A question about LR3

[DavidStone]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm using LR3 (which seems to suit me quite well), but there's the odd thing that I still can't sort out. I'm using the file structure that I use normally to store my files on the hard drive, which is then copied by LR3 to construct its catalog (as I understand it). But occasionally I want to store some of the RAW files in a more logical place on the hard drive, or in sub-folders. LR3 doesn't like this. It tells me it can't find them. OK. I understand that gets confused, no problem. But I can't discover a way to tell LR3 where I've moved them to, (short of deleting and re-installing, which, I assume, will also delete the processing info).

 

Is it possible to do this?

 

David

[Morfeus]

Why don't you re-organize within LR? That won't confuse LR and safes you a lot of trouble. You can just as easily create/delete/move/rename folders in LR as in Explorer/Finder.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[DavidStone]

OK, thanks, I'll investigate this.

 

David

[wda]

David, it very much easier if you manage your files from within LR. Otherwise you will be constantly facing those ?-marks and wasting time restoring fresh links. I would go further and discourage too many dedicated folders because LR doesn't care where the files are. All my current pix go into my 2011 folder; next year 2012. Keywording and Smart Collections makes it a doddle to find what I want. For a project, I allocate an unique keyword or other identifier and all pictures are all extracted and placed in a Collection for ease of access.

[Jeff S]

Highly recommend the Scott Kelby book (sans bad jokes) to help through issues like this. Martin Evening books good also, but Kelby is thorough on these basics.

 

Jeff

[ho_co]

... I would go further and discourage too many dedicated folders because LR doesn't care where the files are. All my current pix go into my 2011 folder; next year 2012. ...

 

David A--

I'm having trouble getting ready to switch to Lightroom because of the organization question.

 

By default, it stores everything in folders according to date shot. Is there a reason not to do that, since I can find everything by keyword?

 

Could I add Collections and Smart Collections over the day-shot folders?

 

I don't seem to find Lightroom's organizational ideas at all intuitive.

 

 

 

 

 

Highly recommend the Scott Kelby book (sans bad jokes) ...

Jeff, is that a readily available special edition of the book? Must be a lot shorter than the standard one.

Edited April 8, 2011 by ho_co

[dcoombs]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

David, if you've moved the picture since importing it into LR and therefore LR can't find it, there will be a little question mark in the upper righthand corner. Right click on the picture (or go to the drop down menu on top called "Photo" and click on "Show in Explorer" (assuming you're using Windows). A dialogue box will appear asking if you want to locate it. When you locate it then LR will automatically recreate its link to the picture in its new location.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Doug

[dcoombs]

Howard, you can change the destination folder from the default when you import the photos. I do this so it will mirror the folder names I have on my hard drive and back-up. The date of shoot default is, I guess, for pros who are doing high volume shoots.

 

Doug

[wda]

David A--

I'm having trouble getting ready to switch to Lightroom because of the organization question.

 

By default, it stores everything in folders according to date shot. Is there a reason not to do that, since I can find everything by keyword?

 

Could I add Collections and Smart Collections over the day-shot folders?

 

I don't seem to find Lightroom's organizational ideas at all intuitive. .......

 

Howard, you can import the picture contents of your existing folders and allow LR to recognize your folder structure. You build a catalogue. If you have many 1,000s of pictures, it might be better to import your current ones, or selected folders, first. You can always reorganize the folders afterwards, PREFERABLY from within LR to avoid the problems cited above.

 

My folders structure dates back to DOS-days when many folders made it easier to locate material. With current computers and LR's power it is not necessary. Hence my advice to simplify your folder structure. You don't need separate folders for every holiday etc.

 

Collections are a great asset. Effectively you are selecting a group of pictures, according to your own criteria, and forming a now collection. (Or adding to an existing one). You are not duplicating your images; LR merely tags them as belonging to a Collection. The pictures remain in their folders which are unaffected. Only LR retains the data about processing and management.

 

Smart Collections go one step further. By establishing certain criteria, such as keywords or aspects of EXIF data, Smart Collections will automatically add pictures meeting that criteria. It is a very valuable feature and is done without you noticing it until you look at the Collections.

 

At any time you can delete Collections without affecting the real files.

 

Like most software, LR rewards those who spend time learning it. I tend to use Martin Evening's book, which is quite a weighty tome nowadays; also Google for LR tutorials, starting at the Adobe Lightroom website.

 

I hope this allays some of your anxieties and is helpful.

[ho_co]

Doug & David, many thanks for the pointers.

 

Doug, that's a good explanation for the LR default organization by date.

