12 Replies Latest reply on Oct 4, 2016 1:57 PM by johnrellis

    Sorting by time captured in finer increments than HH:MM:SS?

    Ellis_Vener

      Shooting sports I am often shooting at 9 fps or faster.  From second to second, I have no problems but within each  the second the results are jumbled. This is a problem with a fast moving sport like water polo. Even images  imported into my photo library with Lightroom CC 2015.7,,  Photomechanic 5.0  has no problems seeing the photos in correct sequential order, so clear the EXIF data is there but in my Lightroom catalog they are not in order.
      Any suggestions?

        • 2. Re: Sorting by time captured in finer increments than HH:MM:SS?
          dj_paige Level 9

          Ellis_Vener wrote:

           

          Shooting sports I am often shooting at 9 fps or faster. From second to second, I have no problems but within each the second the results are jumbled.

          This is not a feature of Lightroom. As Bob said, you can sort by file name.

          • 3. Re: Sorting by time captured in finer increments than HH:MM:SS?
            Ellis_Vener Level 1

            Sorting by file name is not the correct answer!

             

            It doesn't work because as part of my import procedure I rename my files using the <my last name>_YYYYMMDD-##### protocol and the camera assigned file name is lost, or if not lost, hidden.  This means that the problem is arising during the import process.  Lightroom sees multiple images shot during the same second and ignores the millisecond part of the EXIF data - which photomechanic 5 can still see - scrambling the order.

            • 4. Re: Sorting by time captured in finer increments than HH:MM:SS?
              ManiacJoe Adobe Community Professional

              I get around this problem by using the file name for sorting.

               

              If I am using a single camera, my transfer software renames the files as yyyymmdd_nnnn.* using the shooting date from the EXIF data and the nnnn is the original file sequence number. (I always reset the sequence number back to 1 after downloading the images from the card(s).

               

              If I am using multiple cameras, with synchronized clocks, my transfer software renames the files as yyyymmdd_hhmmss_nnnn.* using the shooting timestamp from the EXIF data and the original file sequence number. The timestamp gets me the proper file sequencing between the camera and the file sequence numbers get me the proper sub-second ordering.

               

              While I use third-party software to do the file transfers from the memory cards, Lightroom also has the ability to do the same renaming during its copying of the files to your hard drive.

              1 person found this helpful
              • 5. Re: Sorting by time captured in finer increments than HH:MM:SS?
                Ellis_Vener Level 1

                If I am using a single camera, my transfer software renames the files as yyyymmdd_nnnn.* using the shooting date from the EXIF data and the nnnn is the original file sequence number. (I always reset the sequence number back to 1 after downloading the images from the card(s).

                The problem there is that if you are a reasonably heavy shooter  by using a number that quickly repeats (like anything between 0001 and 9999) it can make fast searches harder when a client fro ma month or two calls or writes the studio looking for an image or wants to purchase a print. I run into that even with a five digit number but much more rarely. 

                A better solution is for Adobe to let Lightroom use milliseconds as part of the EXIF data Lightroom looks at, which apparently it currently does not.

                • 6. Re: Sorting by time captured in finer increments than HH:MM:SS?
                  johnrellis Most Valuable Participant

                  LR does use the fractional seconds for sorting, provided they are stored in the EXIF metadata.  (I just verified that with CC 2015.7 to make sure something hadn't broken recently.)

                   

                  Many cameras, however, don't store the fractional seconds.  If you upload a couple of sample pics taken in the same second to Dropbox (or similar) and post the sharing link here, we can quickly verify whether your camera does store fractional seconds.

                  1 person found this helpful
                  • 7. Re: Sorting by time captured in finer increments than HH:MM:SS?
                    Ellis_Vener Level 1

                    Hi John,

                    Thank you for the kind offer.

