The path is different than the filename though. If I want to find duplicates, it will be impossible if the filename changes. In my use case

/User/user/Images/20240110/happy_birthday.jpg

and

/User/user/Desktop/happy_birthday.jpg

are the same image.

▲

dns_snek 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> it will be impossible if the filename changes.

Not impossible, just different and arguably better - comparing hashes is a better tool for finding duplicates.

	▲	butlike an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		From a technological standpoint, sure. I'd argue when you're staring down the barrel of 19,234 duplicate file deletions, with names like `image01.jpg`, `image02.jpg` instead of `happy_birthday.jpg`, there's a level of perceptual cognitive trust there that I just can't provide.
	▲	morissette 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		^ facts

▲

tart-lemonade 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If your camera (or phone) uses the DCF standard [0], you will eventually end up with duplicates when you hit IMG_9999.JPG and it loops around to IMG_0001.JPG. Filename alone is an unreliable indicator.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_rule_for_Camera_File_sy...

▲

hebelehubele 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> loops around to IMG_0001

Almost all cameras create a new directory, e.g. DSC002, and start from IMG_0001 to prevent collision.

▲

xigoi 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Which systems still use this shortsighted convention? All photos I’ve taken with the default camera app in the last many years are named with a timestamp.

	▲	Barbing 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		iOS 26