[Feature] Multiple sorting criteria by default

[JonaLoeffler]

I have searched the existing feature requests, both open and closed, to make sure this is not a duplicate request.

• Yes

The feature

The order of images (in albums and in general) seems to rely only on the embedded timestamp or creation date of that image.

If you happen to have multiple images with the same timestamp, images appear randomly inside that group of images with the same date.

This can happen for many reasons, IMO:

• because the images were exported from another timestamp, leaving behind only the same export timestamp
• someone manually adjusted photo metadata, for example via Digikam, for photos of which they don't have the exact dates (scans, etc). In this case, someone might set the rough date/time for multiple fotos

I would argue, the image view of albums or the timeline should not randomly show the photos in such a case. Rather, other image properties should be used as a second source of order inside each date/time group.

I would imagine most helpful would be the original filename, as photos in this situation will probably be numbered chronologically (IMG_0001, IMG_0002)

Platform

• Server
• Web
• Mobile

[bo0tzz]

#15924

[alihansagoz]

Actually, it’s not the same thing. We lose the time information, but we still have the photo’s date. In this case, sorting by filename is what we want. The reason is that when photos are sent via WhatsApp, they don’t contain the exact time information, only the date. However, since the filenames reflect the correct order, sorting by name gives us the proper chronological sequence.

[JonaLoeffler]

#15924

bo0tzz is right, this is a duplicate that I did miss.

But yes, Whatsapp images are another perfect example of this. Especially when not using automatic upload via immich, but something like next cloud upload and then displaying that collection as an external library.

Let's say I have two Whatsapp images:

IMG_20250823-WA0001.jpg
IMG_20250823-WA0002.jpg

My normal workflow for Whatsapp images that I care about, is to set the exif timestamps via digikam, usually from the file name. Since there is no time precision on the file name, it will be the same for both images:

IMG_20250823-WA0001.jpg 2025-08-23 09:00:00
IMG_20250823-WA0002.jpg 2025-08-23 09:00:00

Sorting images with the same timestamp should now fall back to the file name as a second criterion, as these kinds of images will usually have an incrementing number to set the correct order.

As far as I can tell, next cloud/memories does this perfectly well.