Skip to main content
Known Participant
September 29, 2015

P: Sort by capture time should use filename when times are equal

  • September 29, 2015
  • 34 replies
  • 1934 views

When I bracket exposure or "motor drive" on my Pentax K-5 II, and sort the files by shutter press time, they do not show up in the right order. To see them in the right order I have to sort by filename (which breaks if I use two cameras or loop my counter past 9999).When I look at the exif data, capture time is only shown to a resolution of one second. What the software should do, when sorting by time, is if photos were taken in the same second, sort them by the index number in the filename.

This topic has been closed for replies.

34 replies

johnrellis
Legend
October 20, 2016
Your last two screenshots narrowed down the issue.  (That's the great thing about full screenshots.) The pics were taken with a Sony A7R, and unfortunately, many (perhaps most) Sonys don't record capture-time fractional seconds in the industry-standard EXIF fields. For example, see this thread: http://www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&&FORUM_THREAD_ID=1305964&order=DESC

As a result, LR often doesn't properly sort photos taken in burst mode in the same second.   

LR could fix this by using the filename as a secondary sorting key when the capture times are the same, but it doesn't.  As a result, the order within a given second is pretty arbitrary.  

This has been a long-standing problem.  (I'm not sure why it worked ok for you before but now doesn't.)

Your main complaint should be directed to Sony for not recording fractional seconds in EXIF metadata.  But LR could easily improve the situation by sorting by filename when the capture times are equal.
ResortOperationsCH
Participant
October 20, 2016



I'm fully conversant with using the different sort options, however, following the latest update, my photos are NOT sorting how they usually do. I have my Sort set to 'Capture Time' as usual. In this screen capture, images (1), (2) and (3) have been merged to HDR (image (4)). The example on the left, is how they're sorting NOW and the example on the right is how they PREVIOUSLY sorted (which is how I still want them). And interestingly, the merged HDR is using the image name of (1) as per usual, but sorting it after image (2), which my logical brain just cannot process! I have found a band-aid measure (changing capture time by 1 or 2 seconds for the merged image, then resorting), however, really want the previous sort solution back to minimise my workflow.
Sunil_Bhaskaran
Community Manager
Community Manager
August 5, 2016
Hi Mark,
We have fixed a similar bug recently. Would you mind sending me those pictures, (may be as a Dropbox link), so that I can test the fix.
Thanks in advance.

Thanks,
Sunil
Inspiring
August 5, 2016


I've been reviewing pictures I took at a Gaelic Football tournament last week. Since it was a sporting event I was often taking several pictures a second (set at 3 frames a second). When I ask lightroom to display by capture time it appears I get the 1st, 3rd and then 2nd picture in the sequence. I can confirm this both with file numbers and visually the sequence of play is just wrong.

Camera: OM-D 5 MkII

Lightroom version is current (updated this morning).
lhiapgpeonk
Participating Frequently
August 4, 2016
And still: Lightroom will not let me rename my files containing this subseconds...
Inspiring
August 4, 2016
Add OMD 5 Mk II to the list of camera's where capture time is problem. Where there is ambiguity a subsort by original (i.e. camera filename would help).
johnrellis
Legend
April 10, 2016
Unfortunately, the Sony a6000 doesn't insert the industry-standard field SubSecTimeOriginal in the pics' EXIF, which records the fractional seconds of capture time.  The recently released a6300 doesn't either.   But Nikons and Canon's generally do insert that field.  This explains why LR properly sorts bursts from your Nikon but not from your Sony.

Of course, I fully agree that, when sorting by capture time, LR should use the filename as a secondary sort criteria, which would improve this situation quite a bit.  (It's not perfect, since the camera sequence numbers will wrap around from 9999 back to 0.)

But you should also complain to Sony.
Participating Frequently
April 10, 2016


When I import images from my Sony a6000, if multiple images are taken during the same second they do not display in the proper order. This Added Order condition is the same for my Nikon cameras, but the difference is that when I change the catalog sort to Capture Time my Nikon images will now display in the proper order while the Sony images remain in the Added Order sort. If I import the images a second time the order within the second will change randomly, but the condition persists. This is true whether shooting in Continuous High, Medium or Low modes, and even when I manage to shoot a pair of single images within the same second. If Lightroom can do a proper sort for Nikon within the same second it should be able to do it for Sony.
johnrellis
Legend
April 10, 2016
Very much agreed.  It would also be great if all camera manufacturers inserted the fractional capture time in the EXIF -- only some do.  Hard to believe that 15 years into digital imaging, some are still not doing that.
Hakanu5
Participating Frequently
April 10, 2016


At events I shoot fast sequences. So many photos are shot in the same second. If I set the sorting in Lightroom to "Capture Time", these photos are often sorted in the wrong order. So I have to switch to "File Name" where I took the sequence number from the original photos.

But this actually makes the sort by "Capture Time" quite useless. 

I would be great if photos with the same time-stamp automatically are sorted by file name, or there is an option to define the secondary sort order.