                    I wil have to shoot a test round for that as  the photos from the shoots where I have encountered this are currently under embargo by my clients (model releases, etc.)
                    ri

                     

                    The camera (a Nikon D500) does appear to be storing the millisecond times in the EXIF as Photomechanic5  recognizes the correct sequencing even when the files were imported, renamed and converted to DNGs by Lightroom CC 2015.7.

                    • 8. Re: Sorting by time captured in finer increments than HH:MM:SS?
                      johnrellis Most Valuable Participant

                      I downloaded a number of D500 continuous-mode samples (JPEG and raw), verified that they contain fractional seconds (the EXIF field SubsecTimeOriginal), and confirmed that LR CC 2015.7 properly sorts them by capture time, including the fractional seconds.

                       

                      So there's something more subtle going on in your situation.  Are you using Photo Mechanic to import, tag, or otherwise modify the images (or their sidecars) before importing into LR?   There may be some sort of incompatibility between the two.

                       

                      The most effective way to troubleshoot this is to get some sample continuous-mode pics taken in the same second, copied directly from your camera card (before ingesting by any software).  And separately, get some more sample pics that have been imported into your LR that aren't sorting properly (along with their .xmp sidecars, if present).

                       

                      From these, I can quickly determine the cause of the issue and possible workarounds, and if there's a bug in LR, submit a bug report.

                      • 9. Re: Sorting by time captured in finer increments than HH:MM:SS?
                        Ellis_Vener Level 1

                        Are you using Photo Mechanic to import, tag, or otherwise modify the images (or their sidecars) before importing into LR?

                         

                        No.

                        The most effective way to troubleshoot this is to get some sample continuous-mode pics taken in the same second, copied directly from your camera card (before ingesting by any software).  And separately, get some more sample pics that have been imported into your LR that aren't sorting properly (along with their .xmp sidecars, if present).

                         

                        From these, I can quickly determine the cause of the issue and possible workarounds, and if there's a bug in LR, submit a bug report.

                         

                        I will work o that.

                         

                         

                        On my end I will also  try importing directly to my image library and from there adding them to the Lightroom catalog. I have been importing and cataloging as one set. The media I have been using is a 32GB Sony XQD 400mb/s with the Sony XQD reader attached via USB3.0 to a late 2014 27" Retina iMac running OS X 10.11.6. The library resides in a Thunderbolt connected Drobo 5D with 5x WD 4.0 TB RED drives. The Lightroom catalog is on a USB 3.0 connected OWC  Mercury Extreme 480GB SSD.

                         

                        Might catalog size be an issue? There is plenty of room on the Catalog disk but my library is pushing 300K images.  

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                         

                        • 10. Re: Sorting by time captured in finer increments than HH:MM:SS?
                          ManiacJoe Adobe Community Professional

                          Ellis_Vener wrote:

                           

                          If I am using a single camera, my transfer software renames the files as yyyymmdd_nnnn.* using the shooting date from the EXIF data and the nnnn is the original file sequence number. (I always reset the sequence number back to 1 after downloading the images from the card(s).

                          The problem there is that if you are a reasonably heavy shooter by using a number that quickly repeats (like anything between 0001 and 9999) it can make fast searches harder when a client fro ma month or two calls or writes the studio looking for an image or wants to purchase a print. I run into that even with a five digit number but much more rarely.

                           

                          I am a heavy shooter. The repeating file number is why I rename the DSC_ part of the file name to the shoot date. This way I will forever have unique file names that clients reference.

                          • 11. Re: Sorting by time captured in finer increments than HH:MM:SS?
                            Ellis_Vener Level 1

                            and that is why I have the shoot date as part of my file names too! (Vener_YYYYMMDD-#####)

                            • 12. Re: Sorting by time captured in finer increments than HH:MM:SS?
                              johnrellis Most Valuable Participant
                              Might catalog size be an issue? There is plenty of room on the Catalog disk but my library is pushing 300K images.

                              Very unlikely -- the SQL technology used to implement the catalog doesn't have that kind of sensitivity to catalog size.