Like

Do you mean that by renaming the files I suppress informations ?

I think @A77user means “PL is suppressing informations by not showing the seconds” but since we’re getting higher and higher fps, seconds alone won’t do.

What is the need for to know the seconds? If it’s for the sequence use the original file name. If the naming did pass the 9999 limit do the renaming in 2 parts: first the high numbers starting with 0 and then the low numbers starting with the last number plus one with which you ended the first part.
My naming is a prefix-yyyymmdd-number. I don’t believe (milli)seconds are important at all, only the sequence. Putting to much information in the name makes it unreadable, for me anyway.


1 Like

I’m talking about the available exif data.

1 Like