 

I guess part of my "anxiety" (right word, David) is not understanding the parts to the puzzle. And I'm missing them because I haven't really committed to using Lightroom. A continuous and unhelpful loop.

 

After attending one LR seminar and buying two video tutorials, I think your explanation of Collections and Smart Collections is the clearest I've seen, David.

 

It's time for me to get on with the program.

Edited April 8, 2011 by ho_co

[Jeff S]

Jeff, is that a readily available special edition of the book? Must be a lot shorter than the standard one.

 

Indeed, but do you have the book? His explanations on collections, folders, etc are extremely clear. Same with dozens of other topics, and loads of tips. I hate the jokes, but recommend the book anyway...it's that useful. Your questions are fully addressed.

 

Jeff

[DavidStone]

Many thanks for all the hints, tips and explanations, folks, for a LR-ignoramus like me.

 

I can see that LR doesn't care where the original files are located. On the other hand, I want to have a system of organisation on my hard drive that makes sense to me, rather than depend entirely on LR, which seems to like "total commitment". I suppose I just want to keep my options open. It does seem that I can have both, so that's OK.

 

My original question, on reorganising the location of the original files, seems to have found a kind of solution, although not an entirely satisfactory one. I tried Doug's suggestion, which, with a bit of exploration (I'm on a Mac) worked, but LR simply copied, or linked, the original files to the new location, so now they are in two places in the LR Library, and deleting those in the original folder deletes both.

 

One of my reasons for switching from C1 was the way it dumped files all over the place, but at least it didn't mess with my filing system.

 

Maybe I should just hand my life over to the computer and relax.

 

David

[Morfeus]

I would strongly advise against simplyfied folder structures. I usually have a folder structure built by years and shooting dates, sometimes with a short keyword added to the date folder name.

 

Why this? I once had a crash of an external harddrive and LR database got corrupted beyond the possibility to recover it. The backups where also corrupted because of the harddrive crash. Imagine to recover your structure of say a couple of thousand images without a meaningful folder structure, it's a nightmare.

[wda]

....One of my reasons for switching from C1 was the way it dumped files all over the place, but at least it didn't mess with my filing system....

 

David

David, LR will not dump your files anywhere except where you specify in Import or Export modes. It merely learns where they are at the time files are ingested into the LR catalogue. At present I manage my backups outside of LR. (LR does not duplicate your files unless you instruct it to do so. You are in charge!)

[wda]

Morpheus, I do not advocate unifying all files in one folder. I have simplified my formerly complex system into 'Years' which makes it much more manageable.

 

Consider backing up your LR catalogues a second time to an external HD or, if it is small enough, onto a flash drive. The benefit of that is that you can work with that copy on a laptop while on tour. Remember to synchronise them eventually to keep the data uniform.

[Morfeus]

Well, David, I had a backup on an external harddisk, but it was 10 days old and I had just edited over 200 images. Off course all edits where gone. Since that time I have LR save my edits to XMP and I recommend that as well. I just don't rely on LR database any more. There are lots of posts in the Adobe forums about corrupted LR databases.

 

Actually it does not take any additional time to have LR import by date folders as it can be done automatically. On top of that you can built your sets, collections, virtual folders as you do and so do I.

 

Heinz

[wda]

Heinz, that is bad luck. I have three internal HDs; one for programmes; one for data and one for backup of C and D drives. Those backups are done daily, usually, depending on whether any work has been done on the computer. At least once a week everything gets backed up to a large external eSATA drive

[Marquinius]

In fact I'd follow David's (WDA) advice and try to work with keywords and filters to order your photos. Of course I start out with a logical structure by saving the original files on a separate hard disk (+raid +even another backup!) and import into LR from there (and back up the catalogue too). But after that, I don't really see why I would 'stick" with that structure all of the time (or specifically move files to another logical location): key wording, flags, tags and filters do that without a problem. And it prevents you from having to yet move again, after you've thought up yet another logical order.

[delander †]

I would like to see a simplfied version of Lightroom, retaining all the development and printing tools but leaving out the digital asset management stuff. I dont want to import photos into Lightroom I simply want to open them and see how they look.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[russell]

I would strongly advise against simplyfied folder structures. I usually have a folder structure built by years and shooting dates, sometimes with a short keyword added to the date folder name.

 

I too had problems with my folder structures.

Now I use something similar to Morfeus.

Photos->Digital->Year(2011)->Date(2011-04-17)

and

Photos->Flatbed->Year(2011)->Date(2011-04-17)

Photos->Film->Year(2011)->Date(2011-04-17)

 

And I've gotten into tags and starting in on collections. The little filter bar at the top of Library really becomes my navigation as opposed to using folders.