The perfect photo-naming system

With something like 8 GB of new photos per year (and increasing) for my photo collection — and that’s after weeding out the bad shots — I’ve given a lot of thought of the ideal way to manage it. Here are some insights that might be helpful to others new to this:

  • Yearly folders: 2009, 2010 …
  • Monthly folders inside of those
  • Files named: YYYY-MM-DD — Year-Month-Date. This sorts automaticvally under Mac and PC file systems, and avoids the meaningless IMG_0001 filenames that come off the camera.You can use some free tools to set the filename automatically using the EXIF data (some metadata hidden inside the photo which records the date and other details when the photo was taken). Plus, if the photo is emailed or misplaced, or pulled off a DVD archive, it is immediately clear where it belongs.

As a bonus, if you want finer grained sorting, you can name them YYY-MM-DD HHMMSS — yes, that’s right, Year-Month-Date Hour-Minute-Second. I find this works well if I have taken photos of an event, and somebody sends me their shots of the same event. If the dates are correct, they will sort correclty, given you sort of a multidimensional view of the action. Colons between the HHMMSS would be best but are not allowed in names on most computers. (Adding dashes would make it look like a date)

(To take it to the extreme, you could use: YYYY-MM-DD HHMMSS NNNN. Some photographers like to keep the four digit number that their camera appends for cataloguingreasons and if they shoot bursts of multiple  photos per second. I haven’t found this necessary)

Why this date format? One thing I quickly realized, living abroad in Japan and Germany, was that there are numerous arbitray date formats which are not compatible and are confusing. The YYYY-MM-DD (optional HH-MM-SS) format is the best solution. The year at the beginning tells you you are not working with the America MM/DD/YYYY (or the European DD.MM.YYYY) style. This is also an international standard, ISO 8601, by the way.  More people (and companies) should use it. There’s no good reason to have every August sort together in a folder (08-2007, 08-2008, 08-2009…) or to have such confusion that airlines have to type out words for months (18-JUL-2009) to avoid ambiguity. But I digress.

If you need to add a title or label to a photo, I recommend adding it after the date, not before, or it won’t sort correctly: YYYY-MM-DD HHMMSS – Birthday party.jpg

Finally, these filenames are helpful for keeping every photo uniquely identifiable, but it is not sufficient. You really need to tag photos wih keywords (IPTC to be precise). You can do this with some free software like Picasa or iPhoto. The filename is more like a backup and organizer, while the keywords enable searchability. Together, you basically have a bullet-proof system.

To sum up, here’s the file system, including the folders:

YYYY/MM/YYYY-MM-DD HHMMSS – Filename.jpg

And here’s what a photo from the Fourth of July, at 8pm sharp, this year would look like under this system:

2009/07/2009-07-04 200000 – Fireworks.jpg

Arial’s sordid past revealed

Mark Simonson in his post, The Scourge of Arial:

Arial is everywhere. If you don’t know what it is, you don’t use a modern personal computer. Arial is a font that is familiar to anyone who uses Microsoft products, whether on a PC or a Mac. It has spread like a virus through the typographic landscape and illustrates the pervasiveness of Microsoft’s influence in the world.

And later:

When Microsoft made TrueType the standard font format for Windows 3.1, they opted to go with Arial rather than Helvetica, probably because it was cheaper and they knew most people wouldn’t know (or even care about) the difference. … Of course, Windows 3.1 was a big hit. Thus, Arial is now everywhere, a side effect of Windows’ success, born out of the desire to avoid paying license fees.

Apparently the only virtues Arial possesses are

  1. It is similar to Helvetica
  2. It is virtually free

Arial is now a symbol of laziness and mediocrity. But Microsoft is moving on with a new generation of fonts, the C’s: Calibri, Cambria, and so forth. These fonts are better than Arial, but the big problem is they are not licensed for Mac, Linux and other OS’. This means that Arial will persist as a core web font whether we like it or not, since the critera for a web font is the lowest common denominator — ie. fonts that every machine has standard. (See CodeStyle’s survey of web fonts or a Visibone sample card)

I end with a plea: Are there really no type foundries out there that will do the world a favor and offer, for free, a choice sans serif font to Microsoft and Apple so as to settle the petty rivalry over fonts which has crippled web typography?

A font we can believe in

Many have commented on the savvy choice of H&FJ’s Gotham in Obama’s presidential campaign. What’s interesing to me is, having seen how organizations make these types of decisions, a minor choice like typeface and logo can reveal quite a lot about the values and internal dynamics of the decision-makers. A purely consensus choice will lead to middling, uninspired and timid choices that just aren’t all that effective. On the other hand, a micromanaging decision maker might make a bold but not wise choice. Clearly, Obama had likely not heard of Gotham, but he hired people who knew enough to work with good designers (in this case John Slabyk and Scott Thomas), explain their needs and get good results. It all speaks to a good process. Type is a symptom.

From HF&J’s blog:

…One thing we can say as type designers is that Gotham isn’t pretending to be anything it’s not, which makes it an unusual and refreshing choice for a campaign. Political typefaces have a way of being chosen because they underscore (or imagine) some specific aspect of a candidate, working hard to convey “traditional values” or “strength and vigilance,” or any number of graspable populist notions. The only thing Gotham works hard at is being Gotham.

…none of these familiar approaches can explain the utterly confounding typographic dress chosen by Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Hillary’s snooze of a serif might have come off a heart-healthy cereal box, or a mildly embarrassing over-the-counter ointment; if you’re feeling generous you might associate it with a Board of Ed circular, or an obscure academic journal. But Senator McCain’s typeface is positively mystifying: after three decades signifying a very down-market notion of luxe, this particular sans serif has settled into being the font of choice for the hygiene aisle.